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

[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:

• 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.

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

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Ping.

[Texas Eagle]

This is a keeper. Thank you.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Senator John Kerry conducts tests on his global warming hypothesis.

[MNJohnnie]

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.

[Eagles6]

bttt

[SandRat]

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

[HitmanLV]

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?

[DannyTN]

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

[gondramB]

"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.

[HitmanLV]

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.

[gondramB]

" 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...

[Moonman62]

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

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

[ocr1]

ping

[Old Professer]

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

[clyde asbury]

bttt

[bobdsmith]

* 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

[DannyTN]

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?

[centurion316]

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.

[Our man in washington]

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.

[bobdsmith]

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