|
I have some knowledge of palaeoclimates. I studied them at uni and I now work as a technician in a lab that mostly does palaeo work. I'm no great supporter of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis but I do want to see fair and balanced appraisal of evidence. Reading through the article I noticed a few 'supporting' facts that don't gel.
"little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850"
The LIA was 1450 to 1850. The Medieval Warm Period was about 950 to 1250.
"This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years."
I don't agree. The last interglacial was about 20,000 years, the one before that <10k, before that 15k and then 30k (roughly speaking).
"the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue"
The Holocene began at 10,000 years ago (10ka) and its beginning is not based on climate. The warming at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum had begun by 18ka. Depending on the record you use you can say modern temperatures were reached between 14ka and 9ka. Certainly no significant cooling events occurred after 11ka,
"We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years."
This news to me and I can't imagine where it comes from. As far as I know no palaeoclimatic record has such fine time resolution.
|