back to article Era of the Pharaohs: Climate was HOTTER THAN NOW, without CO2

A new study has confirmed that at the time of the Pharaohs the world's climate was significantly hotter than it now is for thousands of years - and yet the seas don't appear to have risen, nor did the various other doomsday scenarios foretold by climate alarmists take place. The new research, funded by the US government's …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Personally,

I've had boats moored up and down the Northern California coast for 40+ years. Sea level hasn't changed. At all. Not according to my observation.

I also have planting records from Great Grampa, Grampa, Dad & myself, dating back to 1875 (from Gilroy/MorganHill to Eureka). There has been zero change, decade to decade, in local weather.

If you want to know where the "global warming" fearmongers are coming from, follow the money. For example, who is paying for Al Gore's $LARGE_JET and all the fuel it burns?

31
26
Silver badge
Meh

Re: Personally,

Granted, but did anyone nip round to the low lying Pacific Islands and ask the inhabitants there if they thought they were losing a bit of beach?

Somehow I don't think that Global communications were of such great quality in that time period that anyone else was asked if they had a problem?

8
14
Silver badge

Re: "low lying Pacific Islands" (was: Re: Personally)

Plates slump. Corps. of Engineers blast channels. Sand & coral isn't exactly a long-term foundation. Small islands in the Pacific aren't exactly a global thermometer.

Global communications aren't all that important in this scenario ... Global sea levels[1] and local weather are. And, again from my perspective, nothing's really changed since Great Grampa planted his first greens, carrots & potatoes.

[1] Water finds it's own level, regardless of tides. Eyeball mean lower low water & mean higher high water for your particular location. I'll bet you a wooden nickle that it hasn't changed appreciably since (real) records have been kept.

15
12
Bronze badge

Re: "low lying Pacific Islands"

Perhaps visual observation alone is misleading. Data from NOAA is available here, showing clearly a rise in Californian sea levels over the last few decades.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=ca

13
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Personally,

Thanks to you and Great Grampa, Grampa, we can all relax now.

7
4
g e
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: Personally,

It'd be fascinating to see if the doomsday message persisted if all financial motivation was removed from Warmology.

Of course that's never gonna happen so people who essentially get paid for shouting about the end of the world will keep doing what they have to do to keep getting paid. Which is shouting about the end of the world. If you even tried they'd shout even louder till someone chucked them some money. Like a wind turbine manufacturer or something.

Basic tenets of the modern world:

1. If someone tells you something a _lot_ then always question how they stand to benefit from your believing them.

2. If there's money involved you should distrust it in direct proportional to the amount of money stood to be lost/gained.

23
15
Anonymous Coward

Low lying inhabitant

I am a low lying pacific inhabitant. I have seen no change in sea levels the last 50 years.

But then again I am not trying to extort compensation cash for being drowned.

16
5
Silver badge

Re: Low lying inhabitant

is this some kind of parody?? Move over sea level measuring satellites and buoys. Grampa sitting in a chair on the porch watching the sea for 20 years and he hasn't seen it rise.

18
10
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: "low lying Pacific Islands" (was: Personally)

"Corps. of Engineers blast channels."

Yeah; last time I wandered around the Pacific, you couldn't move for engineers blowing up channels that made sea levels rise. Or something.

"Sand & coral isn't exactly a long-term foundation."

It's been good for the last few million years. Why the sudden collapse?

13
6

Re: Personally,

If there's money involved you should distrust it in direct proportional to the amount of money stood to be lost/gained.

Ironically there's enormous amounts of money to be lost by the oil/gas industries if we move away from polluting fuel sources onto cleaner energy. So why you we trust their assertions that nothing is going to happen?

17
7
FAIL

Re: Personally,

"If you want to know where the "global warming" fearmongers are coming from, follow the money."

So let me see - on one side of this debate we have the bulk of the scientific community and a bunch of well meaning hippes, and on the other we have the oil industry, the car industry, the airline industry, in fact pretty much all of industry, across the world, and you are trying to tell us that it is the warmists who we shouldn't trust because of their vested financial interests? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. I have little doubt that if a research group wanted to persue a more skeptical line they would have absolutely no problem finding funding for it.

It's absolutely fine to question the science, but attaching the motivation of the researchers, just because you don't like their results, makes it seem like you've run out of real arguments.

25
13
Anonymous Coward

Re: Personally,

Subtext: I'VE GOT LOADS OF BOATS EVERYONE!

5
0
AGR

Re: Personally,

As of about 4 or 5 years ago, the amount of pro-Warmist lobbying money floating around Washington DC was running at about 20-1 compared to anti-Warmist, most of that corporate (I'm not sure what the split is now….)

Some of the biggest petitioners for warmist laws are industry. GE and Enron were the biggest under the Bush administration. GE because they had sunk a lot of R&D into light bulb and wind farm technology that couldn't be commercially viable without subsidies both direct (government grants) and indirect (laws requiring the use of their technology). Enron because their energy trading technology could be converted to trading carbon credits (just as all the other trading floors run by the various energy and oil companies have done since.)

The oil and energy companies actually have a vested interest in making their product more scarce, and laws are as good as anything else at making that happen. And if they can get government grants and subsidy in the process, why not lobby for more? Big companies don't mind regulation…It's a barrier to entry for smaller leaner operations.

It is not just hippies vs. the Man. The Man has a lot of vested interest in raising the spector of global warming, too.

16
6
Bronze badge

Re: Personally,

"As of about 4 or 5 years ago, the amount of pro-Warmist lobbying money floating around Washington DC was running at about 20-1 compared to anti-Warmist"

That's an extraordinary claim, please provide a citation.

11
4
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Personally,

I've had boats moored up and down the Northern California coast for 40+ years. Sea level hasn't changed. At all. Not according to my observation.

Publish your data. (I'm assuming here that you've taken meticulous measurements, and haven't just been looking over the side of the boat and thinking "yep, looks the same as yesterday.")

I also have planting records from Great Grampa, Grampa, Dad & myself, dating back to 1875 (from Gilroy/MorganHill to Eureka). There has been zero change, decade to decade, in local weather.

Local weather : climate :: register : CPU

Finally, (all together now) ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IS NOT DATA!

If you'd taken your sea level measurements (assuming you have them) and collated them with measurements from others worldwide, then you'd have some relevant data.

If you'd collected your planting records, along with those of farming communities worldwide for periods of 300 years or more, then you'd have some data to work with.

Oh wait.

That's what climate scientists have been doing for the past several decades.

15
14
AGR

Re: Personally,

Sorry, actually don't have the time to go look it up. I saw it in two different places and can't recall where. And I should clarify that it was about lobbyists and not campaign contributions.

Having worked at an energy company, though, I can tell you that climate change legislation is looked at as an opportunity and not a threat.

8
8
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Personally,

"Sorry, actually don't have the time to go look it up. I saw it in two different places and can't recall where. And I should clarify that it was about lobbyists and not campaign contributions.

Having worked at an energy company, though, I can tell you that climate change legislation is looked at as an opportunity and not a threat."

You had the time to write a post and cite a statistic, but now don't have time to produce any evidence that you didn't just make it up. You're basically happy to use something in debate that you were proverbially told in a pub once as evidence?

9
7
Silver badge
Coat

Re: Personally,

"I've had boats moored up and down the Northern California coast for 40+ years. Sea level hasn't changed."

Of course, if you're in the boats, you can't see the sea level change, you need to be on land for that

3
4
Silver badge

Re: Personally,

Further up the coast, apparent sea level changed abruptly one day in 1964.

It was changing previously, but too slowly to register ([plates buckle - and pop). The same thing is happening right down the western seaboard of the USA to somewhere south of the OR/CA border - which is why a lot of people are quietly waiting to see what happens when Cascadia pops.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Personally,

>So let me see - on one side of this debate we have the bulk of the scientific community and a bunch of well meaning hippes, and on the other we have the oil industry, the car industry, the airline industry, in fact pretty much all of industry, across the world, and you are trying to tell us that it is the warmists who we shouldn't trust because of their vested financial interests?

That's a really good argument for distrusting the science on *both* sides. I have a really hard time believing anyone at the moment since a very large proportion of science is funded by people have a stack in the result.

Unfortunately, a lot of the "science" on both sides of the argument are very unscientific and consist of a substantial amount of conjecture. That there is so much debate over such a long time and very little concrete result suggests to me that nobody really knows what the f*ck they're talking about.

7
1
Silver badge

Re: Personally,

> Finally, (all together now) ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IS NOT DATA!

True enough.

But in a hundred years when the satellites and the models are telling us that the sea levels have risen by a metre, and some guy who lives on the coast reports that "Nope, the sea is still in the same place it was before" what then?

I get what you're saying, but just because someone with authority is telling you that you're wrong, and you are quite obviously right, you have to call bullsh*t.

We'll see.

7
1
Megaphone

Re: Personally,

"Follow the money"? If you "follow the money" that is funding the "warmist deniers" it leads straight back to the fossil fuel industry, the Koch brothers, EXXon etc... If you want a conspiracy theory, that surely is the one to go for?

