What do you think?
Rate this book
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
Singer and Avery present―in popular language supported by in-depth scientific evidence―the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with the natural physical records found in ice cores, seabed sediment, cave stalagmites, and tree rings, Unstoppable Global Warming argues that the 1,500 year solar-driven cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend. Trillions of dollars spent on reducing fossil fuel use would have no effect on today's rising temperatures. The public policy key, Singer and Avery propose, is adaptation, not fruitless attempts at prevention. Further, they offer convincing evidence that civilization's most successful eras have coincided with the cycle's warmest peaks. With the added benefit of modern technology, humanity can not only survive global climate change, but thrive.
- GenresNonfiction
277 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 13, 2006
19 people are currently reading
10 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 16, 2024
THE “GLOBAL WARMING” CRITIC PROVIDES TECHNICAL DATA, PLUS INSULTS
Atmospheric physicist Siegfried Fred Singer is a professor at George Mason University. He wrote in the Introduction to this 2007 book (revised 2008), “The Earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmites tell us it is linked to small changes in solar activity. The temperature change is moderate… The cycle shifts have occurred roughly on schedule whether CO2 levels were high or low. Based on this, the Earth is about 150 years into a Modern Warming that will last for centuries longer. It will eventually restore the fine climate of the Medieval Climate Optimum.” (Pg. 3-4)
He states, “The key thing for us all to remember is that the 1,500-year climate cycle is not an unproven theory like the model-based predictions used by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. The 1,500-year climate cycle is a documented reality, based on a wide variety of physical evidence from around the globe.” (Pg. 28) Later, however, he acknowledges, “Neither the Medieval Warming not the Little Ice Age was a precise, consistent event. Only in retrospect can we say that the Little Ice Age ended about 1850. Variability remains the foremost characteristic of weather, and it takes at least a century of weather data to evaluate climate trends.” (Pg. 58)
He suggests, “journalists have uncritically welcomed the global environmental movement’s claims of pollution, eco-disaster, the inevitable decline of First World societies---and global warming. Perhaps this is because without the Green scares, it would have been more difficult for
Journalists to produce scary headlines with which to sell more newspapers and attract television viewers. Environmental disaster claims have been a media staple since Rachel Carson published ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962.” (Pg. 104)
He explains, “Let’s begin by reviewing the shortcomings of the greenhouse theory. First, and most obvious, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate we know the Earth has recently had, including the Roman Warming, the Medieval Warming, and the Little Ice Age. However, these variations fit very well into the natural 1,500-year cycle. Second, the greenhouse theory does not explain recent temperature changes. Most of the current warming occurred before 1940, before there was much human-generated CO2 in the air. After 1940, temperatures declined until 1975 or so, despite a huge surge in industrial CO2… Third, the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating that the theory and climate models told us to expect… Fourth, the greenhouse theory predicts that CO2-driven warming of the Earth’s surface will start, and be strongest, in the north and South Polar regions. This is not happening… Fifth, we must discount the ‘official’ temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today’s urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located…Sixth, the Earth’s surface thermometers have recently warmed faster than the temperature readings in the lower atmosphere… Yet the greenhouse theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first… This is not happening either… Seventh, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator of global warming, not a causal factor… Eighth, the greenhouse theory requires that the warming effect of additional CO2 be amplified by increased water vapor in the atmosphere. But there is no evidence that the upper atmosphere is retaining more water vapor.” (Pg. 105-107)
He asserts, “Why has the very modest recent warming trend triggered such widespread calls for radical action, especially in light of the planet’s far more dramatic climate changes in the past? In the first place, scares attract media and public attention, and the environmental movement has become expert in presenting scares. The scares work especially well when they include guilt---and global warming is the ultimate guilt trip for rich First Worlders: ‘Your cars and comforts are killing our planet!’” (Pg. 116)
