Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming

[watsup]

"But 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."

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

And thus we see once again that human-produced CO2 is the prime factor in the present global warming.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You're joking right? You bring in another blog. Why can't you reference real papers?

It's a joke anyway to think the Milankovitch Cycle can make any such short term changes, and equally as stupid to think that needs to be said. Nobody has made a claim regarding this that I am aware of. It's a very slow cycles, that takes several thousands of years for this cycle to take place.

Who in their right mind thinks this needs to be brought up?

Is it because I made the claim the earth will be receiving more solar insolation for the next 26,000 years? Because I make claims using celestial mechanics? I never claimed any short term warming from it. In fact, when others kept saying the Milankovitch Cycle should have us entering an ice ace, I repeatedly said they were wrong.

"But 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."

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

And thus we see once again that human-produced CO2 is the prime factor in the present global warming.

I repeatedly said we will be warming for the next 26,000 years. And I'm not speaking of a warming fast enough to see in a couple hundred years. And I have also stated assuming the sun stays constant, because it is another variable yet.

Do you understand anything about celestial mechanics?

Look at how the position of a planet in an elliptical orbit increases and decreases annual heat from the sun as the eccentricity decreases and increases.

What are the prime numbers when you reduce AGW anyway to its prime factors?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Please note that the link it cites says:

Eccentricity is the reason why our seasons are slightly different lengths, with summers in the Northern Hemisphere currently about 4.5 days longer than winters, and springs about three days longer than autumns. As eccentricity decreases, the length of our seasons gradually evens out.

The difference in the distance between Earth’s closest approach to the Sun (known as perihelion), which occurs on or about January 3 each year, and its farthest departure from the Sun (known as aphelion) on or about July 4, is currently about 5.1 million kilometers (about 3.2 million miles), a variation of 3.4 percent. That means each January, about 6.8 percent more incoming solar radiation reaches Earth than it does each July.
​

This is why changes in the eccentricity change the total global insolation.

 

[watsup]

You're joking right? You bring in another blog. Why can't you reference real papers?

It's a joke anyway to think the Milankovitch Cycle can make any such short term changes, and equally as stupid to think that needs to be said. Nobody has made a claim regarding this that I am aware of. It's a very slow cycles, that takes several thousands of years for this cycle to take place.

Who in their right mind thinks this needs to be brought up?

Is it because I made the claim the earth will be receiving more solar insolation for the next 26,000 years? Because I make claims using celestial mechanics? I never claimed any short term warming from it. In fact, when others kept saying the Milankovitch Cycle should have us entering an ice ace, I repeatedly said they were wrong.
I repeatedly said we will be warming for the next 26,000 years. And I'm not speaking of a warming fast enough to see in a couple hundred years. And I have also stated assuming the sun stays constant, because it is another variable yet.

Do you understand anything about celestial mechanics?

Look at how the position of a planet in an elliptical orbit increases and decreases annual heat from the sun as the eccentricity decreases and increases.

What are the prime numbers when you reduce AGW anyway to its prime factors?

If the Milankovich cycles are not causing the short term warming that the Earth is experiencing, then what is?

 

[Lord of Planar]

If the Milankovich cycles are not causing the short term warming that the Earth is experiencing, then what is?

Corrected: "If the Milankovich cycles are not causing the short term observed warming that the Earth is experiencing, then what is?"

Several things contribute. Do you have a specific time period in mind?

 

[watsup]

Corrected: "If the Milankovich cycles are not causing the short term observed warming that the Earth is experiencing, then what is?"

Several things contribute. Do you have a specific time period in mind?

Have you been asleep, Rip Van Winkle? What time period have we been talking about all along. I se that you are going to start dancing again instead of answering the question directly, Can't say I'm the least bit surprised.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Have you been asleep, Rip Van Winkle? What time period have we been talking about all along. I se that you are going to start dancing again instead of answering the question directly, Can't say I'm the least bit surprised.

We have talked of several time-frames. Not my fault you cannot answer a very simple question.

1750 to current day?

1980 to 2000?

There are two possible time-frames.

 

[watsup]

We have talked of several time-frames. Not my fault you cannot answer a very simple question.

1750 to current day?

1980 to 2000?

There are two possible time-frames.

Both. If you already knew the time frames we have been talking about for ages, why did you even ask such a stupid question.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Both. If you already knew the time frames we have been talking about for ages, why did you even ask such a stupid question.

Humor me.

Tell us or STFU.

 

[watsup]

Humor me.

Tell us or STFU.