Apart from Gore, who Repubs naturally hate, can you show me any scientist - you know, the ones who do the the real work trying to determine whether or not it is actually happening - who is making money from the "warmist" theories? The last time saw figures about 93% of scientists who had any claim to be experts in this field thought that there was a cause for concern. Would you drive over a high bridge if that percentage of structural engineers said it was likely to collapse?

6
6

Re: "low lying Pacific Islands" (was: Personally)

Type your comment here — plain text only, no HTMLYes, I know what you are talking about. Once when I was out on the Pacific in my $100M yacht (funded by alternative energy VC funds), I saw the global thermometer bobbing in the water. I recorded the temperature and compared it against my Grampy's moleskin notebooks from yore. No change whatsoever.

0
6
Bronze badge

Re: Personally,

If you want to know where the "global warming" fearmongers...

Let's see, take another big "global warming fearmonger" -- NASA. And who is sponsoring them? BTW, this source claims the following about the Arctic:

Since 1979, the ice volume has shrunk by 80% and in just the past decade the volume declined by 36% in the autumn and 9% in the winter.

This could be perfectly "normal", but it could scare a hell out of you, if you're, for instance, a polar bear or another species that might not be here by tomorrow...

3
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Low lying inhabitant

I would trust grampa's first hand eye account over someones third hand guess.

Have you personally verified that the data is correct and that it has been reported correctly?

2
1

Re: Personally,

Yes right, attack the messenger or their motivation if you can't attack the message. That's the real tragedy - how feeble-minded the debate has become.

0
3
Headmaster

Re: Personally,

Yeah well your just making this up.

Every time I swim out to sea, and try to stand up, I know the oceans have gotten deeper, because I can't touch my bottom.

So your Great, great great and not so great, grampas, were all probably pot smoking communists like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

0
3
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Personally,

But in a hundred years when the satellites and the models are telling us that the sea levels have risen by a metre, and some guy who lives on the coast reports that "Nope, the sea is still in the same place it was before" what then?

(1) A hundred years from now, we'll both be in our graves.

(2) More to the point, you're presuming that what will happen is what you are arguing will happen, which brings your argument full circle.

I get what you're saying, but just because someone with authority is telling you that you're wrong, and you are quite obviously right, you have to call bullsh*t.

(3) Who is saying jake is "obviously right"? He made a claim of observation, as an implicit layman, which doesn't coincide with the claims I have seen from the experts. Now, authority in se is not a sound logical justification, but said experts provide their data and analysis, and despite my request, jake has yet to provide his. A claim with evidence outweighs a claim without evidence.

We'll see.

(4) No, we won't. See (1).

1
4
Silver badge

Re: attack the messenger or their motivation

I trust his grandpa more than I trust the climate fiddlers. Grandpa had one reason for recording temperatures and the rest: he wanted to know how well his plants were going to do. Getting the data wrong meant not knowing what adjustments to make based on his crop growth. His benefit came from getting the data right, not supporting this theory or that theory.

And IF ocean levels were rising the way warmists say they are, local climate, even local geography couldn't overcome the effects.

3
1

Re: "low lying Pacific Islands"

Stop it, stop it. We can't allow facts to be used in this argument.

0
0
Joke

Re: Personally,

I've had boats moored up and down the Northern California coast for 40+ years. Sea level hasn't changed. At all. Not according to my observation.

Yes, I'm sure the water comes up to the same mark on every one of those boats as it always did!

2
0

Re: Personally,

If you want to know who is funding the global-warming denier movement, follow the money.

Fossil fuel industries rake in TRILLIONS of US$ per year.

Al Gore and all climate research grants are nothing compared to the obscene - and ever increasing - profits reaped by the FF industries.

Follow the money.

1
3
Thumb Down

Re: Personally,

Atolls are the result of volcanic islands *sinking*, due to both crustal motion away from an ocean ridge spreading center and to sea level fluctuations such as the drop and rise of global sea level during the Pleistocene. This is a fact of geology and is inevitable. Because atolls are low lying, and the chief means by which they stay - how briefly - above sea level is the action of storms and waves washing coral boulders and sand inland. Also there were outposts and colonies on a good many islands by the middle of the 19th century and any port also maintained a tide gauge. So, there are a surprising number of records from Oceania.

3
0

Re: "low lying Pacific Islands"

Another point that is not properly addressed is that the planet is globally recovering from the Little Ice Age, for which we have more than adequate documentation to show that it was a global climatic event. The recovery _should_ be accompanied by sea level rise.

I am extremely dubious of NOAA's tidal data at San Francisco, since in Sacramento, which is well inland, and which also experiences a tidal effect, has certainly not seen any foot plus of elevation in the maximum high tide. It is not at all unreasonable to suspect that the changes documented are the result of geological rather climatic effects. If you glance at the Crescent City data, the sea level is falling. Like the changes in the San Francisco data it is reasonable to argue for a geological as opposed to, or in combination with a climate effect. The entire coast is in geological motion. So just how would we separate crustal changes from sea level?