He acknowledges, “The satellite readings have recently been corrected for a bias in their ‘diurnal correction’ which adjusts for the fact that the satellites … observations gradually drift to later in the day over the several years of each satellite’s lifetime… the correction raised the satellites global temperature trends for 1979-2005 from +0.09 C per decade to +0.12 C per decade. This is still far below early predictions of greenhouse warming, far below the current surface thermometer trend, and far, far below the current high end of … predictions.” (Pg. 140-141)
He points out, “The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990 predicted man-made warming would produce a sea level rise of 20 to 100 centimeters… by 2100. By 2001, the … third assessment report had lowered its predicted sea level increase to between nine and 88 cm… While the high estimate was still a potentially massive sea level rise, it revealed an even more massive uncertainty: a nearly ten-fold range of doubt.” (Pg. 151)
He says, “Doubling the level of CO2 raises the net productivity of herbaceous plants by 30 to 50 percent and of trees and woody plants by 50 o 80 percent… Even if the planet warms significantly because of higher CO2 levels, the vast majority of Earth’s plants apparently won’t need to migrate towards cooler parts of the globe.” (Pg. 175)
He proposes, “Even if the current warming were man-made, it is entirely possible that investment in infrastructure would do more to help a region’s population than could comparable spending on fossil fuel replacement… There is little question that we should begin adapting to the probability of changes in weather due to the Modern Warming. Such adaptation, occurring over decades and centuries, would be less costly and more effective than attempting to ‘stop global warming’ by reducing human greenhouse gas emissions.” (Pg. 210)
He argues, “The Kyoto Protocol was produced by a global warming alliance between nongovernmental organizations … and the appointed functionaries of the United Nations… Politicians naturally saw the world’s hundreds of thousands of earnest and energetic environmental activists as a movement to be co-opted… What the Greens wanted was to end or severely restrict the use of fossil fuels… The Greens wanted solar and wind power to be appreciated, never mind that as energy sources they were expensive and erratic…The United Nations, for its part, saw the greenhouse theory as a way to expand its influence and power. The greenhouse theory demanded that energy be scarce, and the agency that rationed energy would be powerful indeed.” (Pg. 224-226)
He concludes, “We cannot protect all regions from climate change disadvantages… Food production will change during the climate changes but our high-yield farming will ensure adequate food. We will be readily able to transport food to cities that cannot otherwise sustain themselves… Where the really severe droughts appear, we may have to accept the ultimate answer of the Mayans: people may have to move… The message from the ice cores is clear” global warming is natural, unstoppable, and not nearly as dangerous as the public hysteria over it… Some years from now a future generation … may look back on this episode in human history as temporary hysteria that briefly gripped the Western world… The chief worry then is likely to e the coming Ice Age… as our interglacial period draws toward a close.” (Pg. 259-260)
This book will be of keen interest to critics of “climate change” and “global warming” forecasts.
Atmospheric physicist Siegfried Fred Singer is a professor at George Mason University. He wrote in the Introduction to this 2007 book (revised 2008), “The Earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmites tell us it is linked to small changes in solar activity. The temperature change is moderate… The cycle shifts have occurred roughly on schedule whether CO2 levels were high or low. Based on this, the Earth is about 150 years into a Modern Warming that will last for centuries longer. It will eventually restore the fine climate of the Medieval Climate Optimum.” (Pg. 3-4)
He states, “The key thing for us all to remember is that the 1,500-year climate cycle is not an unproven theory like the model-based predictions used by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. The 1,500-year climate cycle is a documented reality, based on a wide variety of physical evidence from around the globe.” (Pg. 28) Later, however, he acknowledges, “Neither the Medieval Warming not the Little Ice Age was a precise, consistent event. Only in retrospect can we say that the Little Ice Age ended about 1850. Variability remains the foremost characteristic of weather, and it takes at least a century of weather data to evaluate climate trends.” (Pg. 58)
He suggests, “journalists have uncritically welcomed the global environmental movement’s claims of pollution, eco-disaster, the inevitable decline of First World societies---and global warming. Perhaps this is because without the Green scares, it would have been more difficult for
Journalists to produce scary headlines with which to sell more newspapers and attract television viewers. Environmental disaster claims have been a media staple since Rachel Carson published ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962.” (Pg. 104)
