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

[aruanan]

Go to www.sepp.org

[DannyTN]

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.

[RightWhale]

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

[bobdsmith]

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.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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!

[DannyTN]

"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.

• If layers formed that don't represent annual activity, then we have interpreted wrongly.
• If God started the planet with some layers to support the life that he was about to place there, then we have interpreted the layers wrongly.

[bobdsmith]

ok I understand now. my apologies

[PeaceBeWithYou]

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?

[PeaceBeWithYou]

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.

[Our man in washington]

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

[RightWhale]

Right. It is not just one factor. Climatologists are observing that increased solar output might amount to 20-30% of the present warming.

[ancient_geezer]

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.

Correlation does not imply causation.

There is an error in the hypothesis that CO2 is a major contributing factor by using purely hypothetical multiplier effects that have no demonstrable basis in the real operational thermodynamics of the earth's atmosphere.

The basis of global warming models:

Ramanthan (Journal of Geophysical Review, vol. 84, pp. 4949-4958) states:

"the direct radiative effects of doubled CO2 can cause a maximum surface warming [at the equator] of about 0.2 K, and hence roughly 90% of the 2.0-2.5 K surface warming obtained by the GCM is caused by atmospheric feedback processes described above."

In otherwords, CHAOS, butterflies create hurricanes but dragonflies can't.

The UN/IPCC models achieve their results by selectively multiplying changes in heat balance for changes in CO2 concentration 10 times and more over that of any other mechanism of thermal variation. Where radiative forcing of CO2 is selectively multiplied by 10, other mechanisms of similar magnitude are not allowed to be enhanced by the same thermally driven "atmospheric feedback processes described".

The atmospheric "feedback processes described" are those implemented into UN/IPCC climate models. They constitute speculative and inadequate mechanisms at best, presumptive at worst, by which the atmosphere might respond to changes in radiative heat balance.

None of the "feedback processes" are based in any measured direct or parametric relationship selectively coupled to CO2 concentrations alone. This selective sensitivity (i.e. instability in the model) is inferred to be a cause of greater change than the initiating power input to the system.

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[ancient_geezer]

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

Not much from the 27 thousand year precession of our poles, as that is just related to tilt of the earth, not the total incidence of radiation upon the surface as a whole.

On a planetary basis, the 100,000 year precession of earth's orbit appears to have a much greater impact for some reason.

That orbital precession moves the plane of earths orbit in and out of the mean plane of the solar system where the major debris and dust the earth can intercept, as it moves about the sun, is located. The major glacial cycle appears to most correlated with that one. One hypothesis is that metoric dust intercepting the high layers of the atmosphere provides seeding for high altitude cloud formation which reflects solar energy away from the surface of the earth while Earth passes through the main solar plane.

 

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle

Figure 1-1 Global warming

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years

 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice

 

 

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.252.html#1

INTERPLANETARY DUST PARTICLES (IDPs) are deposited on the Earth at the rate of about 10,000 tons per year. Does this have any effect on climate? Scientists at Caltech have found that ancient samples of helium-3 (coming mostly from IDPs) in oceanic sediments exhibit a 100,000-year periodicity. The researchers assert that their data, taken along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, support a recently enunciated idea that Earth's orbital inclination varies with a 100-kyr period; this notion in turn had been broached as an explanation for a similar periodicity in the succession of ice ages. (K.A. Farley and D.B. Patterson, Nature, 7 December 1995.)
Farley & Patterson 1998, http://www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/20/36/33/37/32/abstract.html
Farley http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~farley/
Farley http://www.elsevier.nl/gej-ng/10/18/23/54/21/49/abstract.html

 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr96/dec96/noaa96-78.html

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE DURING LAST GLACIAL PERIOD COULD BE TIED TO DUST-INDUCED REGIONAL WARMING

Preliminary new evidence suggests that periodic increases in atmospheric dust concentrations during the glacial periods of the last 100,000 years may have resulted in significant regional warming, and that this warming may have triggered the abrupt climatic changes observed in paleoclimate records, according to a scientist at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Current scientific thinking is that the dust concentrations contributed to global cooling.

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.

Very possibly. Little in known about the century and millenial variation in solar activity. However what is known is that solar activity has definitely risen since the Maunder Minimums of the little ice age of the lows in the first temperature graphic above.

 

Here Comes the Sun

"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."

***

"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."

[ancient_geezer]

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:

That 4.4% does not factor the thermal effects of CO2. It is just an overall volumetric measure of percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Taking greenhouse thermal capacity of gases in the atmosphere into account CO2 contribution is nil, leaving mankind's contribution from carbon emmissions nil.

 

Mankind's impact is only 0.28% of Total Greenhouse effect

  Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	% of All Greenhouse Gases	% Natural	% Man-made
Water vapor	95.000%	94.999%	0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	3.618%	3.502%	0.117%
Methane (CH4)	0.360%	0.294%	0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	0.950%	0.903%	0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	0.072%	0.025%	0.047%
Total	100.00%	99.72	0.28%

Which is why there is little correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature in the atmosphere:

 

CO2-Temperature Correlations

• "(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations.
  
  ***
  
  Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years.  Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2.  In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm.  Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years."

[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]

• "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "

[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]

• "Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature.  Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be."

---

 

Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis

http://isi-eh.usc.es/trabajos/122_41_fullpaper.pdf

•  "We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."

[RightWhale]

Another factor that might affect the intensity of the summers and winters is the precession of the major axis of earth's orbit. I don't have the actual number, but it might be in the neighborhood of one revolution per 26,000 years, same as precession of the equinox.

[CodeToad]

Wait until the liberals hear that the planet wobbles so much that it should cause them to fall down. We'll have liberals lined up at every emergency room saying they "feel" motion sick.

[Sam Cree]

Ping!
The ping list might be interested in this thread.

[freepatriot32]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

List of Ping lists

[RobbyS]

Liberals have seen too many Star Trek movies.