Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The theory states that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming. And, since the world was cooling for the previous 5,000 years on its way to another glacial period, the net sum of other warming factors is negative.Would not that be a great conversation to have !!!!
Do you know of anyone or any group that is trying to do that ?
It's hilarious that you just argued that CO2 saved the planet from a glacial period.The theory states that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming. And, since the world was cooling for the previous 5,000 years on its way to another glacial period, the net sum of other warming factors is negative.
"Great conversations" among deniers always seem to involve straw men arguments.
That's even more hilarious than you arguing that CO2 saved the planet.the net sum of other warming factors is negative.
The theory states that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming. And, since the world was cooling for the previous 5,000 years on its way to another glacial period, the net sum of other warming factors is negative.
"Great conversations" among deniers always seem to involve straw men arguments.
www.usmessageboard.com
Milankovitch cycles describe climate for thousands of years. Meaning that 90 million years ago is out of its scope.And to believe any of that, you must believe Antarctica was still on the South Pole 90 million years ago, since that is also part of the McBullshit "glacials"
The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago
McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure... We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old...
Milankovitch cycles describe climate for thousands of years. Meaning that 90 million years ago is out of its scope.
Which Milankovitch cycle corresponds to our glacial cycles? ... and why would "90 millions years be out of its [sic] scope"? ... after 4.5 billion years, there won't be much change to Earth's orbit in the last brief 90 million years ... that's not how orbits work, not after the first couple of billion years ...\
Orbital cycles - if they are indeed the only trigger for glacial periods which I don't think they are - only apply when a polar region is close to its threshold temperature. So in fact they have only been useful for the last 30 million years maybe... but most likely only useful for the past 3 million years.Milankovitch cycles serve as a pacemaker for glacial-interglacial cycles for the past ~2.5 million years. You can read the real explanation here.
I would take a wild guess that the reason they dont go past approx 2.5 million years is 3 things going on. First, its not as relevant to go that far back, and-or the earths orbital status cant be determined accurately enough that far back, and lastly the other stuff besides earths position & orbit effects things more, such as greenhouse gas concentrations and albedo. But in conclusion Milankovitch cycles arent useful for 90 million years ago.
Milankovitch cycles describe climate for thousands of years. Meaning that 90 million years ago is out of its scope.
Milankovitch cycles serve as a pacemaker for glacial-interglacial cycles for the past ~2.5 million years. You can read the real explanation here.
I would take a wild guess that the reason they dont go past approx 2.5 million years is 3 things going on. First, its not as relevant to go that far back, and-or the earths orbital status cant be determined accurately enough that far back, and lastly the other stuff besides earths position & orbit effects things more, such as greenhouse gas concentrations and albedo. But in conclusion Milankovitch cycles arent useful for 90 million years ago.
Orbital cycles - if they are indeed the only trigger for glacial periods which I don't think they are - only apply when a polar region is close to its threshold temperature. So in fact they have only been useful for the last 30 million years maybe... but most likely only useful for the past 3 million years.
Thus the import of positive warming feedback of CO2 released from solution and increased water vaporThank you for that article ... I'm afraid Skeptical Science runs fast and loose with the math ... and they're very prone to state as fact what the scientific community treats as speculation ...
It's important to note that Earth's orbit is only 21,000 km away from a perfect circle ... 35 times rounder than a championship grade billiard ball ... and note irradiance follows the Inverse Square Law ... so that even in the extremes, we're only talking about tenth's of watts per square meter ... that doesn't change climate ... and we haven't been measuring temperature that closely over these past 140 years ... and still don't ...
Milankovitch cycles serve as a pacemaker for glacial-interglacial cycles for the past ~2.5 million years. You can read the real explanation here.
I would take a wild guess that the reason they dont go past approx 2.5 million years is 3 things going on. First, its not as relevant to go that far back, and-or the earths orbital status cant be determined accurately enough that far back, and lastly the other stuff besides earths position & orbit effects things more, such as greenhouse gas concentrations and albedo. But in conclusion Milankovitch cycles arent useful for 90 million years ago.
www.usmessageboard.com
www.usmessageboard.com
Thus the import of positive warming feedback of CO2 released from solution and increased water vapor
How correlated is "highly correlated"? What is the actual measure of their correlation?is still yet to cause any atmospheric warming according to highly correlated satellite and balloon data....
Usually it is an empirical coefficient of fit metric. Weren't you taught how to curve fit in Introduction to Engineering 101?How correlated is "highly correlated"? What is the actual measure of their correlation?
How correlated is "highly correlated"? What is the actual measure of their correlation?
There are laws against polluting, they're being enforced, so I honestly don't see the issue as a high priority to me. Scientific evidence is always welcome and political rants are things I avoid.My advice. Endeavor to pollute less but don't lose any sleep over it.
My advice. Endeavor to pollute less but don't lose any sleep over it.
