A new study of geologic evidence concluded that the earth's climate goes through consistent 1500 year warming/cooling cycles within the known 90,000 year ice-age cycles.
The upshot is that our current warming is simply due to being on the upslope of a 1500 year cycle, and is nothing out of the ordinary compared to global temperatures in the past. The current warming started about 1850, after a global cooling that ranged from about 1300 - 1850. Prior to 1300 the earth was in a "medieval warm period."
The study looked at data gleaned from all sorts of temperature proxies - ice cores, lake bed sediment, stalagmites, pollen data, and others.
The study was done by Dr. Fred Singer, a known global warming skeptic. He is a fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Now, I am certain that global warming believers will point out that NCPA and Dr. Singer have received money from energy companies for their research projects, and so their research is tainted and should be dismissed.
OK, fine. Then of course we should dismiss any research paid for by federal government grants, too, right? After all, the official position of all the federal agencies that fund such research is that global warming is a huge problem. Researchers whose results prove otherwise might be kicked off the grant gravy train.
Actually, the data should stand on its own. Argue the data, not who brought it to the discussion. Read this study and ask if the case it makes isn't pretty compelling.
Hat tip to Andy for sending me the link to the study.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Golly, what a find...And how does this prove your faith? What does cycles have to do with increased CO2 causing Global Warming? I wish we could find some kind of quote in the bible that the priests could interpret as a prediction that Man will cause warming. Its seems thats the only way you loonies understand anything. Please evolve!
Do I really have to explain it? The global warming hypothesis is that increased human created co2 causes the increase in global temperature.
The evidence given that the hypothesis is true is the recent increase in global temperature.
If the recent increase in global temperature is natural and cyclical rather than anthropogenic, then this is evidence that the global warming hypothesis is not true.
Understand? Or is your religion getting in the way? You know, the religion that accepts the global warming hypothesis as one of its central tenets of faith.
I'n not sure what you mean by your comment on the bible. Can you find a single example on my blog where I have appealed in any way to biblical authority to support one of my opinions?
There was a great show on the History Channel about the "mini ice age"; the last cooling cycle. Napoleon's disastrous retreat from Moscow in the extreme cold and Washington's crossing the Delaware (remember the painting showing the rowers shoving blocks of ice out of the way?) were two events discussed.
BTW, as oceans warm, they release CO2. That may explain today's CO2 level - a result of natural warming.
Another detail is that the sun is variable and the length of the solar cycle is very well correlated with earth temperature.
See: climateaudit.org, junkscience.com and CO2science.org
Thanks
JK
Post a Comment