He explains, “Let’s begin by reviewing the shortcomings of the greenhouse theory. First, and most obvious, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate we know the Earth has recently had, including the Roman Warming, the Medieval Warming, and the Little Ice Age. However, these variations fit very well into the natural 1,500-year cycle. Second, the greenhouse theory does not explain recent temperature changes. Most of the current warming occurred before 1940, before there was much human-generated CO2 in the air. After 1940, temperatures declined until 1975 or so, despite a huge surge in industrial CO2… Third, the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating that the theory and climate models told us to expect… Fourth, the greenhouse theory predicts that CO2-driven warming of the Earth’s surface will start, and be strongest, in the north and South Polar regions. This is not happening… Fifth, we must discount the ‘official’ temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today’s urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located…Sixth, the Earth’s surface thermometers have recently warmed faster than the temperature readings in the lower atmosphere… Yet the greenhouse theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first… This is not happening either… Seventh, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator of global warming, not a causal factor… Eighth, the greenhouse theory requires that the warming effect of additional CO2 be amplified by increased water vapor in the atmosphere. But there is no evidence that the upper atmosphere is retaining more water vapor.” (Pg. 105-107)
He asserts, “Why has the very modest recent warming trend triggered such widespread calls for radical action, especially in light of the planet’s far more dramatic climate changes in the past? In the first place, scares attract media and public attention, and the environmental movement has become expert in presenting scares. The scares work especially well when they include guilt---and global warming is the ultimate guilt trip for rich First Worlders: ‘Your cars and comforts are killing our planet!’” (Pg. 116)
He acknowledges, “The satellite readings have recently been corrected for a bias in their ‘diurnal correction’ which adjusts for the fact that the satellites … observations gradually drift to later in the day over the several years of each satellite’s lifetime… the correction raised the satellites global temperature trends for 1979-2005 from +0.09 C per decade to +0.12 C per decade. This is still far below early predictions of greenhouse warming, far below the current surface thermometer trend, and far, far below the current high end of … predictions.” (Pg. 140-141)
He points out, “The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990 predicted man-made warming would produce a sea level rise of 20 to 100 centimeters… by 2100. By 2001, the … third assessment report had lowered its predicted sea level increase to between nine and 88 cm… While the high estimate was still a potentially massive sea level rise, it revealed an even more massive uncertainty: a nearly ten-fold range of doubt.” (Pg. 151)
He says, “Doubling the level of CO2 raises the net productivity of herbaceous plants by 30 to 50 percent and of trees and woody plants by 50 o 80 percent… Even if the planet warms significantly because of higher CO2 levels, the vast majority of Earth’s plants apparently won’t need to migrate towards cooler parts of the globe.” (Pg. 175)
He proposes, “Even if the current warming were man-made, it is entirely possible that investment in infrastructure would do more to help a region’s population than could comparable spending on fossil fuel replacement… There is little question that we should begin adapting to the probability of changes in weather due to the Modern Warming. Such adaptation, occurring over decades and centuries, would be less costly and more effective than attempting to ‘stop global warming’ by reducing human greenhouse gas emissions.” (Pg. 210)
He argues, “The Kyoto Protocol was produced by a global warming alliance between nongovernmental organizations … and the appointed functionaries of the United Nations… Politicians naturally saw the world’s hundreds of thousands of earnest and energetic environmental activists as a movement to be co-opted… What the Greens wanted was to end or severely restrict the use of fossil fuels… The Greens wanted solar and wind power to be appreciated, never mind that as energy sources they were expensive and erratic…The United Nations, for its part, saw the greenhouse theory as a way to expand its influence and power. The greenhouse theory demanded that energy be scarce, and the agency that rationed energy would be powerful indeed.” (Pg. 224-226)
He concludes, “We cannot protect all regions from climate change disadvantages… Food production will change during the climate changes but our high-yield farming will ensure adequate food. We will be readily able to transport food to cities that cannot otherwise sustain themselves… Where the really severe droughts appear, we may have to accept the ultimate answer of the Mayans: people may have to move… The message from the ice cores is clear” global warming is natural, unstoppable, and not nearly as dangerous as the public hysteria over it… Some years from now a future generation … may look back on this episode in human history as temporary hysteria that briefly gripped the Western world… The chief worry then is likely to e the coming Ice Age… as our interglacial period draws toward a close.” (Pg. 259-260)
This book will be of keen interest to critics of “climate change” and “global warming” forecasts.
June 8, 2018
Not Perfect, But Makes You Interested.
First of all, my compliments to the author for a solid work on the climate change issues.
Recently I came across a wonderful piece if cra... pardon me, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change propaganda named "The UNCERTAINTY Handbook: a practical guide for climate change communicators". One part deserves our special attention:
[quote] Climate change predictions are usually communicated using a standard “uncertain outcome” format.
But flip the statement around – using an 'uncertain time' framing – and suddenly it is clear that the question if when not if sea levels will rise by 50 cm.
DON'T say:
“By 2072, sea levels will rise by between 25 and 68 cm, with 50 cm being the average projection”
DO say
“Sea levels will rise by at least 50 cm, and this will occur at some time between 2060 and 2093”
This simple switch in the framing of the uncertain information was found to increase support for government action on climate change in the recent study. And the focus on 'certain' events also helps to bridge the psychological distance between climate change and people' everyday lives – making it seems tangible, less abstract, and more relevant.[end quote]
Let's assume the “DON'T say” statement is taken from some solid academic work in 2012 and do some basic primary school math.
The computer simulation implies the rate of sea level rise between 25/(2072-2012) = 0.50 cm/year and 68/(2072-2012) = 1.36 cm/year, with the most likely rate of 50/(2072-2012) = 1.00 cm/year. A 50-cm rise will occur in: 100 years, 37 years, or 50 years correspondingly. To communicate a mathematically correct simulation result, the “DO say” statement suddenly should read:
“Sea levels will rise by at least 50 cm, and this will occur at some time between 2049 and 2112, most likely, in 2072”.
It is already a much weaker statement than the bold lie in the “DO say” example, but still a bad math, however. The simulation was run only to 2072, and after that we have no right to make statements. The mathematically correct statement for the policy-makers should become:
“Sea levels will rise by at least 25 cm, and this will occur at some time between 2030 and 2072, most likely, in 2037. A 50-cm rise by 2072 is highly probable, with 68-cm as an absolute, highly unlikely, maximum.”
If the uncertainty is stated correctly, the “impact” of the statement on the politicians would be much less. A 50-cm rise is twice as much as the real 25-cm predicted by computer; the year 2030 is not too far away, so at least some politicians will feel responsible for the “bold decisions” they have to make in the particular session.
Now, the authors of "The UNCERTAINTY Handbook" have not supplied any reference to a real-world studies or measurements. Is 1 cm/year true? Well, according to the TOPEX/Janus satellite measurements {http://sealevel.colorado.edu}, the mean sea level rose from 1991 to 2018 by 0.31+-0.04 cm/year, and this corresponds closely to the sea gauge data. Apparently we have to re-word once again:
“Sea levels will rise by at least 8 cm, and this will occur at some time between 2030 and 2072, most likely, in 2037. A 15-cm rise by 2072 is highly probable, with 25-cm as an absolute, highly unlikely, maximum.”
Eight centimeters? (That's just over 3 inches.) Oh-oh! This won't fly with the politicians very well, will it?
No wonder that the government officials, who seldom carry a calculator to the sessions and never check the sources, give more support for an outrageous alarmist bullshit as opposed to the correctly stated academic findings!
Admittedly, the book of Dennis T. Avery does not cover all the uncertainties in the modern climatology - this would be impossible without making the book akin to "Das Kapital", but for a critical and skeptical reader - an excellent overview of the current climate science affairs. Read it with a calculator in your hand and check the references (the publisher conveniently placed them in the page footer, not at the back, thank you!) You would know how to defeat the clever "communicators" from the alarmist "back to the caves" camp.
You surely will enjoy the reading.
First of all, my compliments to the author for a solid work on the climate change issues.
Recently I came across a wonderful piece if cra... pardon me, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change propaganda named "The UNCERTAINTY Handbook: a practical guide for climate change communicators". One part deserves our special attention:
[quote] Climate change predictions are usually communicated using a standard “uncertain outcome” format.
