So, we are in agreement then?

[Theowl32]

Earth experienced a major ice age about every 100,000 years. Scientists have several theories to explain this glacial cycle, but new research suggests the primary driving force is all in how the planet leans.

The Earth's rotation axis is not perpendicular to the plane in which it orbits the Sun. It's offset by 23.5 degrees. This tilt, or obliquity, explains why we have seasons and why places above the Arctic Circle have 24-hour darkness in winter and constant sunlight in the summer.

But the angle is not constant - it is currently decreasing from a maximum of 24 degrees towards a minimum of 22.5 degrees. This variation goes in a 40,000-year cycle.

 

[editec]

Not sure that its as cyclic as that but the record does suggest that ice ages come and go

 

[Kosh]

I agree that climate change happens on Earth with or without humans on it.

I agree that Global Warming is a natural process.

I agree that AGW is bunk.

 

[Theowl32]

Not sure that its as cyclic as that but the record does suggest that ice ages come and go

Yes, and the reverse is also true then. Ice ages come and go, and so do warming cycles....of course.

The simple fact is the earth came out of the last "mini-ice age" around 1850. The earth went through this cooling cycle from around the 1300s till around mid 1800s. This is an actual well documented fact.

It is illustrated by the fact that the Delaware River, which use to be choked with ice by Christmas (highlighted by the famous Leutze painting of Washington crossing the river on Christmas 1776). It has not been choked with ice since around 1850. Long before man invented the combustion engine.

The earth has indeed been warming, and this is not the debate with warmists. It is about the effects of man of that process. There is no consensus that states that man is having such an effect.

It is reported to be a foregone conclusion and it is not a foregone conclusion.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Earth experienced a major ice age about every 100,000 years. Scientists have several theories to explain this glacial cycle, but new research suggests the primary driving force is all in how the planet leans.

The Earth's rotation axis is not perpendicular to the plane in which it orbits the Sun. It's offset by 23.5 degrees. This tilt, or obliquity, explains why we have seasons and why places above the Arctic Circle have 24-hour darkness in winter and constant sunlight in the summer.

But the angle is not constant - it is currently decreasing from a maximum of 24 degrees towards a minimum of 22.5 degrees. This variation goes in a 40,000-year cycle.

and the various active states of the sun

 

[Old Rocks]

No, we are not in agreement, and even this explanation is far too simplistic, though orders of magnitudes better than what you posted;

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The forcings of the Milankovic Cycles are far too weak on their own to create the glacial cycles we have seen. However, the feedbacks of the forcings on the GHGs, CO2 and CH4, do the job nicely. The physics of that are such that those forcings do not care whether the GHGs were created by natural processes, or by mankind. Put more GHGs in the atmosphere, and the earth will warm. Put those GHGs in the atmosphere rapidly, and it will warm rapidly. We have, in less than 150 years, added 40% more CO2 and 250% more CH4. There are and will be consequences from that.

In the geological past, when there was rapid addition of GHGs from Trapp Volcanics, there was rapid warming and periods of extinctions.

The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway

 

[Old Rocks]

I agree that climate change happens on Earth with or without humans on it.

I agree that Global Warming is a natural process.

I agree that AGW is bunk.

And all agree that statements that lack any kind of backing lack any kind of credibility.

 

[Theowl32]

No, we are not in agreement, and even this explanation is far too simplistic, though orders of magnitudes better than what you posted;

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The forcings of the Milankovic Cycles are far too weak on their own to create the glacial cycles we have seen. However, the feedbacks of the forcings on the GHGs, CO2 and CH4, do the job nicely. The physics of that are such that those forcings do not care whether the GHGs were created by natural processes, or by mankind. Put more GHGs in the atmosphere, and the earth will warm. Put those GHGs in the atmosphere rapidly, and it will warm rapidly. We have, in less than 150 years, added 40% more CO2 and 250% more CH4. There are and will be consequences from that.

In the geological past, when there was rapid addition of GHGs from Trapp Volcanics, there was rapid warming and periods of extinctions.

The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway

What was the main cause for the planet coming out of the mini-ice age that lasted from the 4th century till the 19th century? Around 1850.


What is your best "educated guess?"

 

[Old Rocks]

Not sure that its as cyclic as that but the record does suggest that ice ages come and go

Yes, and the reverse is also true then. Ice ages come and go, and so do warming cycles....of course.

The simple fact is the earth came out of the last "mini-ice age" around 1850. The earth went through this cooling cycle from around the 1300s till around mid 1800s. This is an actual well documented fact.

It is illustrated by the fact that the Delaware River, which use to be choked with ice by Christmas (highlighted by the famous Leutze painting of Washington crossing the river on Christmas 1776). It has not been choked with ice since around 1850. Long before man invented the combustion engine.

The earth has indeed been warming, and this is not the debate with warmists. It is about the effects of man of that process. There is no consensus that states that man is having such an effect.

It is reported to be a foregone conclusion and it is not a foregone conclusion.

I see. No consensus. But every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, we are not in agreement, and even this explanation is far too simplistic, though orders of magnitudes better than what you posted;

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The forcings of the Milankovic Cycles are far too weak on their own to create the glacial cycles we have seen. However, the feedbacks of the forcings on the GHGs, CO2 and CH4, do the job nicely. The physics of that are such that those forcings do not care whether the GHGs were created by natural processes, or by mankind. Put more GHGs in the atmosphere, and the earth will warm. Put those GHGs in the atmosphere rapidly, and it will warm rapidly. We have, in less than 150 years, added 40% more CO2 and 250% more CH4. There are and will be consequences from that.

In the geological past, when there was rapid addition of GHGs from Trapp Volcanics, there was rapid warming and periods of extinctions.

The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway

What was the main cause for the planet coming out of the mini-ice age that lasted from the 4th century till the 19th century? Around 1850.


What is your best "educated guess?"

There are many people with years of study in this field that have far more ability to make a 'best guess' than I do. Here is just one of them.

The Maunder Minimum and Climate Change: Have Historical Records Aided Current Research?

 

[Theowl32]

I agree that climate change happens on Earth with or without humans on it.

I agree that Global Warming is a natural process.

I agree that AGW is bunk.

And all agree that statements that lack any kind of backing lack any kind of credibility.

Plenty of statements have been made with plenty of reputable sources and backing. You ignoring it or dismissing them is not credible on your part.

The fact that (Man made) global warming "scientists" receive 3200 times more funding ought to be a clue.

If it is truly man made global warming, and there has not been a cooling trend, then why has there been a concerted move to change the term from global warming to "climate change?"

Is it because they can then include any and all changes in the climate and there is no true consensus as has been purported by the agenda driven media?

Have you found out where the billions of dollars yet that were lost on Solyndra and the various other "green companies?"

No? You do know where the billions are?

Get a clue that big money dictates everything, and it is not limited to the right whitey. Just understand that you are nothing but a pawn. A shill to promote the scam, while they change terminology, and report skewed stats.

I will be waiting for you to explain to all of us why the scientific community changed the term to climate change.

 

[Theowl32]

Not sure that its as cyclic as that but the record does suggest that ice ages come and go

Yes, and the reverse is also true then. Ice ages come and go, and so do warming cycles....of course.

The simple fact is the earth came out of the last "mini-ice age" around 1850. The earth went through this cooling cycle from around the 1300s till around mid 1800s. This is an actual well documented fact.

It is illustrated by the fact that the Delaware River, which use to be choked with ice by Christmas (highlighted by the famous Leutze painting of Washington crossing the river on Christmas 1776). It has not been choked with ice since around 1850. Long before man invented the combustion engine.

The earth has indeed been warming, and this is not the debate with warmists. It is about the effects of man of that process. There is no consensus that states that man is having such an effect.

It is reported to be a foregone conclusion and it is not a foregone conclusion.

I see. No consensus. But every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

Yeah, they changed the term to climate change and not global warming. You should try and figure out why.

