steps to stop global warming

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by forfi

Heres a clue.The Vikings farmed along the coast of Greenland. Grapes were grown in the Northern parts of the UK.Then lo and behold along came the Maunder Minimum and put an end to the balmy period which was by most accounts 2 degrees warmer than at present.

Sorry, I'm looking for more than just clues, you seem to suggest that you have solid answers, but the above appears to be almost anecdotal evidence; as opposed to the scientific evidence that you're demanding from others. Could you be more specific?

Vikings farming in one region of the planet surely isn't your evidence of global climate conditions (or more accurately global temperatures) during the Medieval Warm Period, when you claim that it was "a lot warmer than at present"

Obviously, I take it that we can also assume your similar reference that "Maunder Minimum put an end to the balmy period which was by most accounts 2 degrees warmer than at present" can be backed up by global scientific data/evidence...maybe it's in the Royal Navy records that you mentioned above?

Originally Posted by forfi

You can find all the information in scientific journals if you can afford to pay the fees demanded by Elsavier Journals - Elsevier [they seem to own everything don't they ] Maybe some nice kind academic will give you the password to an account?

Could you give me the details of the individual journals that you're referring to? Although, I can't imagine that the evidence for your case is only locked away in Elsevier Journals, so I trust you've got many other good quality references.

Any answers to the other 3 questions will also be welcome...as well as good evidence from the Royal Navy records and Medieval Warm Period of course

Stu

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by forfi

Those who can.................do etc

nice. So how do you propose people become experts on climate change if not through academia? By reading websites and spouting rubbish on forums?

Originally Posted by forfi

Is this the academic approach? No wonder the educational system in the UK is in crisis.

Another cheap shot.

Originally Posted by forfi

OK Stu, I responded in kind to a supercilious post and will not do so again

Mine was not a supercillious post. I rarely mention my background but when someone suggests that I should 'take some time to study the subject' what am I meant to say? Clearly you were implying that I hadn't studied the subject in anything like the depth that you had. Supercillious indeed.

Anyway, I'll let you carry on the debate with Stu, but please don't just cite random studies to support your case. Anyone can do that. Science comes down to the overall body of evidence and, at the end of the day, probabilities. I question how anyone with an open mind can review the entire body of academic evidence and think that, on the balance of probabilities, we are not influencing climate. Yes there are uncertainties and aspects we are still to understand fully, but if I had to bet my annual salary on whether or not we were influencing climate I know where I'd put my money.

Matt

[forfi]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

but if I had to bet my annual salary on whether or not we were influencing climate I know where I'd put my money.

Matt

Your willingness to gamble is shared by many.What I am trying to do is prevent you from doing it with my money.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

nice. So how do you propose people become experts on climate change if not through academia? By reading websites and spouting rubbish on forums?

What websites? have you links to any good ones?
Spouting rubbish is a trait of those who wish to convert the world to the cult started by Gore ,Mann and the like and I agree with you that it should be stopped.
As for academia, I questioned some of the chaps with whom I studied and who are now teaching and lecturing on why they did not give both sides of the story on climate and got the answer " because that is the curriculum " I suppose its hard not to sell out when you have a wife and mortgage.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

Sorry, I'm looking for more than just clues, you seem to suggest that you have solid answers, but the above appears to be almost anecdotal evidence; as opposed to the scientific evidence that you're demanding from others. Could you be more specific?

