Rural Ramblings

Perhaps there are those who wonder what's so special about chrysolite ?

I spent much of my childhood in rural Suffolk. If I had ever been interested in football (and I never have been, not even remotely) I would have been more or less mid-way between the choice of being a 'Tractor Boy' or a 'Canary'. I'm glad I never had to make that choice at least. If I had chosen the former and then given up, would that have made me an ex-tractor fan ?

I have so many memories of Lavenham, Horringer, Debenham, Wenhaston, Bramfield, Halesworth, Beccles and Oulton Broad. Amazing how far you can get on a bike in a day, even those days and on the bikes of the 50s and early 60s - lovely cycling country. However, the memories that have stuck are mostly of Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. I remember the plaice and chips from the shop just round the corner from my aunt's. I've since learned that if plaice is almost transparent as you clean it, it's really fresh and tastes SO good. Hated the bones. That's one of the reasons I rarely enjoyed eating fish. I have so many memories of going to the harbour in Lowestoft and fishing off the harbour wall. Never actually caught anything though. I remember the boats in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, crowded in the harbours, the raucous sea-birds, the salty tang of the sea and the smell of fish.

Strange. I never actually really liked to eat fish until I was in my forties. I ate it though. We were never that well off when I was young. It didn't matter which meal it was or what was in it - if it was put in front of you, you ate it - truly, end of story. Mum used to tell us of the times that, as a young girl, she had things that were put in front of her and, if you didn't eat it, they reappeared at the next meal-time - and the next ad infinitum - until you ate it. She had really great loving (and, I guess, hungry) brothers who would eat what she left so that she didn't have to suffer. When I went to Goshwhatta University in the far north I had a friend Ken from the Western Isles. I mentioned that about my mother. He told me how he had to eat his porridge. A huge pot was made at the start of the week. Nearly all was poured into a lined drawer, allowed to cool and cold slices were served up at every meal for the rest of the week. Horrible.

Near Beccles was where my Mum's nan, Auntie Mabel Bo lived. She lived in a small-holding with apple trees (where, as she kept telling me, she and my mum were strafed by a German warplane during the war as they collected apples). My brother and I used to share this tiny bed in the attic whenever we went to stay. She had hen houses where they kept bantams. I only just remember her husband, Sergeant. Early every morning in the one year I remember him, he took my brother and me out to collect eggs. Just before we were to leave at the end of our holidays, we went downstairs and found a fox had got into the shed and slaughtered all of the bantams. How many were eaten ? Why, only four out of the one hundred and fifty killed. My brother and I wept for ages over that. Now ask me why I have such a strong hatred of foxes (and, incidentally, minks which share the same murderous tendency). Not too long after that, Sergeant died and Auntie Mabel Bo lived on alone - sans bantams - for nearly another 45 years.

Anyway, I developed a love of sailing in the Norfolk Broads. My aunt worked for a restauranteur who had a boat; genuinely sea-going but he only ever sailed it in the Broads. He took a bit of a shine to my brother and me and so he used to take us sailing quite a lot in our summer holidays. I have so many happy memories of that. Even now, I enjoy any form of sailing.

We used to go to other places for holidays. I remember staying in a bed and breakfast in Keswick one year. The sun never shone. It was cloudy and misty all of the time. It rained a lot too. I didn't mind. One of the things that made my holiday - a Lotus Seven parked out in the street. It had a chrome-plated body and made a fantastic growl when it started up. I still have occasional longings for a Caterham (modern equivalent) even now.

However, Chrysolite. One summer we went to Port Seton near Edinburgh. If I remember correctly the swimming pool was called the Pond Hall. It was open and, being unheated, was five times colder than a witch's heart. My brother and I spent nearly all of the fortnight in there - blue but happy. Afterwards, each day, we went into a big cafe owned by some Italian family just up the slope for something to eat and drink. The chips were so good ! Did you know Scots don't ask for fish and chips ? It's a fish supper ! Anyway, we used to walk around the harbour and look at the fishing boats before they went out in the evening. One in particular, used to catch my eye. It's name - Chrysolite. It was so much more nicely painted than the rest with a deep green banding. I just loved that name.

When we got home I looked up the meaning of the name and found it to be a mineral. Shortly after, I was stricken with a monumental bout of bronchitis. My Mum and Dad had just bought Encyclopedia Britannica so I was not short of reading material for the 9 months I was in bed. I spent an awful lot of time reading up on minerals and, what did I do at university - Geology. Strange how the name of a fishing boat can influence your life.

Oxymoron Of Our Time : Microsoft Works

I use Apple Computers. There. It's out in the open. I do use Windoze but only if there's absolutely no choice. At one point, my employer retrenched from Apples to Dell/HP machines. After several years in this technological Hell, we're gradually seeing Apples reappearing especially when we're given the choice. That may not be too surprising. One or two of the key and very influential techs use Apple at home, regardless of the third-rate stuff they're forced to use at work and they're beginning to have an influence. There are a few who cannot and will not discuss anything other than Windows. For "I.T. Specialist" read "Windows Apologist". At the end of the day it's not too surprising. Windows machines, according to most independent surveys, require nearly 60% more I.T. support than Apple computers. Intelligent turkeys would never, ever, vote for Christmas.

I recently received an iBook - yay. That's complementing the 20" Intel Duo iMac I just purchased, my 800MHz 'sunflower' iMac (the one with a flat screen on top of the upturned white fruit bowl), and my little Mac Colour Classic which I just love to bits. If and when its circuit board finally goes to that great silicon heaven in the sky I'll replace its innards with the Mac Mini and link it up to the existing screen. Could be quite a long time though: Apple computers are built up to a standard rather than down to a price.

I also love playing with words hence the title of this post. Oxymoron and Litotes were the last two figures of speech we studied before we left Year Seven. Loved oxymorons. Military Intelligence, Microsoft Works (who remembers that package now ?). My current favourite - "Change is the only constant"; actually I think I used a version of that in my first post on this blog. I noticed that Easyjet and Virgin are considering setting a cheap airline for asian destinations ; will they call it "Easy Virgin' ? Now there's an oxymoron.

My English teacher in the Upper Sixth - a fearsome brute with tombstone teeth, a bristling sandy beard, one arm attached to a barrel chest and a truly savage manner - scared seven colours of something out of me. He never missed an opportunity to rip into us and point out our lnadequacies in using the written word (not to mention our lack of proficiency in spoken language). "You fool, Barbarian. Is that the best you can do ?" (Actually my choice of 'Barbarian' as a blog-name dates back to him calling me a barbarian on various occasions and is, partially, a tribute to him. There is, however, another reason too.) The 'bald' adjective came along later. No prizes for working that part out though.

Actually, now I look back and see I was one of the few he ever addressed pejoratively. The rest were only ever called by their surnames. With hindsight I've decided he probably thought I was just a total chancer or waster. I would always argue or try to talk my way out of trouble. More fool me. It just brought calumnies and vituperation down on me. Everything had to be just so to meet his standards. Infinitives unsplit, no mixed metaphors, the correct use of pronouns, no aberrant apostrophes, foreign words - all had to be used appropriately. I, me, myself - woe betide you if you used them wrongly. So now, when I see words like 'embonpoint' used by journalists to describe a woman's 'balcon' instead of a man's corpulence I get quite annoyed.

