After several years of acting as a United Nations rapporteur on the Clean Development Mechanism in Africa and Asia under the Kyoto Protocol I am well aware of the hideous complexity of this issue and the wide divergence of opinion on the matter. There seems little doubt that we are experiencing a natural climatic fluctuation; indeed, recent research on Alpine glaciers and preserved frozen timber has revealed that for two thirds of the past 10,000 years the global temperature has been appreciably higher than at present. The main question is how far human activity is aggravating the present natural changes, perhaps to a dangerous degree. Whether or not that is ascertainable, it will surely do no harm to limit activities that could conceivably be climatically detrimental, especially since such action can have environmental and other advantages in other directions.

The main problem we have is not so much with the climate but with media and politicians. The "cried Wolf" effect is coming into play and many simply ignore any mention of GW or climate change. We do need to plan our use of resources and find cleaner technologies (nothing new in this as we have done so over the years since the industrial revolution) but we need to stop the Governmental take-over of this subject and stop "green taxes". Nothing is more likely to turn the public away from a subject than applying taxes to it !

Talking of models, wonder if the climate models are as good as the banks used?

Polar ice cores show us that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is currently increasing about 60 times faster than at any time in over 800,000 years, and temperatures are increasing in recent decades faster than at any time also.

(DR) JOHN ETHERINGTON's final paragraph illustrates how little grasp he has of this subject. The "many mathematical models" he mentions make no attempt to predict natural variations such as El Nino or La Nina, or volcanic eruptions or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation: all of these can have very significant impacts on global climate. An El Nino was responsible for the peak in global temperatures in 1998, and a La Nina is responsible for the current dip.

Whilst all of these will effect surface temperatures, and hence climate, none of them has a significant effect on the enhanced greenhouse effect - the slow accumulation of heat into the climate system due to the increase in CO2, methane and other GHGs. That continues relentlessly: sometimes its effect will be added to by El Nino, and we will experience an exceptionally hot year or so: sometimes it will be reduced by a La Nina or a volcanic eruption and temperatures will dip, as recently.

Whilst I'm all for people cleaning up their act, junk science is junk science and is not a valid excuse for the government to try and use this so-called global warming to try and steal even more money from us.

In any event, where is all this "global warming"? It's not doing much for the temperatures in this part of the world. Maybe all these global warming fanatics would like to pay for my heating bills?

#1 Dr. James Wilkie

Your statement, "There seems little doubt that we are experiencing a natural climatic fluctuation", is incorrect. There is very considerable doubt that it is natural, if by "natural climatic fluctuation" you mean what has happened to the Earth's climate in the last 30 years or so. Not one of the numerous attempts to explain this change as a natural fluctuation has stood up to scrutiny: it is not any variation in the sun (what change that has occurred would have caused a slight cooling), cosmic rays, or anything else. There is NO other explanation other than the enhanced greenhouse effect.

As for Alpine glaciers: Do not confuse regional temperature fluctuations with global changes. If you have any evidence that temperatures globally were appreciably higher than at present, then please present it. Do you have a link for the Alpine glacier information?

Guga (#5) asks, "where is all this "global warming"?"

I wouldn't pay undue attention to just one month's figures, but since you ask, and since Eyeywide has been predicting that it's going to get "very cold, very soon", I append below the global average temperature anomalies for September from NASA GISS.

They show that September 2008 was the fourth warmest September since records began in 1880, and that the eight warmest Septembers all occurred in the eight years from 2001 to 2008.

September Av. Global Temp. anomalies (warmest first):

2005 0.85C
2007 0.71C
2003 0.71C
2008 0.67C
2006 0.65C
2002 0.62C
2001 0.59C
2004 0.51C

In contrast, the average anomaly for Septembers in the 1990s was 0.30C.

See: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

As to whether human action can alter CO2 levels we know they have.

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6230

"We know from looking at gases found trapped in cores of polar ice that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years. From the radioactivity and chemical composition of the gas we know that this is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the production of cement and the widespread burning of the world's forests. The increase in global temperature is consistent with what science tells us we should expect when the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase in the way that they have."

Pre-industrial levels were around 280ppm, now we're around 390 ppm, and from the isotopic signature, as well as calcualtions, we know this has been caused by human activity.

Dr John Etherington appears woefully ignorant.

Also the five year mean temperature has risen in the last ten years.

#1 Dr. James Wilkie

Another point about glacial evidence: advance and retreat of glaciers reflects snowfall as well as temperature, making interpretation of past changes problematic.

Slioch and seanie

What have you 2 done today to combat MMGW?

Tried, in a small way, to counteract misinfomation about it.

Found a link to support your lie about the Met office yet?

#11 Dave

I'm not going to get into talking about my personal contribution, save to say that, as far as I am able to calculate I am carbon negative: that is, taking all things into consideration, my actions spread over the year (largely concerned with land-use) absorb far more CO2 than they give out. One reason why I do not wish to pursue this matter is that I am in a particularly fortunate position where I can make this possible. Since most people are not in such a position any comparison is invidious.
End of story.

#6. I have since moved on from the UN Kyoto activities (although I am still involved in general satellite earth observation), so I am not up to date on the very latest climatic thinking at the sharp policy end. The university study I mentioned, which concentrated on holocene avalanche remains, was recently presented in Vienna. The printed report (in German language, dated 7 October) of the scientific examination of Alpine glaciers, and embedded prehistoric tree remains, in order to ascertain climate changes over the past millennia, can be read at:

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/klimawandel/420675/index.do?_vl_backlink=/home/panorama/klimawandel/index.do

You are of course correct in differentiating between local or regional and global climate. Your opinion that there is no other explanation than human influence for the climate changes of the past 30 years is fully endorsed by other Austrian scientists, foremost among them Professor Helga Kromp-Kolb of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Seanie seems a trifle restrained with their outbursts these days. Normally this letter would result in a torrent of web links and countless consecutive postings.

#14 Thanks for the link James. However, I'm afraid I'm an archetypal linguistically-challenged Anglo-Saxon ignoramus, so its its secrets must remain Germanically hidden from me.

I've just come across a fascinating article by Tamino that illustrates (again!) why this statement by (DR) JOHN ETHERINGTON shows how much he is confused.

ETHERINGTON said, "Global temperatures have not risen for ten years. Indeed, they have fallen recently. Not one of the many mathematical models – worshipped by the politicians – forecast this would happen."

Tamino looked at the mathematical characteristics of the 33 year long NASA GISS monthly average global temperature series from 1975 to 2008. Basically, this shows an annual increase in temperature of 0.018degC upon which is imposed a large amount of variation, or "noise". He then used these same mathematical characteristics to create an ENTIRELY ARTIFICIAL series and looked at the first 33 years of it.

BEHOLD! The artificial series showed a period of ten years with a slight fall in temperature (and also a seven year period with a steep fall in temperature), just as ETHERINGTON claims for the real series.

In other words, as I and others have been saying for months, but has now been given mathematical validity: periods of a few years with stable or falling temperatures are INEVITABLE with a climate which has a slow background relentless warming (due to the enhanced greenhouse effect) upon which is imposed natural variations. Such period are present both in the real and in the artificial series: they provide NO significant information with respect to answering the question, "Has global warming ceased?"
See:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/dont-get-fooled-again/