So, we are in agreement then?

[Abraham3]

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..

For what response were you looking? In general, I'd say the sun's long term changes were too slow and her short term changes were too fast. I'd also say it has jack to do with global warming.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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..

For what response were you looking? In general, I'd say the sun's long term changes were too slow and her short term changes were too fast. I'd also say it has jack to do with global warming.

discount the sun as a warming factor --LOL

 

[orogenicman]

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..

For what response were you looking? In general, I'd say the sun's long term changes were too slow and her short term changes were too fast. I'd also say it has jack to do with global warming.

discount the sun as a warming factor --LOL

discount CO2 as a warming factor - LOL

 

[editec]

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.

You have been tragically misinformed, Owl.

I used to live in PA right next to the Delaware about 30 miles north of Washington's Crossing.

The Delaware froze over plenty when I was kid. In fact it froze over in EASTON PA, just north of the Lehigh river, this winter.

I've seen the Delaware very much like you see in that picture.

It was (and probably still is) quite common to see that river freeze over.

Its not a deep river and the flow is modest.

 

[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.

You have been tragically misinformed, Owl.

I used to live in PA right next to the Delaware about 30 miles north of Washington's Crossing.

The Delaware froze over plenty when I was kid. In fact it froze over in EASTON PA, just north of the Lehigh river, this winter.

I've seen the Delaware very much like you see in that picture.

It was (and probably still is) quite common to see that river freeze over.

Its not a deep river and the flow is modest.

Not at Christmas. Quite rare since 1850, as opposed to the period during the mini-ice age which was a regular occurrence during that time period.

You are not saying there was no such thing as a mini-ice age that lasted from the 4th century till the mid 19th century, are you?

Little confused.

 

[SwimExpert]

The simple fact is the earth came out of the last "mini-ice age" around 1850.

Actually, the "mini ice age" is more of a pop culture term. The Earth is still in an ice age, and has been for 2 1/2 million years.

 

[Theowl32]

The simple fact is the earth came out of the last "mini-ice age" around 1850.

Actually, the "mini ice age" is more of a pop culture term. The Earth is still in an ice age, and has been for 2 1/2 million years.

NOOOOOW HEEEEEAAAAR THISSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are in an ice age!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jon_berzerk]

For what response were you looking? In general, I'd say the sun's long term changes were too slow and her short term changes were too fast. I'd also say it has jack to do with global warming.

discount the sun as a warming factor --LOL

discount CO2 as a warming factor - LOL

yes CO2 is not a factor

 

[orogenicman]

discount the sun as a warming factor --lol

discount co2 as a warming factor - lol

yes co2 is not a factor

lol

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

You don't even know what you're taking about. You argue as if you are rummaging around in a box full of terms, and you just throw them up and fashion an argument around them, with little to know understanding.

Axial tilt (what the OP is talking about) is an entirely different thing from the Milankovitch cycle. The fact that you would even mention Milankovitch cycles while not understanding what the OP is talking about is proof positive that you are nothing more than a parrot head regurgitating things you've heard Al Gore or someone else say, despite having no knowledge or understanding of the matters for yourself.

The tilt of the Earth's axis is constantly changing, and is not fixed. It varies from 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees. The change is slow and takes a little more than 20k years to go from one to the other, and 40k years to complete a full cycle (from greatest tilt, to least tilt, back to greatest tilt). When the axis is at greatest tilt, the distinctions between the seasons is greatest. When at least tilt, the distinction between seasons is least dramatic. However, this does not occur evenly across the globe, with higher and lower latitudes experiencing differing degrees of seasonal isolation.

The fact that you don't now these things, yet you even bother to mention the Milankovitch cycle betrays your [lack of] knowledge on this entire subject. The Milankovitch cycles are a compilation of multiple astronomical patterns and cycles, with obliquity (tilt of the planet's axis) being just one of them.

Now that we have definitive evidence that you've never known what you are talking about in the first place, how about you take a seat and let the grown ups do the heavy lifting, mkay?

 

[SwimExpert]

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..

Wait. So you mean to tell me that climate change is multiple vector issue? Well what the hell are we supposed to do know? We're looking for easy answers here that I can use to make me feel superior and judge others when penguins die.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Actually, there is a short period and a long period. The short period is about 18.6 years, while the long period is about 41,040 years. The Moon helps stabilize the Earth's obliquity, but it is also receding from the Earth. If it continues to recede, resonances may occur which will cause large oscillations of the obliquity. The last major cold snap that was similar to what we are encountering today was about 20 years ago, a fairly good fit with the short term obliquity + or - a year or two.

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually, there is a short period and a long period. The short period is about 18.6 years, while the long period is about 41,040 years. The Moon helps stabilize the Earth's obliquity, but it is also receding from the Earth. If it continues to recede, resonances may occur which will cause large oscillations of the obliquity. The last major cold snap that was similar to what we are encountering today was about 20 years ago, a fairly good fit with the short term obliquity + or - a year or two.

What are you doing, reading Wikipedia and screwing up the regurgitation? The "short term" you are talking about is called nutation, and is distinct from precession.

 

[flacaltenn]

discount the sun as a warming factor --LOL

discount CO2 as a warming factor - LOL

yes CO2 is not a factor

Lemme be the moderate here for once.. CO2 will never cause runaway warming. It's effects as both a PRECURSOR and a PRODUCT of warming are modest. The Sun, the Earths Orbital dynamics, and MAYBE even the effect on the Sun from planetary alignments are the historical climate drivers. For the latter, see CMSS (center of mass of the Solar System). Other minor drivers like volcanic episodes and asteroids also played a role.

And to Abraham with his cute 3 little Bears story about the Sun being too fast, too slow or "just right" to match glacial periods ---- READ THE THREAD I POSTED.....

 

[orogenicman]

discount CO2 as a warming factor - LOL

yes CO2 is not a factor

Lemme be the moderate here for once. CO2 will never cause runaway warming.

Ahem:

It's effects as both a PRECURSOR and a PRODUCT of warming are modest. The Sun, the Earths Orbital dynamics, and MAYBE even the effect on the Sun from planetary alignments are the historical climate drivers.

Erm, "the effect on the Sun from planetary alignments are the historical climate drivers"? Is essentially ZERO with regard towarming of the past 150 years. Wow, you'll go for anybody's bullshite as long as it doesn't involve manmade greenhouse gases.

For the latter, see CMSS (center of mass of the Solar System). Other minor drivers like volcanic episodes and asteroids also played a role.

VERY minor role. The Moon plays a far more significant role than all of the other planets combined.

 

[SwimExpert]

Ahem:

You're right. You're absolutely right. All the coal and oil burning that humans did on Venus really ruined the atmosphere there.

Idiot.

In case you didn't know this, Venus' atmosphere is nearly 100 times more dense than the Earth's atmosphere, and has a composition of more than 95% CO2. Oh, and it's all naturally occurring. Imagine that. Venus is an entirely different environment than Earth. Completely different.

If you had any intellectual competence, or honesty, you would comprehend that nobody has said that CO2 doesn't contribute to a greenhouse effect. The real problem here is that science deniers like yourself refuse to admit that climate is caused by a wide range of factors, and that the greenhouse effect on Earth is nowhere near as powerful as you want it to be.

 

[flacaltenn]

yes CO2 is not a factor

Lemme be the moderate here for once. CO2 will never cause runaway warming.

Ahem:

It's effects as both a PRECURSOR and a PRODUCT of warming are modest. The Sun, the Earths Orbital dynamics, and MAYBE even the effect on the Sun from planetary alignments are the historical climate drivers.

Erm, "the effect on the Sun from planetary alignments are the historical climate drivers"? Is essentially ZERO with regard towarming of the past 150 years. Wow, you'll go for anybody's bullshite as long as it doesn't involve manmade greenhouse gases.

For the latter, see CMSS (center of mass of the Solar System). Other minor drivers like volcanic episodes and asteroids also played a role.

VERY minor role. The Moon plays a far more significant role than all of the other planets combined.

So youve modeled every aspect of the Sun's core and surface as it chases the CMSS? Please send me a copy of that.. We dont KNOW whether the effect would be in spectral shape shifts, visible output, internal magnetics or DOZENS of other possible effects.. BUT WE DO SEE a very repeatable 60 yr cycle in the temp record and CMSS mechanics COULD be one explanation. Thats all.. Just trying to be complete.. BTW All the warming in your lifetime is less than 0.1% variation in the ""solar constant. So things that "play a very minor role, are not off the table.

 

[orogenicman]

Lemme be the moderate here for once. CO2 will never cause runaway warming.

Ahem:

Erm, "the effect on the Sun from planetary alignments are the historical climate drivers"? Is essentially ZERO with regard towarming of the past 150 years. Wow, you'll go for anybody's bullshite as long as it doesn't involve manmade greenhouse gases.

For the latter, see CMSS (center of mass of the Solar System). Other minor drivers like volcanic episodes and asteroids also played a role.

VERY minor role. The Moon plays a far more significant role than all of the other planets combined.

So youve modeled every aspect of the Sun's core and surface as it chases the CMSS? Please send me a copy of that.. We dont KNOW whether the effect would be in spectral shape shifts, visible output, internal magnetics or DOZENS of other possible effects.. BUT WE DO SEE a very repeatable 60 yr cycle in the temp record and CMSS mechanics COULD be one explanation. Thats all.. Just trying to be complete.. BTW All the warming in your lifetime is less than 0.1% variation in the ""solar constant. So things that "play a very minor role, are not off the table.

Yeah, and flying pigs could also play a role, but I'm not going to make a bet on it.

 

[mamooth]

Ice ages end with a fast warmup, then there's a slow cooldown into the next ice age. That fast warmup ended 5000 years ago. Orbital factors are now driving the earth towards a slow cooling, yet the earth is currently undergoing a fast warming.

Hence, given the evidence, everyone can agree that the state of orbital factors supports global warming theory. At least everyone who isn't stupid, dishonest or crazy, that is.