The sun rises and sets every day. The tides go in and out every day. The planet warms and cools, warms and cools, in regular, repeating patterns, roughly every 1000 years, and there is not a single, solitary climate scientist who does not know that.

The last warming period was 1000 years ago, and it was called the Medieval Warm period. 1000 years before that, the Roman Warm period. A thousand years before that, the Egyptian warm period. 1000 years befor that, the Sumerian warm period. 1000 years before that, the Minoan Warm period. Between these warming periods were cooling periods. The modern world is emerging from the Little Ice Age 500 years ago and we are living in just another warming period, which only differs from thousands of warming periods that preceded it by coinciding with the industrialisation of the human race.

Could increased CO2 emissions exacerbate this warming period to any significant degree? Possibly. But until we can ascertain if it does and to what possible degree it is significant, it is absolute insanity to destroy our economies to the extent that we will destroy our own civilisation.

This entire "the end is nigh" religion is being pushed by vested interests who know which emotional buttons to push which will manipulate the "world saver" mob. These include almost the whole climate science leadership who see that promoting this hoax will increase the importance of their obscure science, massively increase it's funding, and allow them to dictate to governments about policy. Governments love HIGW as it gives them an excuse to massively increase taxes and allows them tom increase power and control over their own populations.

This has ben exacerbated by a fake news press more concerned with selling their media by focussing on catastrophe news than unbiased reportage.
HIGW has also been a cause celebre' for the always whining educated elite class who's reflexive opposition to mainstream thought is their most distinguishing feature. Once again, they can strut and virtue signal, and pretend that they are the smart ones while the rest of society are idiots.

LEGO,

I basically agree with what you're saying here.

But you got the order of your warm periods a little astray.Try this..

First Atlantic Warm Period about 7750 BC
Second Atlantic Warm Period about 7000 BC
First Saharan Warm period about 5800 BC
Second Saharan Warm Period about 5000 BC
Egyptian Warm period about 3200 BC
Sumerian Warm Period about 2200 BC
Minoan Warm Period about 1200 BC
Roman Warm Period about 0 BC
Medieval Warm Period about 1000 AD
Modern Warm Period about 2000 AD

It should be noted that each of these warming phases coincided with and probably initiated significant advances in man's development and well-being. Most of the great civilisations of the past rose as the temperatures rose and declined as cooling phases took hold.

There is ample evidence that the decline of Rome was at least partially caused by a decline in climate conditions. Equally there is good evidence that the fall of the Bronze Age societies resulted from a weakening of those societies in a cooling climate followed by invasion by peoples retreating from cold northern environs.

So, warming good. Cooling bad

Mhaze & LEGO, I agree with you both except I think 1000 years is too
long. The best period I have locked onto is 600 years.
The problem is it will almost certainly be a sine wave and it will be
difficult to tell just when the peak occurred because in our time
scale the top and bottom will look flat.
The Vikings arrived in Greenland in 985 and left about 1415.
The peak was probably in the earlier part of that time as it would
have been well underway by the time the Viking found it to be a good place to live.
The coldest part of the Maunder minimum seems to have been around
1775 and the last London Ice Festival was in 1814.
300 years on from then gives about now, but the Turku group suggest
the peak was 1995. But in the scale we are talking about what is 50 years ? Nothing.
Also because it requires the logical ANDing of several factors it may
not occur at exactly the same time each time. There could be an eleven
year shift either way. The sunspot cycle is 11 years.
Your thoughts please, I have been in the wilderness on this.

Thank you Mhaze or the correction. I will re study my research and verify what you have written, which is probably correct and does not essentially refute my argument.

Bazz,

The 1000 year figure is very rough. I don't think anyone's suggesting it a hard and fast cycle. Its just that the paleo data and historic data have these rough 1000 year cycles.

But for a start the margin of error in the paleo data is around 300 years. That's according to Marcott who cautioned that the 'resolution' of the data was at best 120 years for more recent paleo records and 300 years for older records.

So, if, for example, the paleo record shows the Minoan WP peaking around 1300BC that could mean the actual date was closer to 1500BC or 1000BC. We know a bit about the societies that grew duing that period and their start and end dates, but those dates don't necessarily correspond to the climate dates. We know virtually down to the year when the Bronze Age societies collapsed, but that date doesn't necessarily match the end of the WP.

While many of the events that cause these cycles are reasonably rhythmic, not all are. For example one of the features of Svensmark's theory is that the volume of galactic waves coming in are not constant but vary as the solar systems moves around the galactic centre. This, he opines, causes warming and cooling events to vary in intensity.

So, on average, the warming events happen around every 1000 years but that's just a very rough estimate. That they occur is beyond doubt but when and how often they occur and their duration is still very much guess work.

Here is a contrary post on the Medieval warming in Greenland.

http://tinyurl.com/y8jxt2xy

This believes that they did not leave because of the wx but because
the young people got bored ! Best reason I have heard knowing our young people !