• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Global Warming Science Update: Natural Forces Slow Warming

    University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee mathematicians Kyle L. Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis are predicting that global temperatures will change very little or even drop over the next decade – and possibly longer:

    Tsonis and Swanson used mathematical analysis to look at the role of the Earth’s natural climate cycles and the long-term weather patterns that drive them. The Earth’s global mean temperature swings up and down over time. It fell before World War I, increased during the 1920s and 1930s, fell again during the 1940s until about 1976. Then, global temperatures rose from 1976 to 2001. But the trend in mean temperatures since 2001 has been flat, said Tsonis, and is beginning to fall.

    Tsonis and Swanson found that the Earth is in the beginning of a long-term climate cycle where temperatures will level off or drop over the next few decades.The reason for the change is that, inevitably, climatic forces begin to work so closely together that a slight change creates instability and throws the climate into a new state.

    They used cyclists riding in a group time-trial as an example: Their motion is synchronized and carefully planned to maximize the team’s overall speed. But if they were tied together with a rope, the slightest misstep would cause a crash.”

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to Global Warming Science Update: Natural Forces Slow Warming

    1. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      These people call themselves as scientists using an analogy of synchronized bicycle riding to global climate changes. They start out by reciting the temperature cycles since 1900 which is purely reporting. Then they say they have some mathematical model which they claim now predicts flat or lower surface temperature during the next decade and beyond. Fundamentally, we don't have good mathematical relationship including interaction among variables to have any credibility to a sound mathematical model. Instead, people using available data are trying to do correlation analysis. The only thing is, correlation is not causation and hence can not make any reliable future predictions. File this under useless information.

    2. the doctor san diego says:

      brilliant scam al where should i send the check

    3. Ozzy6900, CT says:

      Someone should send President Obama, Al Gore and the rest of the Band of Idiots this information.

    4. Bryant Hopkins, Ar says:

      Unfortunately, the global warming crowd is marching in the wrong direction. It seeks to "cap and minimize" carbon dioxide, (CO2) as the sole source of warming. This is not the case. The sun itself is the major cause of warming, and its variations are ignored. There is a real need to change the way we develop and use heat energy. If we started a movement toward maximizing the use of electrical power, we would see improvement in the environment. We should continue the development of the electrical distribution grid. We should move to clean power sources: wind, solar and alternate fuels, as available. We should move away from COAL, a multiple pollutant, and develop NUCLEAR POWER as rapidly as possible. At this time, it is politically impossible: but the French have done it. So can we! As more electrical power becomes available, we can move toward electric-battery automobiles, and home heating. The possibilities are endless: if we stop and reconsider the real options.

    5. Loran says:

      It seems hat according to historical data we will endure significant pressures on the climate to change things in an unalterable fashion. A slightly warmer condition does benifit agricultural and seems to also benifit the fishing industry. A warmer or cooler situation is definately in the future. Take your pick.

    6. Pingback: Researchers Admit: Natural Forces are Ending Global Warming

    7. John A. Jauregui, G says:

      Nothing has done more to "GREEN" the planet over the last several decades than elevated levels of CO2 together with moderate sun driven warming. Studies show doubling CO2 levels increases plant growth rates 33 percent. It is no accident commercial greenhouse operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase the productivity of their operations. Farmers, ranchers and foresters, and in fact all living things, have benefited from this rare, but temporary, gift of nature. Why is our government spending so many resources to convince us otherwise?

    8. larrydalooza, illino says:

      Thank AGW we are passing cap n trade. All the AGW damn CO2 in the air. AGW bless America. Oh my AGW, I can't believe we almost boiled the Earth.

    9. 8th grade science st says:

      i can honestly say i think that who doesnt agree with this researh is a idiot who is falling for the people who invested in the sellin of energy efficient and nutt cases who think we are gonna burn to death my teacher is a student going for his doctorate degree and is nominated for the highest science teacher award in the US so when we are learning about climate change i believe him and he agrees with these men

    10. Oudebji Mohamed, Fac says:

      I am a professor of International Economic Law of Development. Honestly, I am not an Expert in the Sustainable Development.

      My reaction to the article of two authors consists of that, in my modest opinion,we can not trust (scientifically and Methodologically)the approach used by the authors especially when this approach is quantitative (mathematics, economitrics…). However, it would be preferable to use a qualitative approach:interviews, questionnaires and so on. In short, Qualitative approach take in consideration the relation between Theories and Reality.

    11. SLR Texas says:

      Instead of speculating what Swanson's point was, just go read what Swanson himself said about his paper (link below). His results are not not inconsistent with overall AGW.


      He ends his article with these words:

      "What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond."

    12. Pingback: White House Balks at ClimateGate, Says Climate Change is Happening | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.