4 of 7
4
What caused global temperatures to fall in the past?
Posted: 04 August 2017 04:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 August 2017 04:07 PM
MikeYohe - 03 August 2017 11:08 AM

And what is the established normal sea levels and annual global temperature for the earth based upon the Milankovitch cycles. You know, stuff like JohnH asked.


How would that information help us? 
How do you think it will help understand the challenges coming at us these next five decades any better?

One would have to know if we have been out of the normal sea levels in the cycles. If so, then we may be headed back to our normal sea levels. If so then in the next five decades we could have a six inch increase in sea levels.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2017 04:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 August 2017 04:32 PM
MikeYohe - 03 August 2017 11:08 AM

Trump is merely the poster child for what we can expected from that gold plated greed driven absolutism.

That’s the problem, your drive is absolutism. And you use science to hide your true intent. {please to share, what is my True Intent pray tell?}

Trump knows more about science than me - here we have example of your obsessive prejudice blinding you.

Do I understand you correctly? You claim to know more about science than the executive branch of our government.

Damned straight I know more about climate science and Earth history than the Trump and those clowns currently occupying our government’s Executive Branch.
And I have the science, not my science, to support my opinions precisely because it is the active and evolving science that’s provided me with all I know about it.  Plus, every debate I get into with a contrarian offers up yet more learning opportunities that I take full advantage of, all that adds up after a while.  Mind you getting pretty close to 50 years of ongoing active interest and accumulating understanding of my planet’s history and her geophysical processes (actually 55+ years on that) and (then AGW related topics for pretty near 50 years) - manmade global warming became very important to me since it promises to destroy everything society managed to put together. Not to mention the eventual resetting of Earth’s evolutionary clock.


Such a gish gallop dude, but I think I leave it with a challenge - since you seem to hold a blanket contempt for the positions I stake out and you’ve implied I use bullshit science to make those points.  PLEASE PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF SCIENCE I’VE LINKED TO THAT YOU BELIEVE IS BOGUS.  I stand ready to reexamining it in light of your critique, whatever it may be.  Let the man with integrity be left standing.

Ok, let’s step through the process. Please tell me with your vast knowledge base, what amount of today’s temperature is climate change and what amount is global warming? My understanding is that you agree we are now in the cooling cycle. But, we still could be warming because of the Lag. How long is this lag going to last?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2017 12:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 04 August 2017 04:24 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 August 2017 04:07 PM
MikeYohe - 03 August 2017 11:08 AM

And what is the established normal sea levels and annual global temperature for the earth based upon the Milankovitch cycles. You know, stuff like JohnH asked.


How would that information help us? 
How do you think it will help understand the challenges coming at us these next five decades any better?

One would have to know if we have been out of the normal sea levels in the cycles. If so, then we may be headed back to our normal sea levels. If so then in the next five decades we could have a six inch increase in sea levels.

No time for most of your arm-waving now, but this one is such a precious example of your extreme disconnect from down to Earth fundamentals that I need to point it out.

Ever increasing greenhouse gases are increasing atmospheric insulation,
this will continue holding more heat within our climate system, thereby ever increasing temperature circulating throughout our climate system.
This situation will not stabilize until reaching equilibrium many centuries, if not millennia, into the future.

Meaning the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctic cryosphere will continue their disintegration and increasing sea levels at an ever accelerating rate.
That is guaranteed by physics, you can quibble about how many inches it will rise in your coastal town or how just badly it will impact areas, and how soon, but all that is arguing over chump change while missing what’s going on to your treasure.

What pray tell do you imagine will turn that around??? 
Some misunderstanding about some climate event in some past eon? 
A time when Earth’s physical dynamics have almost nothing in common with today’s situation?
Where did you fish such a notion out of the IPCC report?  Can you share the section # ?

Pumphandle 2012: History of atmospheric carbon dioxide
CarbonTracker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A&t=70s

TimeLapse: Watch 27 Years of ‘Old’ Arctic Ice Melt
Our World - News about the Environment, Religion & Society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZovcCxftAY

NASA: Greenland Ice loss 2002-2016
Climate State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT7Oj-r9Hko

This one is a couple years old,

Trouble at Totten Glacier - Antarctica
YaleClimateConnections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDB_C-jwkU&t=190s

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2017 09:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01

RE: sea levels. Glacial vs. Interglacial cycles.
The way I understand the 100,000-year cycles is that the earth cools to the Ice Age glacial cycle in only 10,000 years. Then it takes 90,000-years to warm the earth again.
The chart shows the interglacial cycle that we are in right now. During the interglacial period, the sea levels rise.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles
//www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/716px_width/public/glacial-interglacial.jpg?itok=19bwFcU9
Spam would not let me insert chart.
About 21,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum (LGM), sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today. About 125,000 years ago, during a warmer climatic interval in the last interglacial stage, sea level was about 6 meters (about 19.7 feet) higher than it is today.
www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/glaciers/glaciers_sea_level.asp
 
Point being, if you try and fight Mother Nature, you will lose. We can expect the sea to rise another 20 feet. We are going to have to deal with that. And that rise has nothing to do with climate change.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2017 11:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01

CC, Reading your post about the sea level rise on the coastal towns. It is wrong to blame sea-level rise on climate change when global warming will cause the sea-levels to rise. All climate change is said to do is to accelerate the process. You do make that clear in your post that it is an acceleration affect. What is the accelerating rate? Are we talking 200 years instead of 500 years? The sea-level goes up and down 430 feet in a cycle. The problem is that all this sea level rise seems blamed on climate change and not the natural global warming. That’s fake science and should be made clear that it is part of the earth’s natural cycles.
In 2012, at the request of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, NOAA scientists conducted a review of the research on global sea level rise projections, and concluded that there is very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter) but no more than 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) by 2100.
 
World population today is 7.5 billion, by 2100 it is estimated to be 10 billion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2017 07:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24

author=“MikeYohe” date=“1501923457 - RE: sea levels. Glacial vs. Interglacial cycles.
The way I understand the 100,000-year cycles is that the earth cools to the Ice Age glacial cycle in only 10,000 years.
Then it takes 90,000-years to warm the earth again.
The chart shows the interglacial cycle that we are in right now. During the interglacial period, the sea levels rise.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles
//www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/716px_width/public/glacial-interglacial.jpg?itok=19bwFcU9
Spam would not let me insert chart.
About 21,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum (LGM), sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today.
About 125,000 years ago, during a warmer climatic interval in the last interglacial stage, sea level was about 6 meters (about 19.7 feet) higher than it is today.
www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/glaciers/glaciers_sea_level.asp
 
Point being, if you try and fight Mother Nature, you will lose. We can expect the sea to rise another 20 feet. We are going to have to deal with that.
And that rise has nothing to do with climate change.

CC, Reading your post about the sea level rise on the coastal towns. It is wrong to blame sea-level rise on climate change when
global warming will cause the sea-levels to rise. {Hold on.  Are saying there’s a difference between global warming and climate change?*}
All climate change is said to do is to accelerate the process. You do make that clear in your post that it is an acceleration affect. What is the accelerating rate?
Are we talking 200 years instead of 500 years? The sea-level goes up and down 430 feet in a cycle.
The problem is that all this sea level rise seems blamed on climate change and not the natural global warming.
That’s fake science and should be made clear that it is part of the earth’s natural cycles.
In 2012, at the request of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, NOAA scientists conducted a review of the research on global sea level rise projections,
and concluded that there is very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter)
but no more than 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) by 2100.

 
World population today is 7.5 billion, by 2100 it is estimated to be 10 billion. {You actually believe that? Ever hear of critical thinking?}

Thank you for all that, it helps me understand your thinking a bit better.
Let me offer a couple thoughts.

To begin with all of us view Earth from within our own intellectual framework, which directly correlates with how much we’ve learned about Earth’s history
and her diverse geography plus her many geophysical processes.

It sounds like you conceptualize Earth moving through time in cycles that sorta repeat.  That is wrong and will lead you astray every time. 
Rather than cycles it’s more accurate to conceptualize Earth moving through time -  as though through a metaphorical spiral, never actually repeating itself.

It can’t repeat itself because every new era impacts all subsequent events and eras.

Earth reached a fantastic plateau about ten thousand years ago, one that never existed before precisely because it was the result of cumulative
geophysical processes that needed to evolve through their various cascading products before the stage was set for humanity’s big time.

Our climate optimum was a direct product of the preceding billions of years of evolution. 
It was a precious fragile thing that needed to be understood, nurtured and protected.

Please think about it, 170 years ago our atmospheric insulation register, so to speak, was set at a bit under 300ppm, deepest glacial periods it was <200 ppm.
Since then we’ve been digging up sequestered fossil fuels (read Carbon, burning it, read CO2, GHGs) and adding it to our atmosphere and our oceans. 
In that short span of a few generations our Atmospheric Insulation Register rose over 100ppm and continues rising.

Interestingly, the graph you choose to share leaves out the past few hundred years - today the C02 line would be at that 5 mark on the right side of your graph -
how can you possibly imagine that isn’t going to have a massive disruptive impact?


Inevitable this has produced a radical detour away the trajectory Earth was on.

Expecting someone to hand you exact figures and future forecasts reveals either a ruthless disingenuousness or a profoundly shallow understanding of Earth’s processes.

What we do know for certain is that if we don’t radically cut down on what we are adding to our atmospheric insulation
(not to mention the nightmarish sibling reality of Ocean Acidification), all future changes will be even more radical and upsetting then today’s worst estimates. 

Sea Level Rise

What city is ready for one foot of sea level rise, let alone a meter - or the storm surges that will give threat-multiplier a whole new meaning?

How hot is too hot?

Select regions of our world are already terribly close (~2°C) to experiencing wet bulb temperatures exceeding human physiological tolerance thresholds. 
Meaning your sweat can’t cool your body!  Is that hot enough for you?


Even the most conservative reality based future trends are horrifying, yet you keep thinking you can put economic needs above facing down to Earth factual reality.

Instead of embracing moderation, the mad yahoo fools most of us are, continue wanting to push the pollution pedal to the metal and speed the
transforming of our atmosphere away from the fragile balance that not so long ago allowed humanity and society to flourish to incredible heights.

There is much we can learn about Earth’s fundamental processes studying our planet’s geophysical history. 
But, never pretend that today’s conditions are remotely reflected in Earth’s past.  They are not.  Nothing in the past echoes the current transformation. 

Milankovitch cycles?

All historic rhythms have been disrupted and as the Milankovitch cycles continue their ponderous progressions,
you refuse to face the fact that their influence has been hugely over-shadowed by how radically we’ve changed our atmosphere’s heat holding capacity.


Milankovitch cycles are about tiny fluctuations in Earth’s overall Insolation spread over many thousands of years, we’ve kicked that out of the ball park. 
Nothing in our past can prepare us for where this once wonderful Earth is heading, thanks to humanity’s collective disregard.

Deep time.

For instance you keep coming back to long term cosmological variations.  Ever spend much time pondering “deep time”? 

Look at those time spans that you so casually rattle off.  Then look back at your graph, now tell me what kind of CO2 fluctuation are we talking about? 
It’s right there on your graph, ~100 ppm, over how many thousands of years?

In ~170 years society single handedly has cranked up Earth’s Atmospheric Insulation Register by over 100 ppm.  Now, try to ponder the difference between
150 years and 10,000 years or 100,000 years.  Are you catching my drift brother?  {Christ, my daughter should she live to a decent mature age,
will experience our self-inflicted hell on Earth. Caused by our society’s infrastructure not being able to keep up with nature’s weather onslaughts.
And I’m not supposed to show my irritation??? - but I digress.}
*  Okay, if you want to be super duper picky, Manmade Global Warming drives Manmade Climate Change.  Fair enough?

 

*  Okay, if you want to be super duper picky, Manmade Global Warming drives Manmade Climate Change.  Fair enough?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2017 07:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24

oops, now s.n. won’t let me edit

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2017 07:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 05 August 2017 07:24 PM

Expecting someone to hand you exact figures and future forecasts reveals either a ruthless disingenuousness or a profoundly shallow understanding of Earth’s processes.

 
What are the three goals of the IPCC?
 
One. Is global warming affected by mankind?
One has been answered. Yes, it is.
 
Two. Measure the cause and effect of mankind on global warming.
Goal two is in the process of being answered. A label called climate change is being used to separate natural from man-made. The IPCC said they could do this task with the use of computer models and a new data gathering system.
   
Goal three. Come up with an answer as to what steps mankind should take. Step three needs to follow step two.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2017 07:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 05 August 2017 07:24 PM

Sea Level Rise

What city is ready for one foot of sea level rise, let alone a meter - or the storm surges that will give threat-multiplier a whole new meaning?

None that I know of. You are right. This is going to become a major problem that will have to be dealt with.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2017 08:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 05 August 2017 07:24 PM

How hot is too hot?

//earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2017 08:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 05 August 2017 07:24 PM

Milankovitch cycles?

All historic rhythms have been disrupted and as the Milankovitch cycles continue their ponderous progressions,
you refuse to face the fact that their influence has been hugely over-shadowed by how radically we’ve changed our atmosphere’s heat holding capacity.


Milankovitch cycles are about tiny fluctuations in Earth’s overall Insolation spread over many thousands of years, we’ve kicked that out of the ball park. 
Nothing in our past can prepare us for where this once wonderful Earth is heading, thanks to humanity’s collective disregard.

Answer this question. If the climate change is to increase the heat by six degrees. Has any of the last Milankovitch cycles been that warm?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2017 08:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 05 August 2017 07:24 PM

Deep time.

For instance you keep coming back to long term cosmological variations.  Ever spend much time pondering “deep time”? 

Look at those time spans that you so casually rattle off.  Then look back at your graph, now tell me what kind of CO2 fluctuation are we talking about? 
It’s right there on your graph, ~100 ppm, over how many thousands of years?

In ~170 years society single handedly has cranked up Earth’s Atmospheric Insulation Register by over 100 ppm.  Now, try to ponder the difference between
150 years and 10,000 years or 100,000 years.  Are you catching my drift brother?  {Christ, my daughter should she live to a decent mature age,
will experience our self-inflicted hell on Earth.  Caused by our society’s infrastructure not being able to keep up with nature’s weather onslaughts. 
And I’m not supposed to show my irritation??? - but I digress.}
*  Okay, if you want to be super duper picky, Manmade Global Warming drives Manmade Climate Change.  Fair enough?

I don’t think you must worry about man putting carbon in the air forever. There is only so much carbon and we will run out. The increase in usage and the increase in population will put an end to carbon usage.  Just look at how much of the carbon resourced were used up in that 170 years.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2017 09:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24

#53

author=“MikeYohe”: 
What are the three goals of the IPCC?
. . .
Goal three. Come up with an answer as to what steps mankind should take. Step three needs to follow step two.

Can you please explain how you figure that?
Here’s the cheat sheet: https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
#55
What’s the point of this link?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php
What in that review links into what I’m trying to discuss with you? How?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
#56

author=“MikeYohe”:  Answer this question. If the climate change is to increase the heat by six degrees. Has any of the last Milankovitch cycles been that warm?

Not that I’m aware of, although there is this.  Please notice CO2 was a driver of that event.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
... During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F.
(Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.) At roughly the same time, paleoclimate data like fossilized phytoplankton and ocean sediments
record a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, at least doubling or possibly even quadrupling the background concentrations. ...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
#57

author=“MikeYohe”:  I don’t think you must worry about man putting carbon in the air forever.

I’ve never said anything like that!

Although what’s happening with methane hydrates and the Arctic Ice Cap becoming a solar absorption plate and guaranteeing more heat
and that the Tundra disintegration will continue adding to greenhouse gas levels long after we are gone.
Probably many thousands of years - but not for ‘ever’ either.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2017 06:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 06 August 2017 08:12 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 05 August 2017 07:24 PM

Milankovitch cycles?

All historic rhythms have been disrupted and as the Milankovitch cycles continue their ponderous progressions,
you refuse to face the fact that their influence has been hugely over-shadowed by how radically we’ve changed our atmosphere’s heat holding capacity.


Milankovitch cycles are about tiny fluctuations in Earth’s overall Insolation spread over many thousands of years, we’ve kicked that out of the ball park. 
Nothing in our past can prepare us for where this once wonderful Earth is heading, thanks to humanity’s collective disregard.

Answer this question. If the climate change is to increase the heat by six degrees. Has any of the last Milankovitch cycles been that warm?