OK but it will take a while it is a very complicated field of study and can't be simplified into hockey stick diagrams and pretty coloured charts.I guess a first step would be to bone up a little on biogeography which will give you base from which to work.You could try Biogeography by Barry Cox and Peter Moore ISBN 0-632-0296-6 ,This will give you an insight into how things are linked. Broecker W.S. has done some fascinating work on local and global aspects of the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age and if you follow the references in those works you will slowly unravel the picture.Broecker argues that this current warming is just another phase in the current interglacial but he allows that there is a superimposed aspect caused by humans.Others such as Grove {The Little Ice Age 1988} point out that the Little Ice Age lasted until the late 1800's.For the life of me ,I can't remember the data source of the information of the 2 degree temperature increase ,it is in a paper on research from the Bermuda area,I will post when i find it.There is also published research on pollen records from China proving increased precipitation coinciding with the MWP thus suggesting ,as Broecker pointed out,that the period was not confined to Europe.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

2. Where is the scientific evidence that man isn't responsiible for GW?

All around you if you care to look.The wildlife discussed in this forum for starters.Think about it, why are there no wild elephants
in the UK? Why are the tree species there? Why did oaks spread northwards at the rate of 500m/yr at the end of the ice age.What is the significance of Birch pollen in the sedimentaty record from our lakes and ponds?What was the maximum northern range of hazel before it was forced back southwards after the end of the MWP ?

[forfi]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

How will the newly exposed land in the northern hemisphere solve the potential problem of hunger caused by GW?

Hunger is caused by poverty,the world is awash with food as is proven by the UK being able to dump/waste/discard something in the order of 50% of that purchased.I will come back to this subject again as it is complicated and plagued by interference from agri-business.Example,why was the bembara bean replaced by the almost identical peanut in most of Africa? Why is there a worldwide frenzy in growing maize and wheat and other thirsty crops when there are many grains which will grow happily in harsh conditions?

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by forfi

As for academia, I questioned some of the chaps with whom I studied and who are now teaching and lecturing on why they did not give both sides of the story on climate and got the answer " because that is the curriculum " I suppose its hard not to sell out when you have a wife and mortgage.

I won't rise to that last point, but I will say that there is no curriculum in Higher Education. And we do teach both sides of the debate.

Matt

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by forfi

OK but it will take a while it is a very complicated field of study and can't be simplified into hockey stick diagrams and pretty coloured charts.I guess a first step would be to bone up a little on biogeography which will give you base from which to work.You could try Biogeography by Barry Cox and Peter Moore ISBN 0-632-0296-6 ,This will give you an insight into how things are linked. Broecker W.S. has done some fascinating work on local and global aspects of the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age and if you follow the references in those works you will slowly unravel the picture.Broecker argues that this current warming is just another phase in the current interglacial but he allows that there is a superimposed aspect caused by humans.Others such as Grove {The Little Ice Age 1988} point out that the Little Ice Age lasted until the late 1800's.For the life of me ,I can't remember the data source of the information of the 2 degree temperature increase ,it is in a paper on research from the Bermuda area,I will post when i find it.There is also published research on pollen records from China proving increased precipitation coinciding with the MWP thus suggesting ,as Broecker pointed out,that the period was not confined to Europe.

Ok, you do the research then post your findings here. I look forward to seeing it.

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by forfi

All around you if you care to look.The wildlife discussed in this forum for starters.Think about it, why are there no wild elephants
in the UK? Why are the tree species there? Why did oaks spread northwards at the rate of 500m/yr at the end of the ice age.What is the significance of Birch pollen in the sedimentaty record from our lakes and ponds?What was the maximum northern range of hazel before it was forced back southwards after the end of the MWP ?

Seriously, this can't be your answer can it

When asked to prove where is the scientific evidence that man isn't responsiible for GW? You can't honsetly expect me to tell people that it's

A. Because there are no elephants in the UK
B. Because of the tree species here
C. Because oaks spread northwards at the rate of 500m/yr at the end of the ice age
D. Because of the significance of Birch pollen in the sedimentaty record from our lakes and ponds
E. Because of the maximum northern range of hazel before it was forced back southwards after the end of the MWP

If you're suggesting that global warming (and global cooling) is a natural process that's happened for millions of years, I think you already know that climate scientists agree with that fact. What's being disputed is whether or not man has accelerated the process or significantly added to the problem of global warming in recent years.

So, where is the scientific evidence that man isn't responsible for GW?