Reference
Domack, E., Leventer, A., Dunbar, R., Taylor, F., Brachfeld, S., Sjunneskog, C. and ODP Leg 178 Scientific Party. 2001. <i>Chronology of the Palmer Deep site, Antarctic Peninsula: A Holocene palaeoenvironmental reference for the circum-Antarctic</i>. The Holocene 11: 1-9.
<b>What was done</b>
Ocean sediment cores were obtained from a prominent depression - the Palmer Deep - located on the inner continental shelf of the western Antarctic Peninsula (64° 51.71' S, 64° 12.47' W) and subjected to radiocarbon and spectral analyses to provide a high resolution proxy temperature history spanning the past 13,000 years.
<b>
What was learned</b>
According to the authors, the proxy records displayed five prominent palaeoenvironmental intervals over the past 14,000 years:</p> <ol> <li>A "Neoglacial" cool period beginning 3360 years ago and continuing to the present,</li> <li>A mid-Holocene climatic optimum from 9070 to 3360 years ago,</li> <li>A cool period beginning 11,460 years ago and ending at 9070 years ago,</li> <li>A warm period from 13,180 to 11,460 years ago, and</li> <li>Cold glacial conditions prior to 13,180 years ago.</li> </ol> <p>Spectral analyses of the data revealed that, superimposed upon these broad climatic intervals, were decadal and centennial-scale temperature cycles. Throughout the current Neoglacial period, the authors report finding "very significant" (above the 99% confidence level) peaks, or <b><i>oscillations</i></b>, that occurred at intervals of 400, 190, 122, 85 and 70 years, which they suggest are perhaps <i><b>driven by solar variability</b></i>. Additionally, the authors note the presence of a "Little Ice Age" that started about 700 years before present and ended approximately 100 years ago (1890's).
<b>What it means
The results of this study add to the mounting body of evidence that supports a global Little Ice Age event. It also highlights the inherent natural variability of climate, and suggests to us the high probability that recent 20th century warming is not of anthropogenic origin*, but the result of natural variability, as the earth has recovered from the now-demonstrated global chill of the Little Ice Age.
[emphasis, mine]
============
Challenged by <lj user="blackbyrd2"> and his list of reading material. I have been researching my little (or not so little) ass off. Most of the material in favor of Global Warming is due to some very bad logic and not a small amount of wild conclusion leaping (one would assume politically motivated for research funding). The real science that I've uncovered seems to support the report cited above, which is where I get my views from. [This includes the science that is revealed in </lj><lj user="blackbyrd2">'s reading list.] Reducing our <strike>CO2 output</strike> carbon emissions will mean nothing to the trend in Global Warming. We could reduce it to absolutely ZERO and the seas will still rise. <i>It is nothing that we did and it's not the fault of our civilization</i> and the Luddites can go kiss rocks if they want to. I differ with this report in only one area. That it is not [only] Solar variability <strike>alone</strike> but <strike>that</strike> [Solar Variability] <strike>and</strike> [combined with] volcanic activity[!] <strike>combined.</strike> Between the two, the total <strike>output</strike> [carbon emissions] of our entire civilization, throughout all its history, has about the same relative effect as a fart in a hurricane.
Human technology achieving the status of near-godhood is still firmly within the realm of Science Fiction and the poor deluded souls screaming <i>Anthropogenic Global Warming</i> are the modern version of Chicken Little. We cannot effect the climate anymore than we could have 2,000 years ago. Yes, we can affect <strike>localise</strike> [localized] ecological disaster[s] that result<strike>s</strike> in massive species extinction but that is an entirely different order of magnitude than affecting the global climate. [Mark Twain is still correct today (paraphrased); We can talk about the weather but none of us can do a damned thing about it!]
Rather than waste everyone's time and boring them to tears by debunking the now endless heaps of bad science, I'd rather put forward[s] the positive evidence and sound science that I can find. Most of it from before the current global warming scare. By the way, the concept of catastrophic global warming is even more laughable. The ice will melt and the seas will rise at a rate of not more than 10m (32.5 ft) per century [that's only 0.1m (3.9 inches) per year. However, in terms of moving large chunks of our civilization, that's a lot,] <strike>Yes, that's still a lot but</strike> but it's far from the virtually over-night melt down that some popular authors are claiming. They keep forgetting about <i>thermal inertia</i>, like someone suspended the laws of physics.[FYI, the catastrophic warming folks, the real <i>Chicken Littles</i>, would have this all happen within a decade].
<b><font size="4">Edit:</font></b> From the responses it is obvious that I have not made my position very clear. The point is not to debunk global warming, global warming is happening all around us. It is to debunk <b><i>Anthropogenically caused Global Warming</i></b>. The two are not the same! Our globe is warming and we need to start planning effective measures NOW! One other argument about tipping and inflection points; If we were so close as to be the straw that broke the camel's back, just what do you think the effect would be of a single volcanic eruption? How about a 0.2% rise in Solar emissions? Arguments for tipping and inflection points are irrelevant and all of them are pure bunk on their face. At worst, they can effect the rate but we are not able to influence them at all, in any direction! There are just too many other far larger variables!
