cc: Onar Åm , Douglas V Hoyt ,John L. Daly ,Chick Keller ,P. Dietze ,Michael E Mann , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, Thomas Crowley ,Phil Jones , sfbtett@meto.govt.uk,daly@vision.net.au, jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi,richard@courtney01.compulink.co.uk,McKitrick , Bjarnason ,Harry Priem , vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz,balberts@nas.edu, Martin Manning ,Albert Arking ,Sallie Baliunas ,Jack Barrett <100436.3604@compuserve.com>,Sonja Boehmer-Cristianse ,Nigel Calder , John Christy ,cpaynter@greeningearthsociety.org, driessen@global-commpartners.net, dwojick@shentel.net,Myron Ebell , Ellsaesser ,John Emsley , Jim Goodridge ,Peter Holle , W. S. Hughes , Wibjörn Karlén , kidso@hotmail.com,KIrill Kondratyev , Dr. Theodor Landscheidt ,Ross McKitrick ,omcshane , Pat Michaels , pbrekke@esa.nascom.nasa.gov,David M. Ritson ,robert.balling@asu.edu, Tom Segalstad ,Fred Singer ,Roy Spencer ,Hartwig Volz , Gerd-Rainer Weber ,tlowery@ocean.tamu.edu, Rosanne D'Arrigo , k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:31:19 -0700 from: "Gary D. Sharp" subject: Re: Hockey Sticks again to: Mike MacCracken Mike, To the 'joy' of folks who just don't understand one another's perspectives, I would suggest that you reread both Doug and Onar's posts, with an added dimmension to your thinking. What is obvious to those of us who have taken the time to develope broader historical perspectives, from whatever vantage points, is the Fact that the recent ten century's records don't hold any major warming trends until the recent 150-180 years, depending, of course, upon where you look. The general idea we historically savvy folk hold is that the recent Warming trend is ongoing is "Good News". Warm has always been better than Cold for humanity. Think about it. The recent millenium held devastaing periods, following the growth supported by the 5000-3000BC Thermal Max warming period, that led to civilization as we define it, with agricultural production capable of exceeding subsistence levels. At the end of that period the entire human population numbered about 100 Million. The next two millennia were a hodge-podege of Cooling-Warming oscillations, (glaciers grew and shrank, on a very regular basis) with direct if more often than not opposite influences on smaller regions, and the societies that they supported... or not. Note how 'plagues' punctuated each Cooling era, helping to suppress human expansion... You can work your way through the next few millennia from that page, and see what a few Cooling Evnets bring. It ain't pretty. The 'outbreak' of European and other civilizations during the Post Medieval Warm period was not necessarily the best thing thatever happened, for the already extant cultures, or our support ecosystems. However, it was the result of declining self-sufficiencies in local food and fish production. The Feudal System depends upon self-sufficiency, and serfs, both of which became limiting factors, due to the erratic, but general; cooling/drying trend that began in the late 12th Century CE, in Europe, but appears to have been in full swing in both China and the SW NorthAmerican deserts. The longest wet period in Chinese records ran from 811-1050, follwed by the longest recorded dry spell that lasted from 1051-1270. Guess who had the plague first, and 'shipped' it west to Europe, where it leveled the field, starting with those living in closest quarters, port cities, and country folk. This 'population control' scenario is pretty bleak, but is more frightem=ning by a long stretch than a few more storms, floods, etc. About 7 BC, there were only about 250 Million people; in 1700 about 600 million; and by 1800 only 900 million. Then along comes the slow reversal of a long-term bad climate trend, and second half of the 19th Century was a classic warming scenarion - by 1900 we were 1.6 billion. Only 100 years later we're at 6 Billion. We are soon to have to 'think' for as many as 10 Billion people. And you and a few others think sequestering CO2. etc., is a useful focus? What is wrong with that picture? Somehow, I don't really think that controlling Greenhouse (bad analogy) Gas emmissions is appropriate focus of modern science efforts. I do think that learning to cope is going to be more difficult, unless someone can figure out how to 'fuel' the next technological revolution. That will certainly not come from another GCM effort. The historically documented alternatives to the somewhat fanciful IPCC Global Warming scenarios are much worse than increased atmospheric moisture, intensified increased CO2 for support of plant metabolism, stronger hydrologic cycles, and El Niño frequency enhancements. (Remember, what Bill Gray taught us... Those devastating Atlantic and Gulf hurricanes actually are fewer during ENSO Warm Events.) Yeah, I know, more energy, more storms, and so on... Right, but no one can really forecast weather, much less climate, at this point. The pretense is also misleading the public - taking their attention away from the real issues. PEOPLE biomass control, and water resource management. Lets get our minds off the wrong end of the 'Stick' and focus on the puck, and the real scoreboard! -- Gary D. Sharp Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study PO Box 2223, Monterey, CA 93940 831-449-9212 gsharp@montereybay.com "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." Thomas H. Huxley