He told us to go away and read a worthwhile book - no hints what "worthwhile" actually meant - once and gave us 10 days to do it. I went away, looked in the library and found "The Worm Ouroborous" (Eddison) and "Lord Of The Rings" (Tolkien) jumping off the shelves into my hands. I read "Lord Of The Rings" in four days (All of the Saturday, Sunday, the Monday and Tuesday evenings after I'd done my homework.) As for the 'Worm' I have started it about nine times so far and still, 45 years on, I have never reached the third chapter. By now, a little bit like Christopher Lee who reads it annually, I have read the 'Lord Of The Rings' more times than I've started 'The Worm'. I have absolutely no idea what that says about me other than I like the story.

I went into class on the due day. Needless to say, the others had all found works of serious literature and were able to give some sort of precis. For some reason I was last to say what I'd chosen. I started into what should have been a few minutes' summary and after 10 minutes I had only reached Weathertop when he stopped me. He asked me some questions about the various characters and about one or two incidents in later sections then asked me - very quietly by his standards - "Is this really a worthwhile book ?". I knew the answer would be "no" and, crumpling inside, said "I suppose not". I fully expected to be punished then sent away to find something else - but - he looked around the class and said that any book which which got someone so wrapped up in it for four days, gave them so much enjoyment and gave them so much to think about was definitely worthwhile. I was dumbfounded. Normally the butt of so many of his scathing comments, I was - for that one time at least - able to walk out of his room with the merest hint of a smile.

Anyway, over the year I became more and more interested in language in all of its forms. He never ever eased up on me. Yet somehow it never felt too bad. All bar one of my previous English teachers were a waste of space as far as I was concerned. He got me fired up and interested in an area of the curriculum I had previously trudged through. Even his most vicious baiting made me ever more determined to match his standards. He was really into the precision inherent in language. "Fool, Barbarian. Language is a scalpel. You use it like the bluntest instrument imaginable."

He, and one other English teacher I learned from, both instilled a lot into me. Thanks A.R., J.W. They're probably sitting on a cloud now, looking over my shoulder and wincing at my less-than-deathless-and-disjointed-prose together with my comma-splices. Yet, in so many ways, the fact that I blog is largely down to them getting me into the disciplines and enjoyment of writing.

It was a combination of these disparate streams of thoughts that came together when I read another blog.
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2006/12/microsoft_tries_1.html

I perceived a certain irony in the following :

"It seems that Microsoft and AMD have partnered to hand out some nice Christmas presents to select bloggers. Microsoft has reportedly sent out new AMD-equipped Acer laptops in an effort to get prominent bloggers using Microsoft’s new Vista operating system," Michael Calore blogs for Wired.

Calore writes, "If Microsoft were to give away copies of Vista that would make sense and probably raise no eyebrows at all, but giving away a whole laptop understandably strikes some as little more than bribery... Dan Warne a journalist at APCmag left a comment at the site linked above in which he points out:"

It’s bizarre for one of the world’s largest PR companies, Edelman, to think it could get away with this. Perhaps they don’t know bloggers as well as they thought they did… now that some of the bloggers have disclosed the receipt of the gift, the public knows. Whatever the subtleties of the offer were, it comes across as nothing more than a bribe, and that is a very bad look for Microsoft.

Calore writes, "As Warne says, now that the word is out, expect the negative publicity to be every bit as shrill as the positive which means Microsoft’s PR move may well end up backfiring."

The irony, to me, is that if it had not been for Apple we would still be using an updated version of DOS with key commands or command lines to operate computers - a bit like Linux now I suppose. Apple saw the potential for an effective GUI in Alto Palo and the desktop we now know and - in Apple's case, love - was born. Then it was bastardised by Microsoft for Windows but let's not go there.

That's not the main irony though. The real irony though, is that Bill Gates wrote the Word package for Apple, together with the elements that went on to become the Office suite and a large part of the early income for Microsoft. Now you hear people expressing doubt as to whether to buy a Mac "because I need to use Word/Excel" . Well my dears - you can ! (Pages and Numbers, the Apple applications are far better though).

All I can say is that Microsoft must be getting really desperate. Windoze is, and remains, seriously flawed even after all of these years. Office is an over-hyped and bloated piece of software - how many people use more than 25% of the features ? Zune is a total brick with hopelessly restrictive DRM. X-box loses money hand over fist. From what I've seen so far, Vista is more like another Service Pack for Windows with some cosmetic additions. Most of the features they've touted over the last couple of years have been dropped. As for Windows, well we all know that the Windows Operating system has even more viruses than your average NHS ward on one of its better days. I'm just glad that I chose an operating system that actually works and has features that won't be seen on Vista for a long time. As for getting a present of a laptop for blogging ? Mr Jobs, I know I'm not a particularly widely-read blogger, but if you're reading this in Cupertino I would just LOVE a 17" MacBook Pro with Aperture and more memory than a large herd of elephants !!! A just reward for having been into Apple computers from the very beginning, no ?

Footnote 1 :
If I were a betting man - and I'm not - I would suggest that this is possibly the last operating system that will ever come out of Redmond. We are almost at the stage of the browser (Safari, Firefox, Camino, Opera, Omniweb and, yes, even Explorer) being able to access all of the software eg from Google that you'll ever need. Add to that virtually universal access to the internet, broadband speeds, plus on-line storage in frighteningly large amounts, and we are at the stage of the home computer being simply a terminal.

Footnote 2 :
This probably seems weird to modern kids but, as boys, we were always referred to by our surnames - Smith, Johnson - whatever from Year One until the end of Lower Sixth. The exception was in Upper Sixth when we became Mr Johnson, Mr Smith. The girls, on the other hand, were always called by their Christian names eg Christine, Deborah. I never understood that.

Saharan Sandstorms Sloughing Seawards

I was talking to a friend who, like me, has a background in Geology. I'm more into the palaeogeography and climate change, he's more into rocks from the structural and engineering side. However, we were talking about the sudden spells of stormy weather we're getting just now. My thought was my day would only be complete when someone from Fiends of The Earth or some other eco-nasty group was on tv, spluttering 'global warming' or 'climate change' as is their wont. He absolutely threw me when he said "Bet he" - it's nearly always a he, isn't it - "never even mentions the effects of dust storms from the Sahara."

At that point I stopped in my tracks. I realised a long time ago that desert sand gets everywhere. Usually it's into places you don't want it. Inside cameras, clothes, eyes and ears (look at how camels have evolved to keep it out) plus others too delicate to mention as well ! That fine, silky stuff is in the air around you all the time. Often you don't realise how much there is until the sun starts to set. Then that golden orb suddenly changes to a hazy reddish ball which becomes ever more indistinct as it settles through the last 15 degrees of arc down to the horizon, its rays passing through progressively more and more dust-laden air and their angle becomes more oblique. I'm almost willing to bet that's why camel are so tall - keeps their heads above the worst of the air-borne sand. That and keeping their bodies above the really hot air immediately above the day-time sand would be my best bets.

I found out quite a bit more about its movement 30 years ago from general curiosity. In 1976, that lovely hot dry summer, my car was rained on by a heavy convectional shower (near Pratt's Bottom, of all places. No rude comments please). Drying rapidly, it was covered by fine red blotches. On taking a few samples and testing them I found it was Saharan sand. (Red is the colour of the desert, more or less - oxidised iron, once again). Intrigued by this I actually spent some time with my nose in a book on weather and found out about air streams. It seems that we were being affected by 'cT air' (Tropical continental) from the Sahara. Why they reverse the name compared to the letters is lost on me I'm afraid. It seems that large blobs of air 'sit' over source areas such as the Sahara and take on the temperature and moisture conditions of the source area. After a while they start to stream out. In this case, over us. They take their characteristics with them and modify the weather we would normally get. In the case of 1976, we had that really long spell of hot dry weather. So that fine dust can travel all the way from northern Africa to Britain.

From my studies into the effects of volcanoes I knew a fair amount about the various cooling effects of dust from eruptions. Tambora in 1815 put so much of the stuff into the air that there was no summer and it was known as 'Eighteen Hundred and Frozen To Death'. Turner's paintings with their spectacular skies are about the only real evidence we have of the global spread of that dust since photography didn't exist. Krakatoa in 1883 wasn't quite as devastating but it still caused significant cooling and incredible sunsets. Did you know that the background in 'The Scream' by Munch is that of a sunset affected by volcanic dust, not long after Krakatoa blew its cone away ? I was surprised to find that out. It's one of those stupid little factoids I'm liable to use from time to time. For what it's worth, my favourite factoid of the moment is that Pietro Mascagnia was so proud of his Intermezzo in "Cavaliere Rusticana" that he used to rush up to people whenever he heard it being played and tell them he wrote it. Mind you, I'd be proud to have written anything even half as good at that: it's really stood the test of time. It must be on the radio several times a week.

Dust in the air is also a contributor to the variation in sun's energy reaching the surface of the Earth. At the Equator the sun's rays are close to vertical all the time. They reach the surface and are concentrated into a small area, giving strong heating. At higher latitudes the sun's rays are quite oblique so they have to pass through a lot of atmosphere. On the way through the insolation is reduced significantly by the dust. That plus the diffusion of the sun's rays over larger areas make higher latitudes quite a lot cooler.

Anyway, once I'd thought it through, I wasn't so surprised. On reading up various articles while I've been unwell, I've found that there is an amazingly strong correlation between hurricanes in the Atlantic and the absence of sand blown from the Sahara. When there is no dust there are hurricanes and vice versa. It looks as though these sand storms can blow up in as little as five days and they smother hurricanes by depriving them of the heat and moisture they need to grow. Some years it seems to happen, others not.

Now there's something constructive to build into the analysis and forecasting of hurricanes.

Snowball Earth ? Cool, Baby !

Anyone reading my first post in this blog will know that there have been four Great Ice Ages with varying amounts of evidence to support their existence. I was reading the Daily Mail yesterday and, to my great surprise, found an article about scientists who've been researching various deposits which confirm the theory of the Cryogenic Era. They were from St Andrew's University and had been researching ancient Irish rocks. According to the journalist, the theory was first 'coined in 1992' (sic) to explain the existence of massive glaciers at sea-level in the equatorial regions of that period. Also according to the journalist, the period lasted for about 10 million years. They are publishing findings which appear to give more detailed support to the theory.

The article was fairly short and it would appear that, as usual, a journalist has been given details on a topic they know little about, an article was written and then, thereafter, sub-edited down to fit the space available. In the process inaccuracies have crept in. I may be wrong on this but I wonder if the journalist was given a reference to the coining of the name of the epoch by Kirschvink (C.I.T) in the 1990s rather than the actual concept which was bouncing around a lot earlier.

Actually, the first Great Ice Age was thought to have been a Snowball Earth as there is some evidence which is replicated in the geological record during the period we now refer to as the Cryogenic period. That is a topic for another post.

I had to smile as I read the article. I first came across the concept/theory of the Snowball Earth in the 1960s as I studied Geology and Geography. There was quite a fair amount of discussion about it at the time. One thing was obvious though - the 10 million years mentioned above simply doesn't cut it for the length of time the Snowball Earth existed. As a matter of interest, this period and the whole issue of ice ages is dealt with in his usual superb inimitable style by Bill Bryson in his book "A Short History Of Nearly Everything". Well worth reading in my opinion. It's also worth mentioning that the theory is not without its critics - which is as it should be; any theory worth its salt should be challenged to within an inch of its life as far as I am concerned. That, of course, is why I militate so strongly against the "conventional wisdom" - based on limited knowledge as far as I can see - nonsense and scaremongering being peddled as facts about global warming / climate change by the media, those with certain political or 'green' agendas plus a certain 'wannabe' US president ('I don't plan to run again'. Oh yeah ?).

There are two points which can be made categorically. There is no 'unanimity' of world scientists. There are many, many climatologists, geographers, geologists who do NOT agree - many extremely well-known if not actually pre-eminent in their fields. Secondly, the science is NOT settled. In fact, ALL of the respectable science across a range of disciplines tends to refute all of the claims. For example, in "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore is correct to point out a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. However, close examination shows he is wrong in his claim of which causes which. The CO2 levels actually follow climate trends not cause them ! Sunspot activity also gives a much closer correlation than CO2 and is considerably more co-terminous, suggesting sunspot activity is much more likely to be the cause than CO2. The problem is that he is likely to be dead before he is discredited.

Anyway, enough of the polemics. Back to the ranch.

The Snowball Earth Theory suggests that the Earth was covered in ice from the Poles to the Equator, hundreds of metres thick over most of the Earth, thinnning to perhaps only tens of metres in the equatorial regions. Most interpretations of the theory suggest that, based on biological information, some areas of ocean must have remained unfrozen. There is also the suggestion that there were local 'hotspots', possibly volcanic in origin, which kept some places just warm enough. Another suggestion is that there may have been places where the ice froze but remained clear enough for sunlight to penetrate. That's not common in nature but it does happen. I also read somewhere that nunataks [jagged horn peaks protruding through the ice - as opposed to mass onslaughts by little women in black dresses] may have been places with daily thawing and nightly refreezing. All offer the niches that life could have clung on to.

Why did it happen ? No-one's sure. A drop in solar radiation is thought to be one of the main causes. However, it is likely that that had to be combined with a fall-off in the production of greenhouse gases. Equally, in some way, the earth was unable to hold on to those it had already. It should be noted that greenhouse gases are essential to sustain us. Without them the earth would be a lifeless ball of ice.

What's the evidence ? Well, on to one of my favourite bits. Palaeogeography. We know that the continents have been moving about through the Earth's history. We can track them by looking at the orientation of iron particles in volcanic rocks for one thing. The Earth is a giant magnet with a field that stretches from Pole to Pole. It reverses from time to time, at fairly regular intervals. Again, a topic for another blog. The iron particles tend to align themselves with the earth's magnetic field whilst still molten. When the magma or lava begins to set that's them fixed. From the rocks we analyse, we can date them and work out where they were at various points in time. One of the pieces of evidence for continental drift / plate tectonics.

At this time, the continents were mostly in the area of the Equator, forming a clustering which is called Rodinia. Where do they get the names ? Rodinia, Pangaea, Laurasia, Gwondanaland ......... The evidence - the usual sort of glacial debris, markings, erratics etc - is sufficiently widespread to make it extremely compelling evidence. However, there's more. One interesting piece of evidence relates to iron. In our air iron oxidises ("rusts" to you and me). That's down to oxygen. Deposits of iron in non-glacial periods are oxidised. During Ice Ages - it's not, because oxygen levels are so much lower. Deposits from the Cryogenian period are unoxidised. Conclusion - Great Ice Age.

How long did it last ? Well it's far more than the 10 million years mentioned in the Daily Mail. Best estimates are around 170 million years viz. from 750 - 580 million years ago. Some estimates suggest even further back - to about 880 million years ago. The devil, as they say, is in the detail.

Why did it end ? How could it possibly have ended is actually a better question. The Earth reflects sunlight in various ways (The Albedo Effect). A giant snowball, 40,000 km in circumference, is going to reflect virtually everything. There would have been a clear blue sky without clouds. Nothing could stop heat being radiated back out into space. In theory, once having achieved that state, the Earth should have remained as a giant snowball thereafter.

One suggestion is volcanic activity. Look back a decade or so to the volcano beneath the Vatnajokul glacier which erupted, melting hundreds and hundreds of metres of ice which eventually poured down into the Atlantic as water. Could volcanic heat have begun punching through the ice ? Could volcanic emissions of Carbon Dioxide have begun to reconstitute the greenhouse gas layer needed to retain solar energy ? Once melting began, was there some form of feedback cycle which maintained and increased the melting process ? It's possible that Milankovitch's 3 cycles coincided positively towards the end of this period to begin the earth's temperatures rising again. Quite possibly all of these factors conspired. No-one's sure but we may find out eventually I suppose.

Footnote :

British geologists of yore were fascinated by the various rocks we call erratics today. They postulated floods and various other mechanisms to account for their movement. A suggestion was even made about a mythical race of giants carrying them as I recall. However, it was the Swiss who knew the mechanism was ice. From then theories and knowledge about glaciation have advanced, not without set-backs it has to be said. Noteworthy was Louis Agassiz. He became one of the best-known protagonists of the theory of glaciation although neither really feted nor well-known until he went to the USA and became a professor. Unfortunately, he tended to see more signs of glaciation than he was able to prove. Seeing signs of glaciation in equatorial zones was a step too far. He fell from grace when he proclaimed that ice had once wiped out all life before divine intervention restored it. He was actually closer than he knew. Time to rehabilitate him ?

Siren Sounds Of The Sirocco

Erg, reg, hamada ? Deserts really tick the boxes for me. Actually, any desert does. Give me creosote bushes plus Joshua trees and I'm ecstatic. However, to give me the real deal, send me where I can hear those sad, soughing, susurrations of the Sirocco singing over the Saharan seif dunes. Most of the people I know think deserts are bleak, desperate places. I just love them (and alliterations, in case you hadn't noticed) !

At first you think they're empty, soul-less places. Very quickly you find out that life has the ability to colonise even the most empty of places. If you don't believe me, put your foot into your boot first thing in the morning without shaking it out first. It's probably going to be ok (scorpion stings only kill you about 39 % of the time (or so I'm told). I just love those extremes. Days are hotter than Hell (If I'm going there and so - after the life I've led, that's a real prospect - I hope that part's true at least. I should just about be able to cope). The nights are more than cold enough to make even a trebly reinforced tungsten steel monkey with doubly insulated underwear flinch. Get up in the cold, harsh steel-gray light of dawn and look at those icy bits on the oasis while you feel the cold strike through you. Two hours later and dehydration will set in if you don't start guzzling Adam's Ale in large quantities. Now that's what I call living. The stars at night are just unbelievable too.

Often the land seems so empty in the daytime. You'd think the nights would be too. Yet, in the dark, your ears seem to pick up so much more. There are all sorts of noises. Crunching, slithering, moaning, howling, you are so aware that there's life out there. Shine a torch out of your tent and see how often ghostly eyes are reflected back at you. Actually, it's quite funny. Light a fire and sit there. Whizzing noisily out of the dark, insects commit suicide at short and remarkably frequent intervals, leaping into the flames from astounding distances.

Mind you, you see some sights too. Whilst doing my bit for my employer in Tunisia, we were doing some research in the desert not too far from the places where they filmed a lot of the Star Wars series. It's very popular with tourists for some reason. Bus loads of tourists descend upon the homes of the trogolodytes and take photos then head back to a hotel with all mod cons. More interestingly, camel trips set off into the desert proper nearby from a camp beside the hotel. They go off and, about 3 hours into the desert, they stop and - suddenly, without any warning, in the searing heat - they are surrounded by local entepreneurs on ancient motorcycles offering them moderately cool coca-cola from satchels on their backs. Surreal. One trip had a lot of Germans, most with the steel-rimmed glasses, the phenomally enormous girths and the lantern jaws. Guess I wouldn't want to be a camel with any of those on top. What was it about straws and camel backs ? Where were their hausfraus I wondered ? One in particular amused me. As they moved along, he would rise up as high as he dared, shade his eyes with his hand in the classical manner whilst his gaze would sweep majestically and ever so slowly across the horizon. So very Lawrence of Arabia. So truly impressive.

Anyway, it's taken a long time to get here. In an earlier post I mentioned dowries. Well, here we go. I was told this story by a colleague whilst in the Sahara. Supposedly, it was told to him by a tribesman from the African Rift valley. The more I think about it, I'm convinced it's probably apocryphal but it's a nice story anyway.

An anthropologist went into the Great Rift Valley in Africa towards the end of the 19th Century. He found a semi-nomadic tribe whose life revolved around cattle and, as anthropologists often do, decided to spend time studying their lives, customs and mores. Over a period of time he became accepted into their tribe, learned their language and became familiar with their ways. Eventually, they were so familiar with him that they would tell him things that, otherwise, they would not discuss with anyone else.

He began to notice the routines of their lives. Men herded the cattle, hunted and fought off the predators such as lions. Women cooked, looked after their houses, brought up the children and spent most of their lives around the villages. Children were educated by the older people and played happily together. However, over time, he noticed that the adult males would spend most their time back in the village at night around one or two fires whenever they returned from their herding and hunting duties. They would drink, gamble and spend a lot of time telling stories about their hunting prowess. Eventually, almost reluctantly at times, they would return to their homes. The women, on the other hand, would spend much of their evenings in laughing, raucous groups often deriding their men, telling stories which were, most definitely, not to their husbands' credit.

As time went on the anthropologist noticed that one man, far more frequently than the others would be first to drift away from the camp-fire sessions and then head for his hut. Nothing was ever said. In terms of wealth, the number of cattle owned by each man, he was not the richest but neither was he the poorest by a long way.

He also noticed that that man's wife rarely ever made any negative comments about her husband - if she ever said anything at all. She was, also, amongst the first of the wives to head for her hut at night. He did notice, however, that the other wives often gave her looks which were almost envious. Again, little was said. Of all of the married women she seemed to be the most relaxed and, probably, just about the happiest in the village.

This observation went on for some considerable time with no significant changes. Eventually, he went to the tribesman and asked why his behaviour and that of his wife were so different to the rest of the tribe. At first, the tribesman was very reluctant to discuss it all. Eventually he took the anthropologist back to his hut and they sat down. The wife brought them drinks and then disappeared.

"The problem is dowries." began the tribesman. "Nearly all of the marriages could be predicted from our childhoods. However, to get your wife you need to go to her father and then negotiate how many cattle you will give as a dowry. Most men begin with an offer of about 6 - 9 cattle, according to the beauty of the girl. The father responds that he will not settle for less than 15. Hard bargaining may go on for many days. Eventually, a price of between 10 and 12 cattle is agreed. Naturally, the bride knows what is paid. After all, the wealth is really her's from then onwards"

"When I went to see my wife's father to make my offer, we sat down. He offered me a drink, as is the custom, and waited for my offer. I looked him in the eye and offered him 16 cattle. His jaw dropped and, in that instant I apologised for insulting him with such a poor offer for his daughter who I had longed for as my wife for so many years. I increased my offer to 18 cattle. He sat there, mouth moving but unable to speak. At that point I made the offer I had in mind before ever I went in to see him. I offered him 22 cattle. He swallowed and accepted. It took less than one hour to reach agreement."

"Why," said the anthropologist "when dowries are about 10 - 12 cattle, did you pay that ? 22 cattle are worth so much. You could have negotiated a much smaller dowry and still she would have been your wife."

"True,'" said the tribesman," but you have seen how wives speak about their husbands, showing little respect or affection, even though they always knew they would probably marry those particular men and wanted to. You have seen men who are often reluctant to return to their homes at night even though they always wanted to marry those particular women. Women truly resent being bargained over even though it is the custom. A bride's standing is reflected in the dowry agreed."

"Now, ask yourself some questions. How does my wife feel, knowing her dowry went upwards without hesitation, not down ? Then ask yourself, how must she feel knowing she has the highest dowry ever given in this village ? Think of her standing in this village and finally ask yourself, how does she feel about her husband ?"

Dunblane Unburied

Somehow a copy of a book called "Dunblane Unburied" by Sandra Uttley found its way into my hands a few weeks ago.

I remember thinking at the time of the Cullen enquiry that - on the basis of what was reported in the press at the time - there were too many discrepancies in evidence combined with some odd unsubstantiated statements which seemed to slip past unchallenged. Strange - when you think how nit-picky lawyers and judges can be when it suits them. This book details many of the discrepancies and you really have to wonder how on earth they slipped past like ships in the night. Then there are the implications of those discrepancies.

I also found it strange that the evidence was to be kept from the public domain for 100 years (that's now been found to be illegal thanks to some guy from North Berwick) - only the very most sensitive, almost earth-shattering information has ever had the 100-year rule applied to it ! What on earth is so important about the events in Dunblane (presumably prior to the shootings viz. Thomas Hamilton's links with various people) that so much needs to be hidden away ? I heard recently that Hamilton had a rifle for deer stalking - whose estate gave him permission ? He also had full-bore pistols despite only ever having been a member of a small-bore club apparently - why when the police always knew the difference ?

This book examines and questions the evidence so it's well worth reading. It certainly made me think. Could evidence have been withheld from Lord Cullen ? I was in a hotel in Stirling two years after Dunblane when the conversation at the table turned to the topic. One of the locals heard the conversation and said quite openly that what was reported about the shootings in the gym was not the real story but that the truth would never be allowed to come out. He also said there were connections to Loch Lomond and paedophiles. True or not ? I don't know.

If even a fraction of this book is correct - and most if not all of it seems to have the ring of truth - then there are serious questions to be asked. I'm no great believer in conspiracy theories (although Elvis really did work in our village chip shop for several years, honestly) but I could be persuaded that there are wheels within wheels in this case and this is well worth a read. It's available from Amazon and it's not expensive.

Lazing In Life's Lay-Bys

Annecy is a lovely place. I've been going there in the summer for several years since I more or less gave up productive work. Trawl around the historic town, have a leisurely sail on the lake, go for a swim at the plage or use the pedalos, enjoy a glass or three of chilled rose wine and enjoy the ambience of one of France's nicest towns and scenic settings - that's my routine anyway. There are far worse ways to spend a few days: ask anyone who's ever done time in the less scenic parts of Sheffield or Glasgow. Anyone for Red Road ?

Anyway, having enjoyed a day in Annecy, the coach we were travelling on developed a hydraulic leak. The drivers phoned their garage back home and were told that the local branch of a certain well-known European manufacturer of buses and lorries would come out and repair the bus. That's the service they pay for - Europe-wide coverage with efficient, quick and easy repairs. It's only £500 per call-out and satisfaction guaranteed. That's what we were told anyway.

So we stopped in a small service station outside Annecy - approx 17:20 hrs - so that the drivers could buy hydraulic oil to top up the system, working on the principle that they could get us back to our hotel and the service agent would repair the bus there. Anyway, the service agent, in a pristine van and looking like the real McCoy (albeit with the tightest lips and the worst hair-line moustache you've ever seen), pulled into the service station having seen our bus and wanted - nay demanded - to examine it there and then. Seemed sensible. After all he was still close to his base in Annecy in case he needed parts etc. So, passengers disembark and exeunt stage-right to a grassy knoll to while away some time. Quite a lot as it turned out.

After a few minutes he decided that there was a pump / filter which was in danger of breaking free from its hydraulic lines and the bus would need to be towed back to Annecy. Drivers immediately light up and go 'tilt' like an old-fashioned pinball machine. I ended up doing some of the translation for our drivers so that's how I know the story. Mechanic gets on his phone to his base, then explains that the system is linked to another and that, as well as the risk of one or other of the lines going into the the pump breaking, that various others parts would not be working. Overheating would occur - c'est tres dangereuse !!! Much gallic sucking in of breath through teeth and shaking of head.

After frantic phone calls back to Blighty. the drivers suggest that they drive to the hotel and he can either fix the bus there or they'll bring it back to Annecy for him to fix there. Cue mechanic's turn to have hysterics. One of the drivers then had an idea. He put on old coveralls, went under the bus and started taking pictures - aren't digital cameras and mobile phones so useful ? Mechanic goes pretty - actually extremely - quiet and gets back on his mobile. He disappeared into his van for about 10 minutes then emerged before wandering around with his mobile attached to his ear so tightly it looked as though extreme surgery - probably with a chainsaw - would be required to remove it. Meanwhile time is passing, and passing, and passing...................

Having been there for over two hours, he decides that he's got to back to Annecy. Guess what for ? That's right. Just what anyone would expect. He's going back to get hydraulic oil and a spanner larger than anything he's got in his van !!! Now possibly I'm being a bit thick here. I assumed that firstly he would have known not only the model of the bus he was coming out to, but everything about it. That's what pan-European computer databases are for, no ? Apart from that, he was told 'hydraulic leak' and comes out without hydraulic fluid or a full range of spanners ? Hello ! Has he never heard of pipes vibrating loose? It happens and it's not uncommon. Surely that was the first base to cover ?

Actually I had forgotten. When I worked in Britain in a system with a commercial janitorial service, the technical support was supplied by a number of firms. The janitor would phone in as directed and report a fault in incredible detail. Some hours later, XXXXX XXXX would turn up - sans any parts, equipment and tools - claiming he had had a vague call-out, instructing him to come out to assess the situation and, oh, and by the way, please sign this slip authorising 4 (or more often, a helluva lot more) hours of work. Needless to say, he was often told to ******-off !!! He was obviously this Frenchman's close cousin. It was really quite funny when he did this once too often. He tried to make out that he had no information but one of the janitors had recorded the entire call on his mobile phone as a video. You should have seen his face when it was played back. He made a SHARP exit (remember that advert ?) when the janitors offered to stick the mobile with the video message somewhere where the sun could never ever shine !

Anyway, back to the story - it's worth noting that, by now, it's nearly 20:00 hrs. On being asked, he says he'll be back in around 35 - 45 minutes. He returned - over 90 minutes later. No doubt les escargots and cuisses des grenouilles were getting cold 'chez mechanique' ! Out he jumps with large spanner, gets on his back under the bus - having first warned that if he can't fix it there and then, the coach will have to wait till the next afternoon for the parts. Six minutes later, after profuse gallic profanity, a tiny movement of the wrench/spanner and and some effort, the bus is fixed. Litre upon litre of hydraulic fluid (nearly 10 litres) - which he actually has this time - is poured into its tank. The bus is fired up and checked. Pas de problem ! Quelle surprise !

22:30 hrs and we resume our journey. Our least favourite Frenchman had refused to let the bus move until the company back home had paid in full. So that accounted for another 30 minutes or so. You would not believe that bus companies actually pay an annual fee over and above the call-out fees for this service would you ?

The significance of 20:00hrs ? Perhaps I'm just a little cynical. Seems to me he wasn't able to 'bump' the bus company into an inflated bill involving tow-out charges so he killed time until he was being paid on bonus-rates. I can't help feeling that, had that been Germany, Switzerland or Austria - the bus would have been fixed and on its way in 30 minutes at the absolute maximum.

Not a good advertisement for a certain manufacturer's call-out service or the charmless French mechanic involved. Any good points - well, a little restuarant beside the service station pulled out all of the stops and provided excellent friendly service at short notice. For what it's worth, a lot of Brit kids - also passengers on the bus, behaved impeccably even when stranded with no entertainments or facilities for five hours, despite looking as if they'd robbed an Oxfam shop for its clothing. Most of them were also sporting bites - courtesy of the local insects enjoying late evening refreshments. Shucks - it would just about bring tears to a glass eye !

As for the manufacturer's name ? Well you only need 2 consonants and 1 vowel. It's not D, A and F though. I never said once only for each did I ?

Oh ****, it's that word again !

I'm not given to swearing. In fact I'm bored hearing it most of the time, especially that one word which has become so widely used that it is probably meaningless. That's not meant to be 'holier-than-thou' in any particular shape or form. Over the years I have worked in a wide variety of places where oaths and profanities turned the air blue. Ask me if I get bovvered ? As usual, answers on a postcard .......... I have been known to use the odd expletive myself but when it's so widespread it becomes a real turn-off. Listening to a girl with an angelic face but the mouth of a sewer, approximately 12 years old, standing beside an absolutely unperturbed mother, I had a wry smile and a number of random thoughts on the matter.

Am I the only one, for example, who thinks that Billy Connolly was actually much funnier in the days before he felt the need to swear at least once in literally almost every sentence ? An odd thought, triggered by my experiences in France. When I was a kid, and until relatively recently you would hear the French referring to the English as 'les Rosbifs'. Now, you're more likely to hear gallic references to 'les ****-offs". I'm not even convinced that it contributes significantly to most films. Good actors could have made Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs etc just as gripping and exciting with far fewer swear words. Note I did not say ban swearing from films altogether.

Standing in one of those large booze warehouses in Calais is an prime example of the place to hear lots of that sort of English. You do get the odd laugh though. June, last year, in drove a large Volvo estate with a big Geordie at the wheel. He raced in and filled up his car with a load of beer in almost record time. Standing next to him as he was getting ready to get back on to the ferry, what did I hear but "That's the real ****ing stuff - Sans ****ing alcohol !" Result - me with the most massive fit of coughing when I looked and saw that, yes, he had filled his car up with - as he said - beer sans alcohol. I wonder if one of his mates set him up by telling him that 'sans' meant real. I don't suppose I'll ever know. Mind you, that stuff gives you an evil headache which should be punishment enough. I just wish I could have seen his face when he realised............

It's not confined to the areas afflicted by the booze-cruisers though. We've been staying in a pleasant little town 60 klicks north of Marseilles. If you're really that way inclined, you can get most of the day's papers you could get at home (Times, Mail, Independent etc) . There are clearly enough Brits to make it worthwhile selling them. What do you hear in the queues or sitting outside the cafes ? "****ing this" and "**** that" almost as often as you'd hear it at home - usually voiced by a shaven-headed lout with sunglasses perched on top of his shining pate. Actually, it seems to rhyme with 'dark' rather than 'duck' more often than not these days.

In Edinburgh for the Jazz Festival to see George Melly this year, hopefully not a bad move - for him, that is. I went to see Larry Adler a couple of years ago and he died shortly after so I hope that's not an omen. The reason is that I'm quite into the music of these old bluesmen - Dr John, Leon Redbone etc. The problem is that I go to see one of them and they die soon afterwards. Obviously, the writing is on the wall for Pete Green and John Mayall then.

Footnote (added 29.07.07): sad, but somewhat prescient comment in the paragraph above.  George Melly died a little while ago.  You have to admire his wit.  My favourite was that the great thing about Alzheimer's was that you kept getting to make so many new friends.

Anyway, back on topic: there were two occurrences that will probably remain with me for the rest of my life. I unlocked the car and opened the passenger door for my wife as I have been wont to do for all these years. She got into the car watched by a woman standing by the passenger door of the adjacent car while her man was opening his door. "You could do that for me" she said. "**** that" said the man. How to make the woman in your life feel cherished - not. The look on her face spoke volumes. That reminds me of a story from foreign shores concerning dowries but that's a topic for another post.

The other was in a Morrison's supermarket on the way out of the city. A little boy ran round a corner and barked his shin against the edge of a fruit and veg counter. "Aw ****" he shouted. His mother appeared as if she had materialised out of thin air. Clattering him good-style, what was her measured response ? "How many ****ing times have I told you no to ****ing swear, you ****ing stupid wee ****." What chance does the wee lad have ? However, it also made me think. Why do parents feel the need to take their children into supermarkets so that they can smack them ?

Sallying Forth (Singing Sealbhlaith's Song Softly)

Isn't it amazing ? Things that damage you when you're young or in your teens can leave deep lacerations that still hurt you immensely even decades later. This is, of course, even though those events - in hindsight, or from a different perspective, are relatively trivial events. From my point of view I now know that, looking backwards and with much thought, there were several events which all happened earlier in that one week. They conspired to leave me in such a vulnerable state that what happened was bound to be devastating. Knowing that didn't help me very much at all for such a long time. I've pondered this post quite seriously, wondering if I should sally forth into cyberspace with it or not. Oh well, here goes.

Sealbhlaith, Sarah or, more precisely, their diminutive -- "princess" (how apt that was !) / "lady of possessions" -- who humiliated me so completely and publicly when I was 16 or so, haunted my thoughts for quite a lot of years, albeit less and less so as the years passed. She's probably forgotten it completely by now. I still wake up in a horrendous sweat in the early hours of the morning - too often for my liking, even now, wishing the ground would open up and swallow me up whole when I remember that particular incident. On a really bad day the feelings from that particular nightmare can last long into the day.

There is a fair amount of irony too, in that I suffered significant amounts of serious 'ragging' at the hands of my peers for a long while afterwards because of that humiliation yet in so many ways it was one of the things that actually made me focused and determined to be successful. My life really began once I left school and went to university. So here I am, nearly 60 years old with a degree and several diplomas plus a far better life than I could ever have dreamed of when I was 17. Sealbhlaith's the one who's been married several times and from all reports, has had quite a hard life since leaving school. I would never have wished that on her whatever. I hope I could never be that shallow or vindictive.

I hear occasional news of "the princess" and, coincidentally, one of her friends -- "Foreign woman, speaking no Greek" -- from various former classmates. By chance I saw a set of supposed new-age versions of name meanings recently. The modern interpretation of "foreign woman's" name is supposedly "S**** like a rabbit. Not fussy about appearance" - that's really so unkind and absolutely so untrue ! She had a warm open personality and nice nature, both of which were luminous. I found them both, together with the french girl who was the third of the alpha females in that year group, incredibly attractive though.

I actually spared "foreign woman" from total humiliation - ok, merely acute embarassment after the last dance at our school's Senior Prom. I didn't ask her out out. Work that one out. Even as the idea crossed my mind I realised how much she'd have to bear if the word got around that I'd asked her out. So I checked my tongue - to my great regret ever since. She might even have said yes, However I've always believed a man should always be realistic - and I had absolutely no illusions how I was perceived by that particular circle of girls. I guess she would have blushed a lot but then found it remarkably easy to say no. I've always wished her well though.

I met the french girl about 3 years after I left school whilst working in a menial job during the summer vacation. Clearly she thought I was doing that for a living. Her jaw probably left a dent about 6 inches deep in the floor as it dropped when she saw me. She said something to the effect of "What are you doing here ? You're far too clever to be doing this !" I was SO surprised. I had always assumed that she and the rest didn't rate me at all in looks, intelligence or personality. Still I suppose one out of three's not too bad. Actually it was a job which paid enormous wages relative to average money thanks to copious amounts of overtime - the basis for much of my financial well-being these days thanks to enjoying Mathematics at school and developing an active interest in things financial.

As for Sally ? Well, I long since gave up hope of any sort of reconciliation. I did see her a couple of times in recent years. The first was quite a while ago near the green outside the church in the small(ish) market town where we grew up, went to school, church and Youth Fellowship. Our eyes met and she paused, puzzled for a few seconds. I realised she did not recognise me and I gave nothing away. Recently, I was enjoying un petit dejeune in a small bastide in the Dordogne when I realised she was in the same cafe. She has such a distinctive rich voice with cut-glass vowels and virtually flawless French (so unlike my rustic pronunciation and mangled verbs). As before, there was no hint of recognition when I pointed out she had forgotten one of her bags as she left (in my execrable French) : not too surprising I suppose. I look and sound so very different to several decades ago. Will I 'let on' the third time - if, perchance, there is a third encounter ? Perhaps. Probably not.

I went off to university shortly afterwards. Within 72 hours of arriving, I was asked out - to my absolute and utter astonishment - by a wonderful Texan girl called Heather - a real flame-haired American Beauty - who was the first of several really great girlfriends until I met my wife to be. Life began for real and just got better and better.

Climate Change ? Let's get real !

How quickly and easily whole bodies of scientific knowledge can be swept aside or ignored if they don’t fit with the current political orthodoxies. If a theory does not challenge what the powers-that-be or the opinion-formers want then it exists happily with neither let nor hindrance.

There are, for example, few who would disagree with the idea that the continents are moving around all over the Earth’s surface. In geological time they’re zipping about and crashing into each other like cars on the peripherique around Paris ! More and more evidence to bolster the theory of plate tectonics accumulates all of the time. The devil, as they say, is in the detail and we have a devilish amount of detail to work with. The theory continues to develop and so now we can even postulate that the whole crust may be able to slip ’en masse’ should the distribution of land masses and ice caps become sufficiently unbalanced in relation to the rotation of the Earth. Clearly it would be catastrophic and, as yet, there is neither enough evidence nor a large body of supporters proposing it actually happened for the theory to be widely accepted. However, the evidence that is quoted already is compelling ................. and please note as well that proponents of this theory are neither vilified nor excoriated when they advance the theory and the evidence they’ve found so far. Some would use it as the underlying explanation as to the various myths about floods occurring around the world (Noah etc). I still can't make up my mind between that and the end of the last phase of the Ice Age - both are relatively close in time as far as we know. Actually, even as I write, I wonder if both could be responsible.................................

Now consider the thorny issue of climatic change and, in particular, global warming. Anyone who dares to challenge any of the current orthodoxy is treated in much the same appalling way as Copernicus.

David Bellamy and many other scientists with cases to make are effectively ignored or interviews are edited to trivialize their case. Try writing to mainstream press to make serious points contradicting the arguments currently being used and you’ll struggle to be published. Wear sandals, eat lentil (or tofu) burgers and splutter ‘global warming’ (preferably whilst frothing visibly at the mouth) then you are guaranteed as much time and column space as you like to make your case - no matter how unthinking or even downright wrong your points may be.

It doesn’t seem to matter that groups like Friends of the Earth have made some serious mistakes (not that they ever admit to them). They never - ever - experience the same level of intense sceptical questioning endured by people who question any of the environmentalists’ latest articles of faith.

Now a clear and unequivocal caveat. My position is absolutely clear. The world’s climate IS changing, as it has done from Day One. Let’s restate and confirm that – global climatic change is a constant (isn't that an oxymoron ? Oh well !). It is also virtually incontrovertible that those changes have occurred without any input from people apart from the last 200 years or so. The extent to which we are able to affect global climatic change is also highly debatable.

Now, let’s go back to my opening statement. Palaeogeography and palaeoclimates have been studied in great detail for quite some time now. There is a wealth of knowledge which is well-documented and which ties in well with other topics such as the afore-mentioned plate tectonics. What do these two areas of scientific study tell us ? The earth’s climate has undergone enormous changes since the beginning of time and I mean ‘enormous’. This knowledge is being systematically ignored.

This blog started out from a friend’s question: she asked me why no-one ever linked the issue of global warming to the fact that the Ice Age was over. The problem is that there are two separate issues in that question. The first is to do with what is taken to be the evidence for global warming. The second, to me is more fascinating. Is the Ice Age actually over ? I - and many other souls being ignored - don’t believe it is and I also believe it goes a long way to putting the issue of global warming into a far more accurate perspective. It is now virtually certain that the Earth has experienced three previous Great Ice Ages – together with a minor Ice Age - and we are currently in the grip of the fourth with absolutely no idea of when it might end.

