No need to apologize for saying it like it is.
So, in the meantime what?
I’m not sure why people in 2025 are still bringing up Milankovitch cycles in connection with the warming period underway today.
Did climate change in the past? Yes. Did radiative forcing (from the sun) have a role at times? Yes. Does this mean that anthropogenic forcings from C02, methane and other gases are negligible or do not account for warming? Absolutely not. Warming can be driven by higher solar activity and/or increased heat retention. It’s been clear since the 1970s that the radiative forcing and other extraterrestrial mechanisms cannot account for current global warming.
@wbwane provided a link: Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth’s Climate. If you read to the bottom of the article, they provide a link to a follow-up NASA article: Further Reading: Why Milankovitch Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming
potholer54 has a new video out today, “Can we adapt to climate change? (Hint: The answer begins with ‘Y’)”, that covers the gradual evolution of do-nothing skeptic positions over the years, from: “There is no warming”, to “there’s warming but it’s not anthropogenic”, then to “it’s partially anthropogenic”, to '“yeah, OK, mostly anthropogenic”, to “yeah, it’s big but we can adapt”. Well given that we will certainly need to adapt, what mitigations are the skeptics suggesting, except “lie back and think of England”?
How to respond and work to manage global warming is certainly a societal question. That warming is occurring and how the effects of various mitigation methods might play-out on the climate, are scientific questions.
3 Likes
Because people like me have heard about them, but don’t know much and don’t have time to look up EVERYTHING we don’t know. But might.
And normal people haven’t heard of them and will take the word of the person who brings them up.
This is why I am exposing myself as the broad on the bus, Jane Q. Public.
Be grateful. Keep busy. Be kind. Find meaning. Be friendly. You know the drill.
Okay, now you’re just repeating propaganda. You’ve been corrected on this several times yet ignore what you don’t fund useful for your agenda.
1 Like
It is simply an interesting graph showing real data. Hardly propaganda.
Other than in the sense that the climate has been warming sine 1650….almost 400 years and did much of the with only small amounts of fossil fuel burning. Data.
Again you ignore information that has been provided. You’re not discussing, you’re barely interacting, you’re doing propaganda.
1 Like
That’s not directed at you,@Kendel. It’s for people and “advocacy groups” that keep presenting outdated and well-rebutted info like it’s the last word on the topic.
In the evolution / creation debate, it’s like seeing people repeat a claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics rules out the possibility of evolution. I think that’s an OK question for those naive or new to subject, but hard to excuse when someone claims understanding about the scientific field (i.e. should know better), or writes articles for anti-evolution advocacy organizations.
1 Like
As an argument casting doubt on anthropogenic warming, it is weak and naive. Scientists have long known about regional variation in heating and cooling. It’s comparable to the “if humans came from apes, how come there are still apes?” argument against human / ape evolution. This simply doesn’t engage the scientific knowledge of the field.
From the Wikipedia page:
“Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.”
Here is the graph for global temperatures through those periods, from the same Wikipedia article.
No. Of course not. Be assured I didn’t read it that way.
But there are people who know they can use dubious arguments and get away with it with the right audiences. And they tell two friends and they tell two friends and so on and so on. And you end up with a cult of vaccine deniers who have been" researching" for decades and still believe they cause autism.
There are people who should/do know better. The wrong and/or outdated, in the case of the CO2 coalition gets votes for people who can work on improving the lot of Oil and Gas, for example.
But it wasn’t vaccines. We now know that autism is caused by the Tylenol given to baby boys after circumcision. It was kept hidden from the people by “Big Acetaminophen”. They even tried to obscure the connection by calling it “paracetamol” in other countries. The conspiracy was so deep and convoluted that only a man whose brain was pickled in drugs and riddled with brain worms could make the leaps of logic need to see it all clearly.