But flip the statement around – using an 'uncertain time' framing – and suddenly it is clear that the question if when not if sea levels will rise by 50 cm.
DON'T say:
“By 2072, sea levels will rise by between 25 and 68 cm, with 50 cm being the average projection”
DO say
“Sea levels will rise by at least 50 cm, and this will occur at some time between 2060 and 2093”
This simple switch in the framing of the uncertain information was found to increase support for government action on climate change in the recent study. And the focus on 'certain' events also helps to bridge the psychological distance between climate change and people' everyday lives – making it seems tangible, less abstract, and more relevant.[end quote]
Let's assume the “DON'T say” statement is taken from some solid academic work in 2012 and do some basic primary school math.
The computer simulation implies the rate of sea level rise between 25/(2072-2012) = 0.50 cm/year and 68/(2072-2012) = 1.36 cm/year, with the most likely rate of 50/(2072-2012) = 1.00 cm/year. A 50-cm rise will occur in: 100 years, 37 years, or 50 years correspondingly. To communicate a mathematically correct simulation result, the “DO say” statement suddenly should read:
“Sea levels will rise by at least 50 cm, and this will occur at some time between 2049 and 2112, most likely, in 2072”.
It is already a much weaker statement than the bold lie in the “DO say” example, but still a bad math, however. The simulation was run only to 2072, and after that we have no right to make statements. The mathematically correct statement for the policy-makers should become:
“Sea levels will rise by at least 25 cm, and this will occur at some time between 2030 and 2072, most likely, in 2037. A 50-cm rise by 2072 is highly probable, with 68-cm as an absolute, highly unlikely, maximum.”
If the uncertainty is stated correctly, the “impact” of the statement on the politicians would be much less. A 50-cm rise is twice as much as the real 25-cm predicted by computer; the year 2030 is not too far away, so at least some politicians will feel responsible for the “bold decisions” they have to make in the particular session.
Now, the authors of "The UNCERTAINTY Handbook" have not supplied any reference to a real-world studies or measurements. Is 1 cm/year true? Well, according to the TOPEX/Janus satellite measurements {http://sealevel.colorado.edu}, the mean sea level rose from 1991 to 2018 by 0.31+-0.04 cm/year, and this corresponds closely to the sea gauge data. Apparently we have to re-word once again:
“Sea levels will rise by at least 8 cm, and this will occur at some time between 2030 and 2072, most likely, in 2037. A 15-cm rise by 2072 is highly probable, with 25-cm as an absolute, highly unlikely, maximum.”
Eight centimeters? (That's just over 3 inches.) Oh-oh! This won't fly with the politicians very well, will it?
No wonder that the government officials, who seldom carry a calculator to the sessions and never check the sources, give more support for an outrageous alarmist bullshit as opposed to the correctly stated academic findings!
Admittedly, the book of Dennis T. Avery does not cover all the uncertainties in the modern climatology - this would be impossible without making the book akin to "Das Kapital", but for a critical and skeptical reader - an excellent overview of the current climate science affairs. Read it with a calculator in your hand and check the references (the publisher conveniently placed them in the page footer, not at the back, thank you!) You would know how to defeat the clever "communicators" from the alarmist "back to the caves" camp.
You surely will enjoy the reading.
December 8, 2020
Excellent Overview of Global Warming
Finally! Someone publishes a technical treatment of global warming for everyday people! I've long thought that evidence of disaster due to warming was conflated...usually by thise who stood to gain monetarily or politically. Man made global warming is not science in the sense that most of us understand it to be. But this little reported but widely accepted alternative reasoning for warming is scientific in all details. I wish this were required reading for all college science classes if not upper classmen high school. Excellent read!
Finally! Someone publishes a technical treatment of global warming for everyday people! I've long thought that evidence of disaster due to warming was conflated...usually by thise who stood to gain monetarily or politically. Man made global warming is not science in the sense that most of us understand it to be. But this little reported but widely accepted alternative reasoning for warming is scientific in all details. I wish this were required reading for all college science classes if not upper classmen high school. Excellent read!
November 6, 2022
Wake up America
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews