Midwinter

Indeed, Laserguy. This is precisely what is already happening. Every type of weather is taken as an indicator of AGW. When it transpires that emerging weather patterns risk falling outside modelled predictions, it seems to be accepted practice to retrofit those models, rather than to countenance reassessing the science underpinning the theory. The current socio-economic vested interest in maintaining 'faith' in AGW as a global paradigm is huge. As Jethro has eloquently detailed, the complexity of the climatic system requires a mature, all-encompassing approach, within which all scientific disciplines can be valued and integrated. I have noted a recent trend for mainstream media to start giving a limited voice to scientists who are proponents of the importance of solar and other natural climatic drivers - alongside AGW theory. However, I share Laserguy's concern that the AGW industry will acknowledge these natural inputs, because they have become impossible to ignore, whist maintaining control in directing climate policy by subordinating natural variables within the overarching AGW theory.

First post. I have stumbled upon this conversation and feel compelled to contribute in some small way (didn't realise, until reading one of the above posts, that there is a 'climate change forum' - I might pop in). Unfortunately the science of climate change has become incredibly politicised and is far too emotive - this is certainly apparent in the posts int his thread. Consideration of the possibility of the next LIA has quickly become subsumed by the politics of AGW. I was taught the basics of global warming (since notably renamed 'climate change') whilst at University some years ago. At that time, the science underpinning the model did strike me as rather weak - but I was sold on Green politics - part and parcel of wanting to see a way of breaking down existing power structures; an overturning of large-scale capitalist interests. Fighting AGW seemed to go hand in hand with fighting the ills of modernity. Simplistically naive - certainly. I have grown up quite a bit since then. A natural 'coldie', I remained a keen proponent of AGW theory, as I watched the snow days of my youth melt away and believed the dramatic predictions of warm winters and perpetual droughts. The recent re-emergence of extreme winter prompted me to carry out a good deal of research. Having studied a large number of peer reviewed papers - many written by eminent physicists (I believe that an understanding of climate has to cross many disciplines - it is far too complicated to be adequately understood and modelled by 'climate scientists' alone) - I am now converted to a position of scepticism. I firmly believe that the only healthy approach to any scientific claim is one of scepticism. We should be extremely guarded against the situation we now find ourselves in, in which those who dare to doubt the fundamental principles of the AGW paradigm are derided as dangerous, deluded and as deniers. That said, it should be perfectly feasible to consider the question of a new LIA without recourse to the theory of AGW. There is, obviously, huge scope for various cyclical patterns, of various lengths, with differing drivers (though necessarily interconnected) to be superimposed upon each other. There is no reason why the changing levels of Arctic sea ice has to be a simplistic response to anthropogenic radiative forcing agents. Its waxing and waning may, rather, have always played an integral role in the feedback mechanisms that bring about both Little Ice Age conditions and full blown Ice Ages. The data available for historic sea ice extent is extremely limited - rendering the term 'since records began' pretty meaningless!