Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

I merely post the research. I'm not in the business of setting context for you.

 

It was hard to make sense out of your rant. The bottom line is that orbital
forcing on the Northern Hemisphere can account for more global warming
than high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide like we are experiencing now.
This is a result of the Malinkovitch cycles and how they vary.


All interglacial periods are different. The fact that the sea level was higher in some of the past interglacial periods doesn't mean that the sea level of the present interglacial period should be rising as fast as it is, or that it should increase beyond the present level if humans weren't warming the planet. The maximum level that the global sea level will rise to during any interglacial period depends on more than the atmospheric carbon dioxide level. It also depends on the amount and duration of insolation on the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. High levels of incident solar radiation (insolation) on the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere melt Arctic sea ice and glaciers and that reduces the Earth's albedo. The Earth's surface absorbs more sunlight, vegetation increases in the Northern Hemisphere and the earth gets warmer.

The present interglacial period has experienced much less NH insolation than the previous interglacial period and other interglacial periods. The NH insolation has been falling sharply for several thousand years and that should be increasing the formation of Arctic sea ice and glaciers after some time lag. Humans have changed the natural course of sea level change. The light oscillating gray curve represents
NH summer insolation. It is different for every interglacial period and it has been declining for the last 10,000 years.

 

A graph from this NOAA article below shows NH summer insolation, CO2 levels, and Antarctica temperature data for the past 350,000 years. It is easier to
see the insolation and how both carbon dioxide and NH insolation together affect temperature.

NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service: Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

"What causes glacial–interglacial cycles? Variations in Earth’s orbit through time have changed the amount of solar radiation Earth receives in each season. Interglacial periods tend to happen during times of more intense summer solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere. These glacial–interglacial cycles have waxed and waned throughout the Quaternary Period (the past 2.6 million years)."

 

Seems like it is already working. Scary stories about what MIGHT HAPPEN based on flawed/dishonest models and politicized "science" is mob hysteria.

 

Obama has bought another ocean front property? What about the rising oceans?

Trouble in paradise? Scowling Barack Obama inspects the construction of his new multimillion-dollar Hawaii mansion and controversial sea wall which his neighbors fear will erode the beachline

 

No, you can't claim that.

You selectively post stuff that supports your own opinion.

You can't call that "the research".

 

We already went over that, wherein this issue was explained.

Do you have something new to say or some as yet unanswered question?

 

You can not possibly claim that there is more rubbish on one side than the other.

This topic IS challenging from the perspective of learning how to get a rational understanding of the situation today.

 

This is a dodge.

It does not in any way counter the central thesis that human activity is resulting in warming that is having an impact now and a growing impact into the foreseeable future.

Humans don't live for a thousand years. We have to live today. Our kids have to live in the near future. Ice ages form a general context. Solar activity adds to that general context. BUT, this is not about ice ages. It's about now through the next couple hundred years.

 

Oh, yes, there definitely is.

I agree. But to do that there has to be an open and frank discussion based on reality, not ulterior motives. Since no one has ever postulated what the perfect temperature is for any location how can we determine which way temperature is moving? Since carbon is a fundamental building block for plants and animals how do determine what the proper level is?

 

You didn't exactly explain it, you simply came up with an excuse. Meanwhile President Obama seems to be a climate alarmist in the streets, and a climate denier in the sheets.

 

I was rebutting this: "The science is irrefutable: This Inter-Glacial Period is colder than all others.

The science is irrefutable: This Inter-Glacial Period has lower sea levels than all others.

Should sea levels rise another 6 meters, the only truthful, accurate, scientific statement you can make is: This Inter-Glacial Period is just like all the others.

That is the fatal flaw in the global warming nonsense.

Prove to us, show us, why this Inter-Glacial Period should be different from all others.

Do you not understand that even though CO2 levels were lower in the 8 previous Inter-Glacial Periods, sea levels still rose 4-13 meters higher than present and global temperatures were 7.5°F to 15.3°F warmer than present?"



I tried to show that this Interglacial Period is different from the rest and that they are all different. The maximum sea level rise is somewhat
different and the maximum global temperature is different. The reason for this has to do mainly with differences in radiative forcing of the
Northern Hemisphere above 30 degrees in latitude. The radiative forcing caused by the positive feedbacks of greenhouse gases and
changes in albedo are also different for each Interglacial Period. This Interglacial Period has less NH radiative forcing than the last Interglacial Period and we should expect a lower maximum sea level rise and a lower maximum global temperature. So, sea levels should not rise another 6 meters if humans
were not adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

 

Obama is 60 years old and has about 25 to 30 years left to live, possibly a little more. Sea levels are rising about 3.5 mm/year and maybe they rise 100 mm
during his lifetime. One tenth of a meter or even 2 tenths of a meter won't flood his property while he is alive. Higher sea levels and the fear of rising
sea levels may reduce the value of his property but he is a rich man and his children will be well off regardless of what happens.

 

You are not describing a crisis that we should be concerned with.

Thanks!

 

This "what is the perfect temp" and "how much CO2 is perfect" are the garbage arguments of those who deny science as well as sociology and economics. There is NOTHING that validates that kind of question.

It's like asking what the optimal sea level is - something that could not POSSIBLY be more irrelevant.

The human problems of climate change have to do with change and the rate of that change.

 

If you plan on dying soon, that's probably true for you.

Otherwise, it's a ridiculous and stupendously unethical assumption.

 

I have children and am concerned about the future, but this isn't the "crisis" I should be worried about.

 

I think asking the question how many ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere directly the harms human body by breathing is a good question.

 

The vast majority of scientists view a global mean temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the late 19th century average as dangerous.
Certain tipping points may be reached if the global mean temperature rises and remains above 1.5 to 2.0 degrees Celsius relative to the late
19th century mean. Most of the existing coral reefs will die if the GMT rises to 2.0 degrees C. Greenland and parts of Antarctica could melt for
many centuries raising global sea levels by several meters at a minimum. There would be declining snow melt and freshwater in many regions
of the world. The areas of the world that are dry now would be drier and the areas that get plenty of rainfall would be wetter. Large numbers
of species would become extinct. Leaking methane from melting permafrost could result in higher than expected global temperatures.
These are some of the potential problems with a warming climate.

Some scientists propose 350 ppm as a safe level for atmospheric carbon dioxide. That seems reasonable to me.

 

And all this is based on questionable, if not crook "models" I assume.

 

Lucky for you, the solutions we have don't require "crisis mode".

This "crisis mode" thing is just one of the idiotic bits of nonsense added by deniers, because the have no valid argument.

For example, moving toward clean energy isn't a "crisis". We need to go there, but it isn't going to make you have a panic attack. In fact, it is proving economically advantageous. It hires more people that oil, etc. It's growing through the central region from Texas to Canada.

Home energy production is also economically viable. Would lowering energy bills cause home owners to panic?

Electric cars are cheaper to operate, too. Is that a "crisis"?

Let's be serious when discussing climate change.

 

That isn't a legitimate argument.

If you think mainstream climatology around the entire world is fundamentally fraudulent, you need to show some evidence of that.

Since this is a world wide conclusion, your evidence needs to show how a conspiracy of that size could be fully in operation today.

 

What I stated there is fact.

 

Your side needs to get some consistent messaging.



Now, is this "serious when discussing climate change?"

Every Democratic Presidential candidate gave some version of that. None of them said, as you are saying, that it's not a crisis.

Meanwhile, we are already reducing carbon in energy and transportation. There is no real policy need for green new deals so...it's not a crisis.