As I’ve just said, no-one can be sure that the Ice Age has, in fact, ended. With no evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that it has not. We know that each of the four great ice ages has operated on a time-scale measured in many millions of years. The earliest ice age is believed to have been from 2.7 - 2.3 thousand million years ago. There is evidence although a bit sketchy for obvious reasons: each glacial advance erases much of the evidence of previous ice advances. The second which resulted in ice caps almost reaching the Equator (The Snowball Earth Glaciation aka The Cryogenic Period) lasted from 800 - 600 million years ago. Just how cold was the world then ? Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. There also was a minor ice age 460 - 430 million years ago during the Ordovician period. After that, along came the Karoo Ice Age which lasted from 350 - 260 million years during the Carboniferous and early Permian epochs. A little reading around on the internet will reveal various really interesting things such as the impact of these on the flora and fauna of the times, including extinctions and sudden explosions of species – well worth while ! Obviously the world was significantly hotter in between each Ice Age. Look at the flora which flourished for some indications. The evidence is there.

However, back to the present. The present ice age began nearly 40 million years ago but intensified approximately 3 million years ago which is a mere blink of the eye, geologically speaking. Why can’t we be sure that the ice has gone / is going for good ? The reason is that ice ages are composed of cycles when ice advances (glacial periods) and periods when it melts away (interglacial periods). At this point most Geography teachers can take over and, yawning from extreme boredom, make all of these points in their sleep.

The present ice age has been operating on cycles of 40,000 and 100,000 years for the ice advancing and retreating respectively. The last glacial period finished approximately 10,000 years ago. Accordingly, we may have to wait rather a long time to find out if the ice has gone for good.

There are various theories as to the ways in which ice ages start and finish. Volcanic eruptions, variations in Carbon Dioxide and/or methane in the atmosphere and changes caused by continental drift have been advanced as possible causes.

One of the major theories is that the earth has 'built-in' climatic change. This is far from being a new theory. It was first bounced around by the Scot, James Croll in 1860, not too widely disseminated and then more or less forgotten. The theory was reintroduced by Milankovitch in the 1930s using known astronomical data, bounced around and then ? That’s right – more or less forgotten until they came to write stuff on climatic change for geography textbooks........

There are three cycles which operate. The earth's orbit round the sun is elliptical but varies on cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years where it is closer and further from the sun. Secondly, the earth's axis describes a circle on a time scale of 19,000 - 23,00 years (the circle of precession) and thirdly, the tilt of the earth's axis also changes on a 41,000 year cycle. Each cycle, therefore, results in variations in insolation (solar energy) reaching the earth - sometimes increasing, sometimes decreasing. Milankovitch was able to show that when these three cycles were simultaneously at the point where they resulted in the lowest insolation reaching the earth, major glaciations occurred. It’s a bit like biorhythms with triple biorhythmic highs and lows occurring in the cycles. When they all coincide on a high – great ! On a triple low – stay in bed ! So that’s the hotter and colder spells accounted for pretty well then.

This theory has since been linked to variations in carbon dioxide levels which have given the theory added strength although there are scientists who feel the theory does not explain things fully enough, especially with respect to variations within glacial and interglacial periods.

Now we move to the really interesting stuff. There is a great deal of evidence for large variations in climate in our present interglacial period: effectively the last 10,000 years. Pollen, varves, tree rings, ocean floor deposits, ice core analysis – it’s all out there to look up. What we do know is that the climate has been significantly hotter than it is just now eg the 'Atlantic' period of 6 - 7000 years ago where it was hotter and wetter than it is now. Minimum estimates are for about 2 -3 degrees more than at present. If nothing else, that alone challenges the current orthodoxy quite seriously. From then on the pattern has been one of slow and gradual temperature decline ameliorated with occasional warmer periods. It was still warm enough for many vineyards in middle and southern England in the 1100s AD.

At this point I believe we enter the period largely to blame for the gross over-reaction to global trends. From about 1250 AD temperatures started to plummet, giving us the Little Ice Age and the Frost Fairs with three temperature minima – the last was in 1850 AD. By this period of time we actually have some detailed written History which has a serious improvement in the quality of records available for analysis although, interestingly, historians tend to underplay the significance of the Little Ice Age. (And how, but that's another story for another blog and it's REALLY interesting) Let’s restate this – temperatures plummeted. There is a lot of debate about causes and how much of the world was affected but the basics are widely accepted.

Since about 1850 there has been a general warming with the occasional cooling blip caused by volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa, Mt Agung, Hekla amongst others. Human activity may have played a part in raising global temperatures in the last 200 years but it is also quite possible that much of the warming may be a natural 'rebound' from the Little Ice Age. As things stand we have still quite a lot of warming needed to get up back to the levels of temperature the world enjoyed in the 1100s AD and even more to get back to 6000 years ago.

All the evidence is that the earth has experienced great variations in climate since the very beginning and is liable to continue to do so in the future.

Why is there such a current brouhaha about global warming ? I can’t help but believe we are seeing the confluence of several things. Firstly, I believe there is a general but genuine ignorance and lack of understanding of the Earth’s long-term climatic trends. There is too much emphasis placed upon the trends of the last 200 years and not enough on the long-term perspective. That perspective does not suit the establishment at the moment. I do wonder to what extent this selection of time scale is deliberate though. Conspiracy or cock-up ? Answers on a post card please ………………

Secondly, there are groups with agendas which require the spectre of global warming. How many can you think of ? There is a genuine, intellectually coherent argument for the development and use of renewable sources of energy together with the conservation and effective use of the earth’s resources. Global warming – as currently argued and exemplified – is not that case. It’s obvious why the anti-capitalists have latched on to the issue as yet one more stick. Their solutions though would condemn 6 thousand million people to an unsatisfactory life and no way of providing wholesale improvements.

Thirdly, a combination of the need for ‘bad news’ together with nostrums no matter how ineffective. It gives certain types of politician and environmentalist with grandiose ambitions -- and sound-bites to match - the opportunity to strut on the world stage with a global audience: “24 Hours, Four Minutes And Eleven Seconds To Save The Earth” (or was that the National HealthService ?), signing meaningless agreements which are largely a waste of time and effort. It certainly diverts attention away from serious domestic issues. It allows the imposition of ‘green’ taxes (less to do with saving the environment and more to do with meeting budget shortfalls and bottomless financial pits like the National Health Service) whilst window-dressing them with supposedly noble intentions. It’s also another area for crusading journalism – don’t you just love politicians and journalists ? Just think if the 70 trillion dollars or so promised in the Kobe agreement to 'tackle global warming' was being wasted in any other clearly unacceptable way - imagine the outcry !

So where from here ? I’d like a genuine and open debate with vested interests shown to be exactly that. Everyone goes on about carbon dioxide as though it’s the Great Satan. However, methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas and it’s being pumped out into the air by rotting vegetation, termites and flatulent cattle in truly enormous quantities. What’s one of the signs of a country that has begun to arrive economically ? That’s it – they eat lots of meat. More beasts reared for meat = more methane. There are also very large amounts of methane crystallate on the ocean floors, kept in that form by low temperatures. If they are released then we have a real problem.

I’m not hopeful. Look how long Copernicus had to wait to be vindicated. There are some signs of hope though.

In conclusion

No journalist, politician or member of the "green barmy army" should be allowed to pontificate on global warming until they've described and explained the variations in the Earth's climate right back to the dawn of time. As pointed out earlier, there are serious and valid arguments for many of the environmentally friendly options BUT global warming is not and is unlikely ever to be one of those arguments. What a shame Copernicus wasn't able to blog.