2
0

Re: Personally,

You really need to start doing your own research. Check contributors to many of the major "warmist" movements. Also simply check the budgets of the biggest "green" organizations expended on "green" issues. "Big Oil" is a major contributor to a lot of such "green" initatives. They aren't stupid and they do expect that oil supply is going to be increasingly problematic. Increased "green" expenditures do several things. For one, electrical energy that is not derived from petrochemical supplies leaves those petrochemicals available for other purposes, like plastics, fertilizer and pesticides. Another is that "Big Oil" companies have diversified interests and simply selling gasoline is only one aim (and an aim with a visible termination). They sell not only fuel but basic materials and chemicals that arguably could be immensely profitable if the planet could be weaned off gasoline and diesel. And that is merely "Big Oil." The various national governments have spent immense amounts of tax money for green purposes.

2
0
Stop

Re: Personally,

well... I don´t know about you, Steve, but personally, I plan to be around in 100 years from now. They can do amazing things with 3D bio-printing today, and in due time, most if not all organs and bodily structures will be replaceable. So unless your brain rots, or you have an unfortunate accident, we may stand a good chance of enjoying a longer and more active life than any human in history... apart from our children of course, who stand an ever better chance with each passing year.

0
0

Re: Personally,

"But in a hundred years when the satellites and the models are telling us that the sea levels have risen by a metre"

Actually, about 15cm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png

0
0

Re: Low lying inhabitant

@NomNomNom Those satellites and buoys you refer to show that sea level rise has remained at a low constant rate for many decades and will have to increase rapidly over the next 5 decades if IPCC forecasts are to be met. Recent papers have also attributed a significant portion of seal level rise of the last 100+ years to irrigation run-off, and, while that cause is still anthropogenic, it has little to do with CO2.

0
0
Happy

Re: Personally,

Its not that the oceans have gotten deeper, its that you have gotten shorter

0
0
Thumb Down

Elevation changes

Care is needed when judging sea level relative to land that's changing in elevation from time to time in response to earthquakes.

Alexandria has a history of such changes. I think much of the harbour was lost in AD 365 due to a reduction in elevation.

17
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Elevation changes

Yes. In fact there are plenty of ancient ruins now under water in the Mediterranean. by contrast, here in Finland much of the coast line does not really have to worry about rising sea level, because the ground has been gradually rising since the last ice age, as much as 9mm per year in some locations! In the time of the Pharaohs, a lot of the current Finnish territory was under the water, warm climate or not.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Elevation changes

There is more on post-glacial rebound around the world on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

2
1

Re: Elevation changes

Alexandria was a particularly poor choice of Lewis' because sea levels there are very variable caused by (amongst other things), abstraction of fresh water from the aquifers, the compaction of the Nile Delta and especially the area slumping into the Med following the 365CE Cretan earthquake.

4
0
Bronze badge
Headmaster

Re: Elevation changes

But that's real science. You can't make up figures to support either side of the argument if we admit we "don't know yet, we need to do more science before we can correlate sea level and land elevation so as to track it far into the past". Much better to pretend we can correlate a single atom of carbon from a sample and call it "data" to support our theories... ;)

0
0
P_0

Sea level hasn't changed. At all. Not according to my observation.

Yes, but don't forget poor old Maldives, where the government has to hold cabinet meetings underwater, and people have to snorkel to work.

4
1

Pure marketing gimmick. Perfect way to get more money to compensate for "climate change" caused by us western capitalist pigs.

6
5

I think he was being sarcastic.

Google for "Male International Airport" and the new beachfront developments there to see what the Maldives really expect from global warming. The government is stimulating a property boom at sea level:

http://www.hdc.com.mv/

They do not expect to drown very soon.

6
0
Silver badge
Joke

@ Dr Stephen Jones

That is all about an ambitious land reclamation project they have started and if it wasn't I suppose it's better to sell as long as there is something left to sell.

0
0

/sarc

I know that P_0 was being sarcastic, but I was thinking about the poor deluded fools who wouldn't be able to pick up that nuance. ;-)

0
3

"The government is stimulating a property boom at sea level: They do not expect to drown very soon."

Au contraire. If you want the economy to flourish make things with built-in obsolescence. Sea front properties which will be destroyed in 10 years by rising sea levels, means that in 10 years you'll need to build new sea-front properties which in turn ...

David Cameron is missing (yet another) trick for economy-growing measures.

0
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums