Milankovitch Cycles

[Old Rocks]

A good explanation of the Milankovitch Cycles;

 

[Wyatt earp]

What's so complicated? The earth gets farther away from the sun, water is wet.

 

[ding]

A better explanation on Milankovitch Cycles that doesn't take an hour and a half to explain.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A good explanation of the Milankovitch Cycles;

I watched another Youtube video which I think is good to explain what the Milankovitch Cycles do. Seeing how the US is getting pounded by cold weather, even though we have global warming....

 

[ding]

I watched another Youtube video which I think is good to explain what the Milankovitch Cycles do. Seeing how the US is getting pounded by cold weather, even though we have global warming....

You meant to say even though we are in an interglacial cycle. Global warming and global cooling are an artifact of the bipolar glaciated world we live in. Northern hemisphere ice core data is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that weren't caused by orbital forcing or atmospheric CO2.

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

archiv.klimanachrichten.de

 

[Crick]

You meant to say even though we are in an interglacial cycle. Global warming and global cooling are an artifact of the bipolar glaciated world we live in. Northern hemisphere ice core data is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that weren't caused by orbital forcing or atmospheric CO2.

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

archiv.klimanachrichten.de

And your contention is that all warming and cooling not caused by changes in orbital radius or GHGs was caused by tectonic changes affecting your bipolar obsession? There are a few points you need to consider:
1) Tectonic movement is as slow as slow can be. The changes that have taken place in the last 150 years are trivial to the point of meaninglessness with regards to the observed warming. Plates have moved a total of ~50 feet in that time.
2) Milankovitch cycles are just that - cycles. They are complex but they are still periodic and therefore completely predictable.
3) Believing you have found an unnoted mechanism for altering Earth's climate does NOT mean you get to ignore every other mechanism for altering Earth's climate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm completely baffled how CO2 lagged temperature for 450,000 years per the Vostok ice core dataset, but today it drives temperature.

Can someone explain that?

 

[Crick]

I'm completely baffled how CO2 lagged temperature for 450,000 years per the Vostok ice core dataset, but today it drives temperature.

Can someone explain that?

It has been explained TO YOU a dozen times or more

TROLL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It has been explained TO YOU a dozen times or more

TROLL

"Because we say so, Denier!" is not an explanation

 

[ding]

And your contention is that all warming and cooling not caused by changes in orbital radius or GHGs was caused by tectonic changes affecting your bipolar obsession? There are a few points you need to consider:
1) Tectonic movement is as slow as slow can be. The changes that have taken place in the last 150 years are trivial to the point of meaninglessness with regards to the observed warming. Plates have moved a total of ~50 feet in that time.
2) Milankovitch cycles are just that - cycles. They are complex but they are still periodic and therefore completely predictable.
3) Believing you have found an unnoted mechanism for altering Earth's climate does NOT mean you get to ignore every other mechanism for altering Earth's climate.

No, it was caused by the usual suspects; albedo, evaporative cooling, cloud formation, precipitation and solar radiation. Tectonics set the background conditions for bipolar glaciation, weather patterns and increased climate fluctuations.

 

[ding]

You know Crick ... I find it amusing that instead of acknowledging that the geologic record is littered with warming and cooling events which were not cause by CO2 or orbital forcing - which is a matter of public record - you instead imply that if I can't explain their causes that they didn't really happen which is silly as shit. Yes, the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends in the glacial and interglacial periods of the past 3 million years. Yes, within the glacial and interglacial periods warming and cooling trends were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

Fortunately for me though I was able to explain the causes of warming and cooling trends in both glacial and interglacial periods. Because if we exclude CO2 and orbital forcing as the cause for warming and cooling trends during glacial and interglacial periods the cause can only be due to the usual suspects; albedo, evaporative cooling, cloud formation, precipitation and solar radiation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, it was caused by the usual suspects; albedo, evaporative cooling, cloud formation, precipitation and solar radiation. Tectonics set the background conditions for bipolar glaciation, weather patterns and increased climate fluctuations.

Albedo, hmmm. Does all of the dirty coal burned by China (AGW Headquarters) affect albedo in any way?

 

[Flash]

A good explanation of the Milankovitch Cycles;

Kid, you are obsessed with this stupid AGW scam as JoeB is obsessed with Kyle Rittenhouse. LOL!

 

[ding]

Albedo, hmmm. Does all of the dirty coal burned by China (AGW Headquarters) affect albedo in any way?

Absolutely and there is precedence for that too. Some have made a compelling argument that it was the soot from burning coal affecting the albedo of snow that brought about the end of the little ice age.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Absolutely and there is precedence for that too. Some have made a compelling argument that it was the soot from burning coal that brought about the end of the little ice age.

If only there was a way to measure how much soot was in the ice today...it's beyond our skill sets I bet

 

[ding]

If only there was a way to measure how much soot was in the ice today...it's beyond our skill sets I bet

More like it's not the answer they want so there's no motivation to try.

 

[Crick]

More like it's not the answer they want so there's no motivation to try.

The IPCC lists carbon soot as the greatest radiative forcing factor after water vapor, CO2 and methane. So, you're once again wrong.

 

[ding]

The IPCC lists carbon soot as the greatest radiative forcing factor after water vapor, CO2 and methane. So, you're once again wrong.

0.1 W/m^2

 

[Crick]

0.1 W/m^2

AR6 (Pg 92 of the WG-I Technical Summary) shows black carbon at 0.16Wm^-2 but previous reports showed it consistently at 0.6 Wm^-2. In either case, you're claim that it was being suppressed to push CO2 as the sole threat is another unsupportable claim of yours.

From my local copy.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-SPM5-Radiative-forcing-estimates-in-2011-relative-to-1750-and-aggregated_fig1_266208027

 

[Crick]

The effect of black carbon has been noted on these diagrams for almost as long as they've been making them. Here seems to be the first appearance (as "Fossil fuel soot") in a graphic from the Second Assement Report in 1995


Shortly thereafter, the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report (pdf) added a couple of innovations:


Namely, an assessment of confidence, and the addition of aerosol forcings, while lumping the well-mixed gases all together. There is also the addition of the non-anthropogenic solar term.