In article ,
Graham P Davis writes:
I've built a graph based on the 1975 GARP analysis of 700,000 years
data. This analysis used cycles of 100,000, 20,000, 2,500, 200, and 100
years. Adding these cycles as best I could - not having the original
data and having to rely on a small graph published 25 years ago - I get
a global maximum temperature occurring towards the end of the 1730s.
Other peaks from 1700 to 2100 are 1855, 1940, and 2050, with the latter
being the highest of the slowly increasing series.

Those cycles seem to have suspiciously "convenient" lengths. Also, apart
from 2,500 and 200 years, all the cycles exactly divide into one
another, which I imagine will tend to amplify the effects. Wouldn't the
results have been very different if the last two cycles were really,
say, 193 and 104 years? A very small error in the estimated length of
the shorter cycles could make a big difference if you attempt to use
them over such a long period as 700,000 years.
--
John Hall

You can divide people into two categories:
those who divide people into two categories and those who don't