No, it would not. For one thing, ECS can take over a thousand years to fully take place. TCR is more pertinent to your concerns of a death spiral. And TCR is lower than ECS due to the ocean's ability to temporarily take up both CO2 and heat.
The US heat dome is a warning for the 2024 elections
- Thread starter JimH52
- Start date
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,607
- 87,050
- 2,645
Invasion
WWIII
Inflation
the Climate
Only 3 are real Crisis and its not the Climate
WWIII
Inflation
the Climate
Only 3 are real Crisis and its not the Climate
There is no feedback from an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2. None, nada, zip.
Really? So, you think all progressives have the financial wherewithal to move and change jobs. Rather than looking at the empirical evidence - the FACTS - you simply want to use your political bigotry as an excuse to avoid unpleasant realities that don't support your weltsicht. It is most assuredly you that can go **** yourself.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 54,992
- 15,157
- 2,180
The world got hotter 120,000 years ago, and 240,000 years ago, was that because of human industrialization?
The U.S. heat dome is a warning about the 2024 election
And there may be no policy area with a clearer divide between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.www.msnbc.com
No one would describe Saudi Arabia in the summer as chilly, but pilgrims at this year’s Hajj experienced something unusual even for this largely desert nation. According to the Saudi weather service, temperatures at the Grand Mosque in Mecca reached an astonishing 125 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday; 2,700 people reportedly were overcome by heat exhaustion, and dozens of pilgrims died from the temperatures.
If you have grandchildren and you want them to see a bright future, you will not vote for trump. He has vowed to roll back all environmental efforts to battle climate change. His view into the future extends no farther than the end of his orange nose. With trump is is all about power and money. He is thinking of his Saudi friends and their dependence on fossil fuel revenue.
Within five years, we may be seeing 120+ degrees temperature in the US, on a regular basis. Then the repubs will come up with another excuse to deny climate change.
Obviously not but they were related. The Milankovitch cycle is currently working to cool the planet but is getting its doors blown off by AGW. The historical glacial-interglacial cycle would have a fraction of its temperature range had it not been reinforced by greenhouse warming on the added gases that Milankovitch released from solution in the world's oceans. See Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation - Nature
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 54,992
- 15,157
- 2,180
Well, we don't know what is natural and what isn't.
You say the Milankovich cycles are working to cool things. Are they? How can you show this?
We don't really understand the Milankovich cycles enough to predict what the world's temperatures should be.
If by not natural, you mean anthropogenic, I'm afraid we have a very good idea which is which.
Causes of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA
Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief
The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.
www.carbonbrief.org
A real-time Global Warming Index - Scientific Reports
We propose a simple real-time index of global human-induced warming and assess its robustness to uncertainties in climate forcing and short-term climate fluctuations. This index provides improved scientific context for temperature stabilisation targets and has the potential to decrease the...
www.nature.com
Then I think you need to do some more reading about the Milankovitch Cycles.
Milankovitch Cycles and Climate Change
www.climatedata.info
By how much? Provide a number. You can't because it's not.
It's hilarious that anyone would try to make that correlation when changes in polar ice caps and changes in albedo are the dominant drivers in the glacial cycles (which are triggered by changes in heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic). You are a moron.Then I think you need to do some more reading about the Milankovitch Cycles.
View attachment 976241
Milankovitch Cycles and Climate Change
The sun (solar radiation output, solar flares, orbital forcing) is remarkably steady. The impact the sun plays - besides providing a stable and steady supply of energy - is in affecting wind patterns which affect ocean currents which affects heat distribution. The vast majority of heat is stored in the oceans. Say it with me.
See the last graph on post #249.
Quantification is not required to answer the question of DIRECTION. You cannot deny the direction of Milankovitch's insolation trend so you try this. You look desperate.
The vast majority of mainstream scientists make precisely that correlation. YOU are the only one thinking otherwise.
That was literally the graph I was replying to in post #251 when I said it was a bullshit correlation.
But maybe you should reconcile the W/m^2 on that graph with the radiative forcing component chart you like showing so much.
Given that 4 watt per m^2 is a big deal to you I would have to disagree.
It's hilarious that you believe temperature in a glacial and interglacial period is determined by orbital forcing rather than huge ice sheet across significant portions of the US, Canada, Europe and Asia.
And do YOU have numbers to back up that claim? You reject the effect of Milankovitch and the greenhouse effect entirely. Do you understand how far out of touch with mainstream science that puts you? You're not an amateur scientist. You're a whack job.
The W/m^2 on that graph applies to the insolation which is the manner in which Milankovitch forcing works.
Here is the range of solar insolation on the Earth by month and latitude. Compare that to the values on this graph and then explain what you think is wrong with them.
Nothing is wrong with them. They don't drive northern hemisphere glaciation. Disruption and restoration of heat circulation from the ocean does along with the resulting feedbacks of both.
Similar threads