That wording sort of covers my butt, still was thinking about the basic question and decided to find out how much the variation in overall insolation the three Milankovitch cycles produced and compare that to the increased heat retention of 400 ppm CO2, which scientists compute with exceeding accuracy (If one doubts that fact, first explain why one doubts it, then be willing to learn from information one isn’t apparently familiar with. )

It turned into a wonderful example of why I actually enjoy engaging the “trolls” - some characters try to misrepresent the Milankovitch cycles, by taking up their challenge I forced myself to reacquaint myself to the Milankovitch cycles.  Big deal, I already know what they are, so I toss out some basics and links for substantive learning opportunities.  and went on my way, but something about the whole thing kept nagging at me, exactly how much difference the cycle makes and how to explain that in more than the generalities.

It’s amazing the learning resources accessible to a little good faith investigation.  Took me no time today to find this:

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
Indian University Bloomington
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

The episodic nature of the Earth’s glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years)
have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth’s circumnavigation of the Sun.

Variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles,
collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician
who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude.

Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.
These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth’s climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth’s glaciers.

It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation,
resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth.
The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth,

thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.

Eccentricity ...

Axial Tilt ...

Precession ...

If that isn’t technical enough for you, give this one a try:

Equatorial insolation: from precession harmonics to eccentricity frequencies

Berger, M. F. Loutre, and J. L. Melice
Clim. Past, 2, 131–136, 2006
http://www.clim-past.net/2/131/2006/
© Author(s) 2006. This work is licensed of the Past under a Creative Commons License.
https://www.clim-past.net/2/131/2006/cp-2-131-2006.pdf

3 Conclusions
One of the questions which might be raised is how this result can help paleoclimatologists in their research. It is true that climate changes at the geological time scale cannot be understood by looking at orbital forcing only.

Instead, as already stated by Milankovitch, insolation forcing is only one step in an astronomical theory of paleoclimate. How forcing is transferred to climate (i.e. climate modelling, including climate feedbacks, land-sea distribution and many other processes); how past climates evolved (i.e. data compiling) and how modelled and reconstructed past climates compare each others, are other fundamental steps of paleoclimate studies.

However, in this paper, we wanted to focus only on one of these points, i.e. the insolation forcing. More precisely, we want to insist, once again, that in addition to the well-known daily insolation, many other types of insolation parameters might be candidates for explaining climatic records.

It is hoped that our mathematical demonstration of the existence at the equator and, to a lesser extend, in the whole intertropical region of the eccentricity, precession and some harmonic periods will tempt the modelers to test this hypothesis.

Clearly, the tropics which cover half of the world play a major role in the climate system. The energy gradient between low and high latitudes which fuels the general circulation in the atmosphere and ocean implies that the dynamics of glacial-interglacial cycles cannot be understood without the tropics. But whether the tropics or the high latitudes are the key for triggering the glacials and the interglacials cannot be understood by looking at orbital forcing only. Instead, models of the natural Earth system are needed to understand the climate processes and feedbacks. In particular, … {then comes the math}

Think this through, Milankovitch cycles do not alter the overall insolation of our planet markedly.
Doesn’t this lead us right back to Earth’s atmosphere and all that extra atmospheric insulation?

Here’s a informative short read on what we’ve done to our planet’s energy balance, and it’s something that the Milankovitch cycle has absolutely nothing to with, no now, and at no time in the past.

How much extra energy are we adding to the earth system?
Professor Steve Easterbrook
11. January 2012 · Update (Aug 15, 2013):

About Steve Easterbrook: I’m a professor of computer science at the University of Toronto. Stuff about my work (bio, publications etc) can be found on my U of T webpages. Stuff I think is worthy of a photo can be found on Flickr.

I’ve been meaning to do this calculation for ages, and finally had an excuse today, as I need it for the first year course I’m teaching on climate change. The question is: how much energy are we currently adding to the earth system due to all those greenhouse gases we’ve added to the atmosphere?

In the literature, the key concept is anthropogenic forcing, by which is meant the extent to which human activities are affecting the energy balance of the earth. When the Earth’s climate is stable, it’s because the planet is in radiative balance, meaning the incoming radiation from the sun and the outgoing radiation from the earth back into space are equal. A planet that’s in radiative balance will generally stay at the same (average) temperature because it’s not gaining or losing energy. If we force it out of balance, then the global average temperature will change.

Physicists express radiative forcing in watts per square meter (W/m2), ...

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2012/01/how-much-extra-energy-are-we-adding-to-the-earth-system/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2017 06:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24

... and it’s something that the Milankovitch cycle has absolutely nothing to do with, not now, and at no time in the past.    red face

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 7
4