Skip to comments.THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF EARTH'S UNSTOPPABLE 1,500-YEAR CLIMATE CYCLE
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 more on Global Warming:
DON'T confuse liberals with FACTS!
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.
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.
"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.
I guess this means that the 'RATS and their enviroweenies can stop extorting money from those who make America work.
This is all Bush's fault!
during the industrial revolution and global warming stopping for 31 years between 1945 and 1976.
little boy and fat man?
You mean it's not our big honkin' SUV's? / sarcasm on
"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.
Amazing what you can see when you open your eyes.
the libs will want to level out the cycle - or something .
outstanding post . thanks
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.
This is a keeper. Thank you.
Senator John Kerry conducts tests on his global warming hypothesis.
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.
Latest statement heard from the watermelons
"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.
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.
" 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...
And if we did, journalism majors wouldn't get it anyway.
I have talked on occasion with Dr. Singer, he is a man of great personal character and is not seeking fame, only reason.
* 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
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?
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.
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.
even 12,000 years is 3 times too long for a young earth
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.
Could the climate cycle be related to precession of the equinox?
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.
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!
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.
ok I understand now. my apologies
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?
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.
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: