Not at all! I do question the temporal and amplitude accuracy of proxy data.
Proxies all have strengths and weaknesses
All the more reason to stop adding fossil CO2 to the air as quickly as humanly possible. We do not want the poles to melt do we?
Duh...According to NASA: “
Milankovitch cycles can’t explain all climate change that’s occurred over the past 2.5 million years or so. And more importantly, they cannot account for thecurrent period of rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the period between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th Century. Scientists are confident Earth’s recent warming is primarily due to human activities — specifically, the direct input of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
So how do we know Milankovitch cycles aren’t to blame?
First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat.”
Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.climate.nasa.gov
Have anything valuable to add?
Perhaps, but these are the methods used by the people who do this for a living.
Without names, you're making it up.
True but while June 20th may receive the most solar radiation July tends to be a hotter month even though we are receiving less energy from the sun. Climate shift make take years if not decades or longer to reverse a trend. Plus an asteroid strike or super volcano could toss all our data out the window. Who knows if and when the ocean currents might shift. We could start building a new Laurentide ice sheet over North America. There are clearly too many variables that we not only don't know the answer to but there are most likely lots of variables that we have yet to discover. Well the know it all are an exception of course.
He quotes material that doesn't matter. What matters to me is what the papers actually say. Not what someone else says about the papers.
They only have the levels stated in the studies,
Pointing out the limitations stated in their own publications, is not criticism.
The planet has gone through cooling and warming cycles for millions of years to think that now would be any different because of your actions borders on megalomaniaEarth's energy imbalance has been in a downward trend for are long as the CERES Satellites have been active (~Year 2000).
While the imbalance is still not zero, it is trending in that direction.
Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance
" The EEI shows a trend of −0.16 ± 0.03 (1 σ) W/m2dec. If the RSR ageing correction uncertainty (Section 4)
is taken into account the uncertainty becomes ±0.11 W/m2dec. This means that the EEI seems to have a decreasing trend. "
A quick calculation says that the .8 W m-2 of imbalance would drop to zero is about 50 years, if the trend from the last 20 years continues.
In the interim, we have to consider that warming is tied directly to Earth's energy imbalance, so at some point reducing the energy retained,
will move temperatures in the other direction.