See post #8.

 

[Lord of Planar]

See post #8.

Well, since you don't know which period you want an answer to, I can't give you one.

Goodbye.

 

[watsup]

Well, since you don't know which period you want an answer to, I can't give you one.

Goodbye.

The discussion is always about human-produced CO2 since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. You can’t figure this out on your own? Really?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The discussion is always about human-produced CO2 since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. You can’t figure this out on your own? Really?

Here is a conservative estimation of change since 1750, based on AR4 timeframes. The AR4 had the total warming at 1.6 W/m^2. At a 0.18% increase in TSI since 1750, the sun would be responsible for 0.93/1.6 of the warming, or 58%. A more realistic value for the TSI increase would be 0.24%, making the solar part of the 1.6 W/m^2 influence at 77%.

I know you will deny this, but the change the IPCC uses is 0.12 W/m^2. Applied to the 67 atmospheric heating and 168 surface heating would make this total of 235 as having a 1750 value of 234.88. The IPCC is claiming only a 0.051% increase since 1750, which is laughable. The 11 year cycle alone is double this, and almost all research regarding historical TSI values place the TSI change at double and more of the 11 year cycle.

 

[watsup]

Here is a conservative estimation of change since 1750, based on AR4 timeframes. The AR4 had the total warming at 1.6 W/m^2. At a 0.18% increase in TSI since 1750, the sun would be responsible for 0.93/1.6 of the warming, or 58%. A more realistic value for the TSI increase would be 0.24%, making the solar part of the 1.6 W/m^2 influence at 77%.

I know you will deny this, but the change the IPCC uses is 0.12 W/m^2. Applied to the 67 atmospheric heating and 168 surface heating would make this total of 235 as having a 1750 value of 234.88. The IPCC is claiming only a 0.051% increase since 1750, which is laughable. The 11 year cycle alone is double this, and almost all research regarding historical TSI values place the TSI change at double and more of the 11 year cycle.

View attachment 67332054

The beginning of the Industrial Revolution was well past 1750. And aren't you supposed to include a source for charts?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The beginning of the Industrial Revolution was well past 1750. And aren't you supposed to include a source for charts?

That was a common chart. It is a simplified version from the a Trenberth et. a. paper that was widely distributed years ago, when the AR4 came out. I added the changes to show what the 1750 levels were assuming the sun had increased by 0.18% since 1750.

Here is the latest one shown at NASA:



Chart source: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/keeping-an-eye-on-earth-s-energy-budget

If I were to simplify it, I would end up with:



I know you will have questions, so please ask instead of denying.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The beginning of the Industrial Revolution was well past 1750.

Well past? No, most agree it started in 1760. That's why the IPCC chose 1750 to start their changes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There have been several studies, and so many different charts on the earth energy budget, and they vary so little. I would say I'm surprised you never came across one, but I know better. You have no care to actually study this topic, therefore you don't. You just like to argue, and think you know what you are speaking of because you recite bloggers.

Just the same, here is another one, and the paper it comes out if:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.pdf

If I recall correctly, one of the assessment reports used this one.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It took me a little time going over several papers, but this is the paper my simplified graph comes from:

http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Kiehl_Trenberth_Radiative_Balance_BAMS_1997.pdf

 

[Buzz]

It took me a little time going over several papers, but this is the paper my simplified graph comes from:

http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Kiehl_Trenberth_Radiative_Balance_BAMS_1997.pdf

View attachment 67332173

None of these graphics of yours proves anything about what changes in TSI are doing to the planet's warming.

 

[watsup]

There have been several studies, and so many different charts on the earth energy budget, and they vary so little. I would say I'm surprised you never came across one, but I know better. You have no care to actually study this topic, therefore you don't. You just like to argue, and think you know what you are speaking of because you recite bloggers.

Just the same, here is another one, and the paper it comes out if:

View attachment 67332165

https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.pdf

If I recall correctly, one of the assessment reports used this one.

Nowhere in the article do the writers address TSI as a percentage of the factors in the present global warming, nor do they mention the effects of CO2 with respect to TSI as regards those particular factors. What they have clearly stated as their goal is simply to try to gain a better understanding of the Earth’s energy budget. They have made no conclusions as regards the percentages involved in the present global warming. As such, you are misrepresenting what the discussion and the graph actually stand for. And what first-hand research have you done to support your changes to the graph? It appears that you are just involved in a mathematical exercise without the underpinnings of actual research.

 

[Lord of Planar]

None of these graphics of yours proves anything about what changes in TSI are doing to the planet's warming.

Do you think CO2 creates it's own warming?

Where do you think the heat comes from?

Do you honestly, not believe that the forcing of CO2 changes with the forcing of the sun? Really?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nowhere in the article do the writers address TSI as a percentage of the factors in the present global warming, nor do they mention the effects of CO2 with respect to TSI as regards those particular factors. What they have clearly stated as their goal is simply to try to gain a better understanding of the Earth’s energy budget. They have made no conclusions as regards the percentages involved in the present global warming. As such, you are misrepresenting what the discussion and the graph actually stand for. And what first-hand research have you done to support your changes to the graph? It appears that you are just involved in a mathematical exercise without the underpinnings of actual research.

There is no one reference that covers all of what I am saying. This is what you call reading multiple sources of materiel and being able to understand it enough to come to conclusions. You would know how to think like that though. You let bloggers tell you what to believe. I find it absolutely amazing that you can do nothing buy deny what is right in from of you. The average of TSI studies puts the change since 1750 at about 0.24%. If we were to apply that 0.24% to the total downforcing on the surface of about 500 W/m^2, then 500 W/m^2 x 0.0024 = 1.2 W/m^2. This would be a total of around 2/3rd the earth warming.

Little accessed older material is difficult to call up with modern search engines, but it exists. I don't have the patience to find material for you that takes longer than a couple minutes. I have better things to do than waste my time trying to convince someone who matters next to zero to me.

The IPCC places the sun at about 0.12 W/m^2 of forcing. This is only 10% of the value I have given. If that assessment were true, then it would mean the solar changes since 1750 are less than the highs and lows in the 11 year cycle, which is absolutely wrong.

What amazes me, and why I humor you as much as I do, is I am flabbergasted by your continual denial of the facts presented and your denial of them. It's quite the comedy routine at times.

Just how much to you think the TSI has increased since 1750?

This should be good!

 

[watsup]

There is no one reference that covers all of what I am saying. This is what you call reading multiple sources of materiel and being able to understand it enough to come to conclusions. You would know how to think like that though. You let bloggers tell you what to believe. I find it absolutely amazing that you can do nothing buy deny what is right in from of you. The average of TSI studies puts the change since 1750 at about 0.24%. If we were to apply that 0.24% to the total downforcing on the surface of about 500 W/m^2, then 500 W/m^2 x 0.0024 = 1.2 W/m^2. This would be a total of around 2/3rd the earth warming.

Little accessed older material is difficult to call up with modern search engines, but it exists. I don't have the patience to find material for you that takes longer than a couple minutes. I have better things to do than waste my time trying to convince someone who matters next to zero to me.

The IPCC places the sun at about 0.12 W/m^2 of forcing. This is only 10% of the value I have given. If that assessment were true, then it would mean the solar changes since 1750 are less than the highs and lows in the 11 year cycle, which is absolutely wrong.

What amazes me, and why I humor you as much as I do, is I am flabbergasted by your continual denial of the facts presented and your denial of them. It's quite the comedy routine at times.

Just how much to you think the TSI has increased since 1750?

This should be good!

So there is no actual paper written by a climate scientist that backs your claims? I pretty much knew that, or you would have referenced it long ago.
Again, I don't even need a paper. A science-based article would do quite well showimg that it is solar energy that is the prime factor in today's global warming. I shall patiently wait. Even the paper that you said was in support of your claim said that it was less than human-produced CO2. You shot up your own claim.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So there is no actual paper written by a climate scientist that backs your claims? I pretty much knew that, or you would have referenced it long ago.
Again, I don't even need a paper. A science-based article would do quite well showimg that it is solar energy that is the prime factor in today's global warming. I shall patiently wait. Even the paper that you said was in support of your claim said that it was less than human-produced CO2. You shot up your own claim.

There is. Actually, I looked someplace I didn't before. I had it saved. By my save file date, it was probably 5 years ago we discussed it here. I get pretty board rehashing things that people forget. Had to open several files before finding it though. You can find the study by the title:



There are others, but I had this one handy.

 

[Buzz]

There is. Actually, I looked someplace I didn't before. I had it saved. By my save file date, it was probably 5 years ago we discussed it here. I get pretty board rehashing things that people forget. Had to open several files before finding it though. You can find the study by the title:

View attachment 67332422

There are others, but I had this one handy.

You're right about one thing... I did forget about this study. Probably because it isn't even peer-reviewed and gives results that are far outside what the vast majority of the science says it is.

I guess this would explain why you forgot about it too.