Unstoppable Global Warming

The Facts Behind the 1,500-year Climate Cycle
Authors' Blog by Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery

Monday, November 13, 2006

Hunting in the Sahara Grasslands 10,000 Years Ago

When the Earth's 1500-year global warmings occur, the Sahara Desert often gets wetter. The tropical rain belts shift hundreds of miles north. Ten thousand years ago, during the Holocene Warming, Saharan hunters fed on rabbits, porcupines, gazelles and Barbary sheep. Soon, they were herding flocks of sheep, and also cattle, across the new grasslands of what is now desert.

Egypt, in contrast, had such heavy rainfall 10,000 years ago that the Nile Valley was too swampy and flood-ravaged for farming. Archeologists call it the "Wild Nile" period.

By 7000 years ago, however, the climate was shifting back to a cold phase. The regular rains had disappeared and the region was drying out. The hunters and herdsmen had retreated into the Sudanese plains where rainfall was still adequate. About the same time, the Nile Valley began to be peopled with farmers growing wheat and barley.

We thank archeologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kropelin of the University of Cologne for this reminder of the planet's constantly-changing climate parameters. Their new study was published in Science, Vol 313, in August, 2006.

The tropical rainbelts apparently move northward in other parts of the world as well during the 1500-year warmings. That may have something to do with the very long droughts that have been found in ancient California tree rings from the Medieval Warming by Scott Stine of Cal State/Hayward.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Wind Power Cards

Whole Foods is selling wind power cards that supposedly let concerned citizens directly encourage windmills. The $5 and $15 plastic cards represent what Whole Foods claims is the increased cost of producing wind power—over an oil-fired power plant—for an individual or family’s monthly electricity. Whole Foods says it will pass the card earnings to the windmill companies. To be more than a “feel-good,” however, tens of millions of people would need to buy the cards every month for the next decade, at least. The likelihood of that? Your guess. What if you forget?

Friday, October 27, 2006

A journalist asked what made me write Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years

Recently a journalist asked me what made me write Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. The answer didn't come easily. I thought global warming was being overhyped, and I had written an article for the Hudson Institute magazine, American Outlook, on the happy circumstances of the Medieval Warming. That article was picked up in the August, 1999, Reader's Digest under the title, "What's Wrong With Global Warming?" After that, I kept an eye on the research through our subscription to Science. Then in 2003, my boss at Hudson thought the world might need another book on global warming. We discussed it, and he asked me to write it. I recruited Dr. Fred Singer, whom I had met as a result of the Reader's Digest article, and whose weekly newsletter I had been reading. He was the expert, I was the layman. That's how it all started.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Michael Medved Show

I was on the Michael Medved Show yesterday to discuss my new book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. What a nice guy! Thanks to Michael for calling the book witty. It's heartening to know that his audience has the common sense to recognize the reality of the 1,500 year climate cycle.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

National Academy Flunks As Global Warming Referee

The National Academy of Sciences is flunking as the referee in the global warming debate.

The Academy was supposed to referee an acrimonious debate in Congress and the science community over the infamous “hockey stick” global warming studies. Those two studies, published in 1998 and 1999, were led by Michael Mann, now at the University of Virginia. They appear to find dramatic 20th century warming, after 900 years of supposedly stable world temperatures. The study is controversial because it appeared to wipe out the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, two of the most widely documented climate events in history.

Nevertheless, it was widely published by the Clinton Administration and the UN climate change panel as “proof” of man-made global warming. And now, the National Academy has announced that it is “plausible” that today’s temperatures are the warmest in 1100 years, as Mann claimed.

Really?

Britain today has come out of the Little Ice Age which extended from 1400 to 1850, but it is essentially still too cold to grow wine grapes successfully. In 1068 AD, 938 years before today, Britain’s tax officials reported in the Domesday Book that nearly 50 British vineyards were growing wine grapes. Nor are German wine grapes grown as high on the hillsides today as they were in the Medieval period. Wine grape vines are one of humanity’s most accurate and sensitive indications of temperature in the pre-thermometer era.

More important, the Romans also reported growing wine grapes in Britain when they occupied that country in the 1st century. Thus we know that both the 1st and 11th centuries were warmer than today. Mann was wrong about the 21st century having “unprecedented warming.”

The bigger scientific sin of both Mann and the National Academy is trying to hide the natural, moderate 1500-year climate cycle.

The top science journals since 1984 have widely reported on the 1500-year cycle, which was first discovered in the long Greenland and Antarctic ice cores in the 1980s. Since then, the 1500-year cycle has also been found in the seabed sediments of five oceans, in glacier advances and retreats worldwide, in ancient tree rings, and in historic documents from both Europe and Asia. It goes back at least a million years.

The 1500-year climate cycle has no correlation with CO2 in the atmosphere. It has
had a strong correlation with the length of the sunspot cycles on the sun.

CO2 may be adding to the Modern Warming, but its impact is apparently not large. Remember that our warming started 90 years before human CO2 emissions began to surge about 1940. When human CO2 emissions did surge after 1940, global temperatures went down for 35 years! The Greenhouse Theory says the Polar Regions will warm first, but they aren’t doing it. The Antarctic has been cooling since the 1960s, except for the tiny Antarctic Peninsula. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.
Is the National Academy of Science fearful that if the public understood the natural climate cycle, the science community would lose the billions of dollars the government now spends on the CO2 climate scare?

The National Academy has a massive conflict of interest that is truly disturbing.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Will Sea Levels Rise 20 Feet As Gore Predicts

Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” says human-emitted CO2 will boost the earth’s temperatures enough to melt the Antarctic ice cap—and suddenly raise sea levels by 20 feet.

Phooey.

First of all, let’s understand just how cold the Antarctic is. Winter temperatures on its high, cold interior plateau range from 40 to 95 degrees F below zero! In the summer (December) it “warms,” with temperatures dipping only to 49 degrees F below zero—and sometimes rising within 25 degrees F of the melting point (32 degrees F). But even then, the ice reflects virtually all of the sun’s rays back out into space.

However, the world’s warming in the past 150 years has produced a change in Antarctica. The huge East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains nearly 90 percent of the world’s ice, has been thickening. European satellites measured the ice sheet’s thickness 347 million times between 1992 and 2003, and found it is gaining about 45 billion tons of water per year because the planet has warmed enough for snow to fall at the coldest place on earth.

The study, “Snowfall-driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-level Rise.” was led by Curt Davis of the University of Missouri, and reported in Science on June 24, 2005.

Thickening ice in the Antarctic, in fact, is just about offsetting the meltwater being released from the edges of the Greenland ice sheet—which has also been thickening in its center. This leaves us with a global warming sea level gain of about 1.8 millimeters per year—or 4 inches per century. The rise has remained constant during the 20th century despite the moderate 0.6 degree C warming of the planet.

In the movie, a whole Antarctic ice sheet shatters on Gore’s computer screen. In the real world, that isn’t happening. It is only the Antarctic Peninsula—2 percent of the continent’s land area that sticks up toward the far-off equator—that is warming. It recently earned headlines by calving an ice floe as big as Rhode Island, not an unusual event.

But the East Antarctic ice sheet is more than 2,000 times bigger than Rhode Island, and the ice is two miles thick! John Stone of the University of Washington, reporting in Science on January 3, 2003 says the West Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating so slowly for the past 10,000 years that it still has not fully accommodated the end of the last Ice Age, and apparently still has about 7,000 years of ice to melt—and the East Antarctic ice sheet is melting even more slowly than that.

So. Al Gore says Antarctic melting will suddenly raise the sea levels by 20 feet, and the experts say 4 inches per century. Seth Borenstein, an AP science writer, did a column on June 27 headlined, “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy.” The dean of environmental studies at Duke is quoted as saying “He got all the important material and got it right.”

Were they talking about the same movie I saw? Gore overstated the impact of global warming on the Antarctic glaciers by about 50-fold. Or did he mean that 7000 years was “sudden”? How can so-called scientists applaud his accuracy either way?

Why Isn't the Atmosphere Warming Like the Earth's Surface?

Stuart Bartlett wrote this in response to Dennis Avery's article http://americandaily.com/article/16013
This is great if your right, but should we really be gambling with things of this nature when the stakes are so high? If there is not human caused global warming, we still aren't doing ourselves any favors by burning fossil fuels. Everyone agrees that our energy dependence is a huge problem and if we were to become more energy dependent the world assuredly be a better place. What I'm getting at is, what are your arguing for?