Is Inhofe correct?

Post Reply New Topic

Milankovitch cycles are merely one single factor. If they were the major factor, one year would look nearly like the one before and the one after. One century would look nearly like the one before and the one after.

The real climate has a great amount of variability.



Does this look like the Milankovitch cycles are dominant?

This chart from the USGS shows our likely future. The Global Warming may give us an extra thousand years or so before we descend deep into another period of glaciation. Let's hope that mankind uses that brief respite wisely.

Yet another temperature chart of the Holocene. Hardly a smooth curve following Milankovitch cycles.

Is there ever a reason to panic?

For those who are in a panic about global warming, this might help you panic more: A complete list of things caused by global warming:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Humor is not an argument. No one ever made the claim that Global Warming causes AIDS.

Of course, I see the list as being absurd. It's hard to imagine anyone actually taking the list seriously, but what we have repeatedly seen is people going around trying to imagine the worst and trying to come up with some scenario about how Global Warming will make the worst happen. Whenever I see someone of that mindset, I know they are not to be taken seriously.

Last edited by eric76 on 07 Jan 2015, 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, I can now see how warmer climates facilitate disease. Bacteria and viruses survive longer in wet warm climates. I did not see the connection until your last post. thanks!

“Milankovitch cycles are merely one single factor. If they were the major factor, one year would look nearly like the one before and the one after. One century would look nearly like the one before and the one after.”
Inventor
Agreed! Milankovitch cycles are not the only or even major factor. AGW is! AGW overwhelms the cooling effect of the Milankovitch cycle.
You continue to not understand why you are contradicting yourself.
You disagree with the predictive power of the MIlankovitch cycle and then use it to predict that without AGW we would fall into a disastrous ice age. Therefore, you say that AGW is a good thing. That we should not stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere. But then you say that AGW does not exist!
Seriously, EVERY scientific organization in the world ,
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(NASA
NOAA
American Meteorological society
Scientific American
National Geographic
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
United States National Research Council
Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
African Academy of Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Science Foundation
InterAcademy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
• American Chemical Society[49]
• American Institute of Physics[50]
• American Physical Society[51]
• Australian Institute of Physics[52]
• European Physical Society[
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America

Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Societ
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
• American Astronomical Society[92]
• American Statistical Association[93]

A number of health organizations have warned about the numerous negative health effects of global warming
• American Academy of Pediatrics[84]
• American College of Preventive Medicine[85]
• American Medical Association[86]
• American Public Health Association[87]
• Australian Medical Association in 2004[88] and in 2008[89]
• World Federation of Public Health Associations[90]
• World Health Organization[91]
As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.
FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
True that is wiki but they give sites from primary sources.) are falsifying data and lying??? True, UNIVERSAL consent among the entire scientific community is not proof but what is your explanation. It seems outrageous to claim that the ENTIRE scientific community is part of an evil conspiracy!

There are a great many absurd claims about what I have said there.

I have never said that without Global Warming that would fall into a disastrous ice age. I've not only never said that, I would never said that. We aren't going to fall into an ice age -- we are ALREADY in an ice age.

What I have said is that I hope that Global Warming might delay the next glaciation in our current ice age. Whether or not it will be enough is not at all clear at this point.

As for the Milankovitch cycle, that is one of many factors in the climate as is CO2. You seem to want to ignore everything else -- why is that? What about other greenhouse gases such as water vapor? What about solar output? What about the actual effects of the mixture of gases we have in real life instead of in a test tube?

And where have I said that Global Warming doesn't exist? Nowhere. Not now. Not ever. What I have said is that there are a great many questions that need to be answered including the actual extent of Global Warming as well as how much of that is due to man. You answer seems to be that it is all due to man, but that is just plain absurd. Is it 5%? Is it 50%? Is it 95%? Nobody knows -- at best we have guesses. With enough research, we should be able to narrow it down a bit, but it is not the simplistic question that you seem to assume.

Do you want my more precise viewpoint? Here goes:

We need research.

1) We need research into Global Warming itself. We need to determine to what it extent it actually exists in the real world, not in a test tube. We need to determine to what it extent it actually exists with measurements, not computer models. We need to know how much is natural and how much is caused by man.

2) After the research into Global Warming, we need research into what can we do about it. If we don't understand Global Warming, we certainly don't know what to do about it. It is nothing but stupid to try to do something about it that doesn't even work or may be even counter productive. What we need to know is what we can do about it that is cost effective and works.

3) After we figure out what we can do about it, we need to figure out whether or not we need to do anything about it. Again, not with computer models, but with real data. I tend to jump ahead to this step because even if Global Warming is as bad as some say and is 100% due to man, I suspect that we won't need to do anything about it. It would be stupid to waste the enormous time and resources to do something about Global Warming if we don't actually need to do anything about it.

The big difference is that I'm not jumping to a lot of crazy conclusions out of some sense of panic. I see no need to panic at all. Even at its worst, Global Warming is not something that is going to destroy us. The reality is that if you look at the past instead of depending on computer models and see what really happens when the Earth warms up, there are many reasons to be quite positive about it. Forget the chicken littles who are scared of their own shadows.

Keep in mind, too, that we are approaching peak oil and peak coal if we are not there already. It is going to be more and more expensive to extract oil and coal from the ground. Of course, as scarcity pushes prices up, it will become cost effective to do some things to mine more oil and gas, but that won't last forever. In the next hundred years, the amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere will be declining even if we do nothing about it. As it is now, we are already making more and more efficient engines and industrial plants and getting more energy for what CO2 we put into the atmosphere.

One of the obvious things that will reduce CO2 releases is to build more nuclear power plants. What's your position on nuclear power? Are you as panicky about that as about CO2?

Yes, but since 1500 has been a lot better than the five hundred years before 1500. It was not all rainbows and puppies, 1815, the year without summer. Frosts in every month that year. 1883, Krakatoa dropped the world a few degrees for a few years.

Taking a long range view, Global Warming is like the worry in Hell of a snowstorm.

wrong post

I was responding to a quote from inventor

That was from eric76, not Inventor.

Who said AGW does not exist, not Inventor or eric76?

We have been in a cooling trend since Rome, are near record lows, two degrees warmer we are at Roman times, and one degree lower in an ice age.

Please stop lying!
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029/
Oh yeah, NASA is part of the conspiracy along with EVERY scientific organization in the world.

"Who said AGW does not exist, not Inventor or eric76? "
inventor
I am now convinced that you are a troll. You make it sound like I am making stuff up when I say that you do not believe in AGW ( anthropogenic [ man made] global warming.) and then you say that the world is cooling. UMMM ,it is obvious that if one believes that the world is cooling ( which is stupid) they do not believe that the world is warming.