No.
In fact, ice age cycles are pretty interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitc...
In the graph, note how ice age cycles line up with eccentricity cycles.
Here's a more complete description of the cycles. However, keep in mind that the ice ages fairly accurately line up with the eccentricity cycles.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Milankovi...
And a brief general synopsis.
http://geography.about.com/od/learnabout...
Over shorter intervals, the Maunder Minimum, a period of extreme solar inactivity, was responsible for the Little Ice Age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Min...
No it doesn't and Gary F is delusional if he thinks it provides evidence supporting his cult. It doesn't. In fact, ice core data shows that CO2 concentration is driven by temperature change, not vice versa. Other proxies aren't so kind to alarmists so they are ignored such as plant stomata data and chemical analyses, both showing CO2 was much more variable than alarmists doctrine allows. He suggests that we know enough to know that the 1 degree F isn't caused by Milankovitch cycles. Duhh. It didn't cause it in the last 100 years for sure. They work on a longer cycle. There are longer term "cycles" and shorter term variation. The change in the last hundred years falls easily within normal short term variation that occurred naturally before humans emitted CO2. Trying to blame our CO2 on any change is ridiculous and totally unscientific but that is who alarmist really are.
The Earth has had many cold and warm periods in it's history of course go back that far and longer term forces come into play, like the Sun, which is slowing increasing in output at the rate of ~10% per billion years.
Or the slow movement of continents that also affect ocean currents and the planets albedo.
But both these are on time scales far to long to be causing our current problem.
Which is why deniers often try to refer to the relationship between CO2 and temp, 500 million years ago when they was no life on land and the continents where in very different position to where they are today.
(no life on land means no plants, all the planets land masses where barren desert, a very different albedo)
The current cycle of ice ages is a relative recent event (~2.5 million years) the continents moved apart i.e. Australia and South Africa separated from Antarctica 10's of millions of years ago allowing the Southern ocean to encircle Antarctic cooling it down it had long had a dark winter due to it location but the added effect of the circumpolar current allowed the massive ice sheets to form that we see today. This affected the temp of the entire plant cooling it a little, enough that the small effect of the Maunder Minimum started to cause cyclic glacial periods ~2.5 million years ago.
The warm periods in these cycles are triggered by the Maunder which in turn increases CO2 which adds even more to the warming effect. the reverse happens when we go back into a glacial. The Maunder shifts back and CO2 reduces as we cool, but it takes about 3 times longer to go back as CO2 is very slow to drop out of the atmosphere again.
AGW is an increase in CO2 caused directly by us, deniers use excuses like cave men didn't have SUV's all the time and ask why past levels changed, oddly these same deniers have also tried to use volcanoes to explain present rises in CO2 yet seem to completely (or conveniently) forget this when talking about past climate.
Past major climate change is often linked to increases or reductions in CO2 levels and the increases are often linked to massive volcanic activity, that dwarfs anything we have seen in our recorded history.
Our current activity is man-made but it still adds CO2 the cause may be different but the effect is the same.
e.g. the P.E.T.M (55 million years ago)
Was an increase in CO2 linked to massive volcanic eruption it was a rise in CO2 over thousands of years, the planet warmed and eventually lead to a mass extinction due to ocean acidification.
We have also had massive glacial periods in the far distant past, when most of the planet froze, this was ended by that same volcanic activity which eventual forced it's way through after being held down by the ice for millions of year and when it did, there was no exposed rock and little life for the usual absorption of CO2 and it built in the atmosphere very quickly, ending this large glacial period.
They prove nothing about AGW; however they are used as evidence supporting AGW. The effect of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 was identified was only after every known natural driver of temperature had been tested and found to not explain the observational data. We have a sufficient understanding of ice age cycles to know that they are not responsible for the recent historic trend in mean annual global temperature.
Does the fact that my apartment goes through natural warming and cooling cycles disprove the fact that I can adjust its temperature by turning on the radiators?
No, and just because New York isn't underwater today doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow, that snow won't be a rare thing children will have to learn about in history books, that it was warmer during the MWP, colder during the LIA, being wrong doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to make you wrong or one to make everyone believe your right.
No. It shows that climate change can and does occur naturally. That in no way suggests climate change can't be created by human action.
That would be like saying that because forest fires can occur for natural reasons it "disproves" the idea that a human can start a forest fire.
Nope.
Don't be silly. Look at the rates of change in natural cycles and in AGW. The latter is far faster.
No.
That is a silly anti-science myth.
For some more clever myths see here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
no. forest fires occur naturally too. by that logic humans cannot start forest fires.
nopes
not at all
