Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF EARTH'S UNSTOPPABLE 1,500-YEAR CLIMATE CYCLE
National Center for Policy Analysis ^ | Friday, September 30, 2005 | S. Fred Singer, Dennis Avery

Posted on 10/04/2005 8:27:20 PM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou

Human activities have little to do with the Earth's current warming trend, according to a study published by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). In fact, S. Fred Singer (University of Virginia) and Dennis Avery (Hudson Institute) conclude that global warming and cooling seem to be part of a 1,500-year cycle of moderate temperature swings.

Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the 1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth's frozen, layered climate history. From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years. Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years).

According to the authors:

Considered collectively, there is clear and convincing evidence of a 1,500-year climate cycle. And if the current warming trend is part of an entirely natural cycle, as Singer and Avery conclude, then actions to prevent further warming would be futile, could impose substantial costs upon the global economy and lessen the ability of the world's peoples to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Source: S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, "The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle," National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Report No. 279, September 29, 2005

For text:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf

For more on Global Warming:

http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=science


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: catastrophism; climatechange; climatecycle; denmark; dennisavery; fredsinger; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; godsgravesglyphs; greenland; hansoeschger; sfredsinger; switzerland; willidansgaard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last
Climate change is natural, cyclic, and unstoppable.
1 posted on 10/04/2005 8:27:24 PM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

Shhhhhh!

DON'T confuse liberals with FACTS!


2 posted on 10/04/2005 8:28:15 PM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

bump


3 posted on 10/04/2005 8:28:46 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

FYI


4 posted on 10/04/2005 8:29:04 PM PDT by GreenFreeper (Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Ping.


5 posted on 10/04/2005 8:29:39 PM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afganistan and Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

There has got to be something going on beside man's influence - how else to explain temperatures declining in the 1800's during the industrial revolution and global warming stopping for 31 years between 1945 and 1976.


6 posted on 10/04/2005 8:30:30 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
I think that's true.

In the medieval era, Europe was much warmer. If you look at the Canterbury Tales, most the leisure was outdoors, and in medieval illustrations, women wear light gowns and men in short sleeves. In the 11th century, England had vineyards and its own wine industry.

There was a mini-ice age between the 16 to 19th centuries - all those nobles in heavy gowns and furs.

7 posted on 10/04/2005 8:31:09 PM PDT by BlackVeil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackVeil

"There was a mini-ice age between the 16 to 19th centuries - all those nobles in heavy gowns and furs."


From the late 1600s til 1730 or so, sunspots decreased drastically in number (known as the Maunder Minimum). Earth's climate cooled... the Thames River froze over. That cooling is directly linked to the sun.


8 posted on 10/04/2005 8:35:40 PM PDT by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

I guess this means that the 'RATS and their enviroweenies can stop extorting money from those who make America work.


9 posted on 10/04/2005 8:36:14 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We Gave Peace A Chance. It Didn't Work Out. Search keyword: 09-11-01.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

This is all Bush's fault!


10 posted on 10/04/2005 8:37:03 PM PDT by de Buillion (Perspective: 1880 dead Heroes in 3 yr vs. 3589 abortions EVERY DAY , 1999, USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

during the industrial revolution and global warming stopping for 31 years between 1945 and 1976.


little boy and fat man?


11 posted on 10/04/2005 8:37:51 PM PDT by al baby (Father of the beeber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

You mean it's not our big honkin' SUV's? / sarcasm on


12 posted on 10/04/2005 8:39:25 PM PDT by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al baby

"little boy and fat man?"

I've wondered about that too - we started open air testing in 1945 and it ended around Carter's presidency - the same period that global warming stopped advancing.


13 posted on 10/04/2005 8:42:32 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

bookmark


14 posted on 10/04/2005 8:47:34 PM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

Amazing what you can see when you open your eyes.


15 posted on 10/04/2005 8:50:02 PM PDT by SouthTexas (Just say NO to New Orleans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bttt


16 posted on 10/04/2005 8:52:55 PM PDT by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

the libs will want to level out the cycle - or something .


17 posted on 10/04/2005 8:54:19 PM PDT by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

outstanding post . thanks


18 posted on 10/04/2005 9:01:25 PM PDT by beebuster2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

bump


19 posted on 10/04/2005 9:03:47 PM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
The greenies would destroy our economy in the mistaken belief that human activity has anything to do with climate. What we should be doing to paying attention to the observed cycles and planning a means of exploiting what is expected to happen. Shift agricultural activity to locations that will be increasingly favorable. Populating areas that will be most comfortable year round without need of heating or air conditioning as a constant artificial "fix" for making a bad choice of locations to live.

I'm already setting a bad example by moving from San Diego to Pocatello, Idaho. San Diego weather is so even that you can literally plan on only needing to heat one week a year and cool one week a year. I did exactly that from 1978 to 2001. This week marks the start of heating season in Pocatello. Night time lows in the 20s, daytime high in the 60s. In another month, the high won't wander above freezing until mid-February. I'm still saving energy...by not mowing the lawn. Less gas and less physical effort.

