Milankovitch Cycles

[Crick]

All the more reason for every dissenting opinion to be discussed and evaluated rather than dismissed and discouraged.

I imagine that internally, they were discussed and evaluated and as a result, they were dismissed. No one went on to discourage rejected authors. The rejection itself does more than enough of that. You're having a fantasy.

 

[ding]

I imagine that internally, they were discussed and evaluated and as a result, they were dismissed. No one went on to discourage rejected authors. The rejection itself does more than enough of that. You're having a fantasy.

That doesn't work when the people discussing it all agree. It only works when you actually include the people who disagree and encourage them to disagree which is the exact opposite of what the IPCC has done. Their drive to speak with one voice is the antithesis of science.

 

[Crick]

That doesn't work when the people discussing it all agree. It only works when you actually include the people who disagree and encourage them to disagree which is the exact opposite of what the IPCC has done. Their drive to speak with one voice is the antithesis of science.

Jesus, you don't have a fucking thing. I'm sorry if that hurts, but this is just ignorant fantasy.

 

[psikeyhackr]

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?

Where did the CO2 come from and why?

The CO2 came from the oceans due to the slow warming caused by the Milankovitch Cycles. Was it an increase of 2 ppm per century or less than that?

Now we dig up or drill for the carbon and burn it.

Now we have raised the concentration by 100 ppm in the 64 years that it has been measured. So change something about the atmosphere about 100 times faster than anything in the last 10 million years and expect scientists to figure out and agree on the consequences overnight.

No spare planet and natural processes could take centuries to remove the CO2. Brilliant!

 

[Crick]

Correct. It is the rate of change that is fucking us all. If this were happening at the sort of pace natural processes run, we'd never have noticed any problem.

 

[ding]

Jesus, you don't have a fucking thing. I'm sorry if that hurts, but this is just ignorant fantasy.

I disagree. I have them not including dissenting opinions on their ridiculous claim that water vapor is a net positive feedback. Fifty million years of cooling disputes that theory.

 

[ding]

Where did the CO2 come from and why?

The CO2 came from the oceans due to the slow warming caused by the Milankovitch Cycles. Was it an increase of 2 ppm per century or less than that?

Now we dig up or drill for the carbon and burn it.

Now we have raised the concentration by 100 ppm in the 64 years that it has been measured. So change something about the atmosphere about 100 times faster than anything in the last 10 million years and expect scientists to figure out and agree on the consequences overnight.

No spare planet and natural processes could take centuries to remove the CO2. Brilliant!

Pre-industrial revolution there is no other mechanism than sequestration/release of CO2 from the ocean that explains the correlation between temperature and CO2 with atmospheric CO2 being dependent upon temperature. Post industrial revolution that correlation is broken.

 

[ding]

Correct. It is the rate of change that is fucking us all. If this were happening at the sort of pace natural processes run, we'd never have noticed any problem.

If that were the case the planet wouldn't be 2C cooler than the previous interglacial period with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial period.

 

[psikeyhackr]

If that were the case the planet wouldn't be 2C cooler than the previous interglacial period with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial period.

Then you should have an explanation for why the interglacials before the last one did not get so warm. You select the data that you think helps your argument and ignore what does not. Doing that just makes your cherry picking obvious.

Industry puts aerosols into the atmosphere in addition to CO2 so it is not like CO2 is The Only Factor affecting the climate.

 

[ding]

Then you should have an explanation for why the interglacials before the last one did not get so warm. You select the data that you think helps your argument and ignore what does not. Doing that just makes your cherry picking obvious.

Industry puts aerosols into the atmosphere in addition to CO2 so it is not like CO2 is The Only Factor affecting the climate.

Sure. The usual suspects; albedo, evaporation, cloud formation and precipitation.

 

[ding]

Where did the CO2 come from and why?

The ocean. Here's the why...

 

[psikeyhackr]

The ocean. Here's the why...

I answered that in the post where I posed the question.

The peak temperatures of interglacials varied. So the last one was the highest.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where did the CO2 come from and why?

The CO2 came from the oceans due to the slow warming caused by the Milankovitch Cycles. Was it an increase of 2 ppm per century or less than that?

Now we dig up or drill for the carbon and burn it.

Now we have raised the concentration by 100 ppm in the 64 years that it has been measured. So change something about the atmosphere about 100 times faster than anything in the last 10 million years and expect scientists to figure out and agree on the consequences overnight.

No spare planet and natural processes could take centuries to remove the CO2. Brilliant!

Are you claiming that 120PPM of CO2 can cause a 2C increase in temperature?

 

[westwall]

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?
[Acadiana.

Magic.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Are you claiming that 120PPM of CO2 can cause a 2C increase in temperature?

Have you heard of global dimming?

Humans are doing contradictory things to the atmosphere. Aerosols block and reflect light by collecting water molecules. The CO2 raises temperature by reducing the rate of infrared escaping into space. There is no controlled experiment for only CO2.

 

[ding]

I answered that in the post where I posed the question.
View attachment 747158
The peak temperatures of interglacials varied. So the last one was the highest.

As in the previous interglacial period. But yes, the peak temperatures of interglacials did vary and so did the sea level.

 

[psikeyhackr]

As in the previous interglacial period. But yes, the peak temperatures of interglacials did vary and so did the sea level.
View attachment 747193

So.....? You pointed out that the Peak Temperature of the last interglacial was higher than this one. The graph stored on my phone agrees with what you said. So what?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Have you heard of global dimming?

Humans are doing contradictory things to the atmosphere. Aerosols block and reflect light by collecting water molecules. The CO2 raises temperature by reducing the rate of infrared escaping into space. There is no controlled experiment for only CO2.

Soooooooo, now you’re saying that there are too many variables and can’t say for certain that CO2 is responsible?????

 

[skookerasbil]

Ummm...this thread is 12 months old. A dud.

Nobody cares about this.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Soooooooo, now you’re saying that there are too many variables and can’t say for certain that CO2 is responsible?????

Are you under the impression that putting words into people's mouths is intelligent?

I specified TWO variables but you want to focus on only ONE. CO2 is not the only factor. But there are more than TWO. There is methane from cows and from tundra. However since there is no global warming not much is coming from tundra, right? Of course you want to complain computer models that are used to try to figure out stuff that is TOO complicated.