DVD Talk
Earth's unstoppable 1500 year climate cycle... [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Earth's unstoppable 1500 year climate cycle...


mosquitobite
10-09-05, 09:26 PM
http://www.ncpa.org/newdpd/dpdarticle.php?article_id=2319

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

VinVega
10-10-05, 07:37 AM
In all fairness, heavy industry hasn't been around for 400,000 years. It's an unknown variable in the cycle, but knowing that there is a larger cycle is a good starting point. :shrug:

Yours truly,

Devil's Advocate.

movielib
10-10-05, 08:02 AM
Human caused CO2 emission induced global warming retroactively caused the 1500 year climate cycle for the last 400,000 years.

DVD Polizei
10-10-05, 08:15 AM
I say it's only every 706.5 years (+/- 706.5 years). And I stand by my scientific research.

wildcatlh
10-10-05, 09:17 AM
Don't you get it? In the 4.5 billion years, give or take, of the earth's existance until the late 1800s, the global temperature was always constant and never deviated at all. Now, in the last 100 years, it's started going up. Silly people screwing with the truth! Kyoto now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wait, what was I saying?

DVD Polizei
10-10-05, 09:25 AM
WWNMD

What Would Neanderthal Man Do?

Mopower
10-10-05, 09:36 AM
WWNMD

What Would Neanderthal Man Do?

The Neanderthals reckless environmental policies killed them all off. Are we next???

Mordred
10-10-05, 10:57 AM
Wait a second. So now it's okay to believe scientists? Gotcha.

kvrdave
10-10-05, 10:58 AM
Wait a second. So now it's okay to believe scientists? Gotcha.

Not when it goes against environmental dogma. This may be ignored as well.

al_bundy
10-10-05, 11:07 AM
Wait a second. So now it's okay to believe scientists? Gotcha.


it's OK to believe those that practice science, and not simply blame technology on events they can't explain

Goldblum
10-10-05, 11:29 AM
http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/images/fear_cover2.jpg

Mordred
10-10-05, 11:48 AM
it's OK to believe those that practice science, and not simply blame technology on events they can't explainLook, personally I think most of the global warming hysteria is crap. I'm more inclined to believe that the earth goes through it's own warming and cooling periods and that scientists don't know a whole hell of a lot about them.

So when I take scientists who say that global warming is due to pollution with a grain of salt, I'm also going to take scientists who say that there is an unstoppable 1500 year climate cycle with a grain of salt too.

The conclusions that this study claim ("actions to prevent further warming would be futile") are spurious at best as polluting industry hasn't been around for more than 15% of the current climate cycle. A 400,000 year study doesn't mean a whole lot for the future when the factors that could potentially effect that study have drastically changed.

Seems to me, the safest course of action is to continue assuming that nobody knows anything about the effects current industry has on the environment.

Michael T Hudson
10-10-05, 11:51 AM
I think we should ask Al Gore.

General Zod
10-10-05, 05:21 PM
I think we should ask Al Gore.
The inventor of global warming? good idea.

Jason
10-10-05, 05:27 PM
How convenient a 1500 year cycle falls exactly after we've been dumping toxic chemicals into the atmosphere for a century.

DodgingCars
10-10-05, 07:46 PM
How convenient a 1500 year cycle falls exactly after we've been dumping toxic chemicals into the atmosphere for a century.


And 500 AD!!!

Goldblum
10-10-05, 07:52 PM
How convenient a 1500 year cycle falls exactly after we've been dumping toxic chemicals into the atmosphere for a century.
Since when did "we" become active volcanos?

al_bundy
10-10-05, 08:29 PM
How convenient a 1500 year cycle falls exactly after we've been dumping toxic chemicals into the atmosphere for a century.

co2 is toxic?

Th0r S1mpson
10-10-05, 11:03 PM
I bet we could find a way to change this "unstoppable" force.

Myster X
10-10-05, 11:21 PM
co2 is toxic?

During my elementary school years, CO2 was considered an essential plant food. :lol:

bhk
10-11-05, 04:00 AM
During my school years in the late 70's people were talking about the next ice-age coming soon.

Duran
10-11-05, 09:01 AM
co2 is toxic?

It's pretty toxic if that's all you're breathing.

DonnachaOne
10-11-05, 09:09 AM
You know, an actor playing Charles Darwin told me this three-eyed fish could actually be... a SUPERfish.

Tommy Ceez
10-11-05, 09:54 AM
How convenient a 1500 year cycle falls exactly after we've been dumping toxic chemicals into the atmosphere for a century.

Can someone explain this statement.?.?

Goldblum
10-11-05, 10:23 AM
It's pretty toxic if that's all you're breathing.
For us or for Mother Earth?

al_bundy
10-11-05, 10:47 AM
It's pretty toxic if that's all you're breathing.

if we burned every last drop of fossil fuels how much would it raise the CO2 percentage by in the atmosphere? 1%, 2%?

movielib
10-11-05, 11:08 AM
It's pretty toxic if that's all you're breathing.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:jHVkB2Re6fMJ:www.badgerfire.com/CO2.shtml+%22carbon+dioxide%22+fatal&hl=en

CONCENTRATION/SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE

1%:
Slight increase in breathing rate.

2%:
Breathing rate increases to 50% above normal; prolonged exposure can cause headache, tiredness.

3%:
Breathing increases to twice normal rate and becomes labored. Weak narcotic effect. Impaired hearing, headache, increase in blood pressure and pulse rate.

4-5%:
Breathing increases to approximately four times normal rate, symptoms of intoxication become evident and slight choking may be felt.

5-10%:
Characteristic sharp odor noticeable. Very labored breathing, headache, visual impairment and ringing in the ears. Judgment may be impaired, followed by loss of consciousness.

50-100%:
Unconsciousness occurs more rapidly above 10% level. Prolonged exposure to high concentrations may eventually result in death from asphyxiation.

100% is very bad. :)

For the record, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is < .04%.

Duran
10-11-05, 11:26 AM
I probably should have added a ;) to my post.

movielib
10-11-05, 11:35 AM
if we burned every last drop of fossil fuels how much would it raise the CO2 percentage by in the atmosphere? 1%, 2%?
Actually, since 1960 CO2 concentration has risen by about 19% (about 315 ppm to 375 ppm).

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=109&l=&c3=

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/modules/mid109/Image/VLObject-2561-031201081203.gif

The percentage of increase, however, may not mean much when the concentration is so small and it is not doing harm (which it appears is the case).

movielib
10-11-05, 11:38 AM
I probably should have added a ;) to my post.
I knew you were kidding, you old libertarian-type. :)

I just thought my chart was interesting and informative.

Watch out for the dihydrogen monoxide too. -eek-

al_bundy
10-11-05, 12:19 PM
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/images05/lia-pic3_lg.gif

jdodd
10-11-05, 01:41 PM
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

al_bundy
10-11-05, 02:16 PM
http://pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/sortable_player_stats.jsp?c_id=pit


there are a lot more than 17 pirates


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0