20 posted on 10/04/2005 9:05:33 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi

Ping.


21 posted on 10/04/2005 9:07:35 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

This is a keeper. Thank you.


22 posted on 10/04/2005 9:07:51 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi; gondramB

Senator John Kerry conducts tests on his global warming hypothesis.

23 posted on 10/04/2005 9:11:39 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BlackVeil

Interesting that the Mini Ice age from 1645 to 1715 when the Thames at London and the Lagoon at Venice regularly froze also corresponds to the Maunder Minimum, an extended period of very low, almost nonexistent Sunspot activity. Funny how the linkage between the minimum and the Mini Ice Age is recognized but no linkage is attempted to current Sun spots cycles an "global warming" But I guess if the dogma of "Man Man Global Warming" as preached by the Church of Environmental Extremism was every prove to be the fraud it is, that nice fat pipe line all the "Climatologists" have to the Fed Treasury would dry up.


24 posted on 10/04/2005 9:23:47 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Proud to be a Rush bot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

bttt


25 posted on 10/04/2005 9:24:37 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
Human activities have little to do with the Earth's current warming trend, according to a study published by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). In fact, S. Fred Singer (University of Virginia) and Dennis Avery (Hudson Institute) conclude that global warming and cooling seem to be part of a 1,500-year cycle of moderate temperature swings.

Latest statement heard from the watermelons


26 posted on 10/04/2005 9:47:33 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Yep. I was eating a burrito at my fave mexican food hole-in-the-wall here is Las Vegas (Rainbow/Spring Mountain) and they had CNN on. There was a scientist talking about how the ice in the arctic circle was melting and he was very alarmed, warning that this was the worst it had been in 100 years.

Now, I'm not a scientist, but I didn't check my brain at the door, either. This wide-eyed scientist was never asked a couple of threshold questions:

1. How can we meaningfully and accurately evaluate the ice in the arctic circle across the last 100 years, since much of the technology we use to evaluate this today didn't even exist a few decades ago, let alone most of the last century (and especially since weather forecasts tend to not be very accurate 10 days out)?

2. If what he was saying is true, what accounts for the situation in the arctic circle a century ago, given that the global warming phenomenon he cites as the cause in 2005 couldn't be anywhere near as potent in 1905?
27 posted on 10/04/2005 9:54:06 PM PDT by HitmanLV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
For an alternative explanation of Ice Cores that is compatible with Young Earth Creationism, see the following articles...

Ice Cores and Age of Earth

Age of Polar Ice Sheets

28 posted on 10/04/2005 9:57:34 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

"2. If what he was saying is true, what accounts for the situation in the arctic circle a century ago, given that the global warming phenomenon he cites as the cause in 2005 couldn't be anywhere near as potent in 1905?"


I think there are two problems

1. The people on the other side who should know better from a scientific point of view are two often influenced by an ends justifies the means argument - they want our economy limited for other reason.

2. Our side is doing a bad job of arguing. Claiming there is no global warming is not helpful because there clearly has been global warming over the last century. Our points should be that there was cooling in the 1800's and global warming stopped from 1945 to 1976 and thus hydrocarbons being burning is not the controlling factor for global warming so we are spending our concern on the wrong thing.

Sadly, mine doesn't fit neatly into a sound bite.


29 posted on 10/04/2005 10:05:30 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
our points should be that there was cooling in the 1800's and global warming stopped from 1945 to 1976 and thus hydrocarbons being burning is not the controlling factor for global warming...

I think that's a big part of it. Whenever somebody says something like 'this is the warmest it's been in 120 years' or something like that, my first thought is 'what caused it to be as warm 120 years ago as distinct from what is causing it to be as warm now?'

It is a threshold question. It's never asked.

30 posted on 10/04/2005 10:08:14 PM PDT by HitmanLV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

" It is a threshold question. It's never asked."

Well, we dont really teach critial thinking in public schools these days... but that could be a whole other thread...


31 posted on 10/04/2005 10:11:59 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Well, we dont really teach critial thinking in public schools these days...

And if we did, journalism majors wouldn't get it anyway.

32 posted on 10/04/2005 10:26:03 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

ping


33 posted on 10/04/2005 10:55:41 PM PDT by ocr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

I have talked on occasion with Dr. Singer, he is a man of great personal character and is not seeking fame, only reason.


34 posted on 10/04/2005 10:59:31 PM PDT by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

bttt


35 posted on 10/05/2005 4:34:44 AM PDT by clyde asbury (Reality is the new fiction, they say. Truth is truer these days; truth is man-made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN; PeaceBeWithYou
* An ice core from the Antarctic's Vostok Glacier -- at the other end of the world from Greenland -- showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.

* The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.

* Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.

wow debunking enviro-liberals and young earth creationists simultaneously

36 posted on 10/05/2005 4:56:50 AM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

Did you read the articles on the ice core and why lower layers are not as reliable or easily identifiable as upper layers?