Also, trace the money that is given to the scientific community and combine that with the change in terminology.

3200 times more funding for these scientific societies that are GW believers.

Naaah, nothing to any of that.

 

[Theowl32]

No, we are not in agreement, and even this explanation is far too simplistic, though orders of magnitudes better than what you posted;

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The forcings of the Milankovic Cycles are far too weak on their own to create the glacial cycles we have seen. However, the feedbacks of the forcings on the GHGs, CO2 and CH4, do the job nicely. The physics of that are such that those forcings do not care whether the GHGs were created by natural processes, or by mankind. Put more GHGs in the atmosphere, and the earth will warm. Put those GHGs in the atmosphere rapidly, and it will warm rapidly. We have, in less than 150 years, added 40% more CO2 and 250% more CH4. There are and will be consequences from that.

In the geological past, when there was rapid addition of GHGs from Trapp Volcanics, there was rapid warming and periods of extinctions.

The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway

What was the main cause for the planet coming out of the mini-ice age that lasted from the 4th century till the 19th century? Around 1850.


What is your best "educated guess?"

There are many people with years of study in this field that have far more ability to make a 'best guess' than I do. Here is just one of them.

The Maunder Minimum and Climate Change: Have Historical Records Aided Current Research?

Well, do you believe it was a man made reason or not? 1850. Long before the combustion engine was invented.


Solar storms eh? Ok.

Interesting.

 

[Kosh]

I agree that climate change happens on Earth with or without humans on it.

I agree that Global Warming is a natural process.

I agree that AGW is bunk.

And all agree that statements that lack any kind of backing lack any kind of credibility.

So I see that the AGW culist now believe this:

That climate can only change with the presence of Humans

That global warming is an artificial process

And that AGW is the gospel.

What kind of creditable backing do you have for that stance?

 

[Kosh]

Not sure that its as cyclic as that but the record does suggest that ice ages come and go

Yes, and the reverse is also true then. Ice ages come and go, and so do warming cycles....of course.

The simple fact is the earth came out of the last "mini-ice age" around 1850. The earth went through this cooling cycle from around the 1300s till around mid 1800s. This is an actual well documented fact.

It is illustrated by the fact that the Delaware River, which use to be choked with ice by Christmas (highlighted by the famous Leutze painting of Washington crossing the river on Christmas 1776). It has not been choked with ice since around 1850. Long before man invented the combustion engine.

The earth has indeed been warming, and this is not the debate with warmists. It is about the effects of man of that process. There is no consensus that states that man is having such an effect.

It is reported to be a foregone conclusion and it is not a foregone conclusion.

I see. No consensus. But every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

When the pastors of the AGW church control the grant money, what do you expect?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yes, and the reverse is also true then. Ice ages come and go, and so do warming cycles....of course.

The simple fact is the earth came out of the last "mini-ice age" around 1850. The earth went through this cooling cycle from around the 1300s till around mid 1800s. This is an actual well documented fact.

It is illustrated by the fact that the Delaware River, which use to be choked with ice by Christmas (highlighted by the famous Leutze painting of Washington crossing the river on Christmas 1776). It has not been choked with ice since around 1850. Long before man invented the combustion engine.

The earth has indeed been warming, and this is not the debate with warmists. It is about the effects of man of that process. There is no consensus that states that man is having such an effect.

It is reported to be a foregone conclusion and it is not a foregone conclusion.

I see. No consensus. But every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

When the pastors of the AGW church control the grant money, what do you expect?

pastors of the AGW church

more like shamans

instead off offering the hearts of folks to the gods

they want to offer carbon credits

to be in the good graces of the weather gods

--LOL

 

[Abraham3]

Not sure that its as cyclic as that but the record does suggest that ice ages come and go

Yes, and the reverse is also true then. Ice ages come and go, and so do warming cycles....of course.

The simple fact is the earth came out of the last "mini-ice age" around 1850. The earth went through this cooling cycle from around the 1300s till around mid 1800s. This is an actual well documented fact.

It is illustrated by the fact that the Delaware River, which use to be choked with ice by Christmas (highlighted by the famous Leutze painting of Washington crossing the river on Christmas 1776). It has not been choked with ice since around 1850. Long before man invented the combustion engine.

The earth has indeed been warming, and this is not the debate with warmists. It is about the effects of man of that process. There is no consensus that states that man is having such an effect.

It is reported to be a foregone conclusion and it is not a foregone conclusion.

The warming and cooling of the MWP and the LIA were NOT caused by axial precession, eccentricity or any of the other Milankovitch cycles. None of these cycles will be hitting any sort of max or min for another 10,000 years.

Did you watch the first video that mistakenly linked to yesterday? It explains it quite nicely.

And there most assuredly IS a consensus that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the global warming of the last 150 years.

 

[Abraham3]

Plenty of statements have been made with plenty of reputable sources and backing. You ignoring it or dismissing them is not credible on your part.

He is dismissing unqualified bloggers. You are ignoring the bulk of mainstream science. I don't think you've earned the right to criticize him at all.

The fact that (Man made) global warming "scientists" receive 3200 times more funding ought to be a clue.

It's a clue that you lost your thinking cap somewhere along the line. If you were someone who thought demons caused disease, you could gripe about all the money being spent on germ-theory based cures. You could accuse the world of persecuting you. You could do precisely what you're doing here. Do you not see that? The dominant theory gets funded. Hair-brained ideas that don't work, that don't explain the observations, that risk failing to deal with a real and serious threat DON''T get funded.

If it is truly man made global warming, and there has not been a cooling trend, then why has there been a concerted move to change the term from global warming to "climate change?"

I haven't the foggiest idea why people switched from global warming to climate change. I've never changed and no one has ever suggested I should. But if you think it has any significance - particularly given the overwhelming evidence for AGW and its extremely wide acceptance among climate scientists - you're just being silly. It means nothing.

Is it because they can then include any and all changes in the climate and there is no true consensus as has been purported by the agenda driven media?

There most certainly IS a consensus of support for the IPCC position: global warming is taking place, it represents a real and serious threat and its primary cause is human GHG emissions. If you have not already read it, please review the Wikipedia article on the scientific opinion on global warming: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you found out where the billions of dollars yet that were lost on Solyndra and the various other "green companies?"

It probably went into the hands of banks and other investors that put money into Solyndra and these other companies where it OFFSET their losses. Failing businesses are not money-making schemes. Other people got that money because they had put up their own cash as an investment in those companies. The government paid them off because it had guaranteed that some of them would get some of their money back. That guarantee was why they put their money up in the first place. But, as I have already told you once (among other things I've already told you that you don't seem to have absorbed) Solyndra has ZERO bearing on the validity of AGW.

Get a clue that big money dictates everything, and it is not limited to the right whitey. Just understand that you are nothing but a pawn. A shill to promote the scam, while they change terminology, and report skewed stats.

I will be waiting for you to explain to all of us why the scientific community changed the term to climate change.

What the fuck are you talking about? Who is "the right whitey"? To WHOM am I a pawn? To WHOM am I shilling? You are really making me embarrassed to admit we attended the same school.

Here: Global warming vs climate change

is an informed discussion about the difference between global warming and climate change. Educate yourself, please.

 

[flacaltenn]

I posted a thread last week --- no responses --- about a new study that resolves the glacial cycle inconsistentcies with cyclical effects from the sun.. Most likely the convergence of the two different cyclic functions. Milankovitch alone does not behave close enough on its own..

 

[Kosh]

I posted a thread last week --- no responses --- about a new study that resolves the glacial cycle inconsistentcies with cyclical effects from the sun.. Most likely the convergence of the two different cyclic functions. Milankovitch alone does not behave close enough on its own..

AGW cultists thinking is only one thing can be the blame/cause of anything, like one of the tiniest parts of the atmosphere as controlling climate.

There are multiple factors involved in our climate and many things that drive it, but CO2 is not one of those.