Did you notice that the independent data from the seafloor sediment in this article doesn't go back 400,000 years, but only 12,000?


37 posted on 10/05/2005 6:57:29 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BlackVeil

In the 11th Century, wheat was cultivated in the Orkney Islands. Where are the Orkney Islands and what do their inhabitants do for a living? Find a map, locate Britain. Now find Scotland and go to the northern shore of Scotland. Continue North and you will find the Orkney Islands. No wheat growing there today and all of the people are fishermen with the odd sheep herder thrown in to support the tweed industry.

You can't grow wheat today in the Orkney Islands, but you could in the 11th Century. Go figure.


38 posted on 10/05/2005 7:16:06 AM PDT by centurion316 (Never apologize, its a sign of weakness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

How does one explain the rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? That's a potential weakness in the hypothesis that humans aren't responsible for a bit of the warming of the earth.

Admittedly, most of the greenhouse gases emitted every year are from source other than humans. About 96 percent of the greeenhouse gases are from natural sources. But is it possible that the 4 percent that humans create are throwing off the equilibrium?

If humans are warming up the planet, my suggestions are:

1. Figure out if this is that big of a problem. Internal combustion engines have made life better for billions, so maybe an extra degree or two is worth the trouble.

2. If there is some number of degrees of global warming that will cause a net harm to humanity, figure out that level and how long it will take us to get there.

3. During that time interval, figure out ways to lower emissions while keeping our wonderful lifestyle going. If we could figure out a way to put out all the ongoing coal fires in China, stop inefficient slash-and-burn agriculture in the third world, develop ultralight but strong cars using space-age materials, and switch from coal to nuclear power when possible, we'd far exceed any targets from Kyoto with no compromise of our wonderful first-world lifestyle.


39 posted on 10/05/2005 7:35:12 AM PDT by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

even 12,000 years is 3 times too long for a young earth


40 posted on 10/05/2005 8:25:59 AM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
Go to www.sepp.org
41 posted on 10/05/2005 8:30:44 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

Most YE believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. 12,000 may be older than most YE'ers believe but it's a far far cry from the millions of years old that evolutionists keep praying for.


42 posted on 10/05/2005 8:31:28 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

Could the climate cycle be related to precession of the equinox?


43 posted on 10/05/2005 8:33:25 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Most YE believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old

Most YECs believe a flood occured abour 4500 years ago that totally restructed the geology (and sediments) of the earth. Meaning under YEC sediment should not go back any further than about four and a half thousands years.

12,000 may be older than most YE'ers believe but it's a far far cry from the millions of years old that evolutionists keep praying for.

But that 12,000 isn't an age of the Earth, it's the age of the oldest sediment. All it means is the Earth is *at least* 12,000 years old. Equally the oldest human is about 120 years old, but this doesn't make the earth 120 years old.

44 posted on 10/05/2005 8:47:59 AM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

Hey, enviros, enjoy the warming while it lasts. In a thousand more years, we could be freezing our butts off again! Our technology will be past carbon by then, so there will be no emissions to slow the cooling down, either! HA!


45 posted on 10/05/2005 8:52:32 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hey, Cindy Sheehan, get over yourself, already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
"Most YECs believe a flood occured abour 4500 years ago that totally restructed the geology (and sediments) of the earth.

Totally restructured, meaning "mountains rose and valley's fell", yes. Completely vanishing any and every trace of pre flood geology, no.

"Meaning under YEC sediment should not go back any further than about four and a half thousands years. "

You are reading your own assumptions into YE beliefs. In order to have a strawman to knock down.

"But that 12,000 isn't an age of the Earth, it's the age of the oldest sediment. All it means is the Earth is *at least* 12,000 years old. Equally the oldest human is about 120 years old, but this doesn't make the earth 120 years old."

It means the earth is at least 12,000 years old, IF AND ONLY IF, we have interpreted the sediment layer correctly.


46 posted on 10/05/2005 9:19:01 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

ok I understand now. my apologies


47 posted on 10/05/2005 9:30:49 AM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Our man in washington; ancient_geezer
How does one explain the rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

Trivial? Non-Correlative? Less than the natural variation of the ecosystem?

Take your pick. All are correct.

As for your other question, your numbers are incorrect.

In total all man-made greenhouse gases - water vapor included - are a mere .28% which is less than the natural variation of the ecosystem.

Where did you find the 4% you stated?

48 posted on 10/05/2005 11:49:06 AM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afganistan and Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Could the climate cycle be related to precession of the equinox?

Possibly, but Venus, Mars, Pluto, and Triton (that we know of) are also showing warming. That makes me think it is something common to the whole solar system, like the sun perhaps.

49 posted on 10/05/2005 11:49:16 AM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afganistan and Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

This site had said natural emissions were about 150 billion tons and human emissions were about 7 billion tons. 7/157 comes to about 4.4 percent:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Global_Warming/Older/Emissions.html


50 posted on 10/05/2005 12:10:11 PM PDT by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson