• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

LOL...

This thread isn't very long yet. It's post 24.

LOL

Simulations including an increased solar activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 °C and a solar influence of 0.54 °C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 °C (doubling of CO2) and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 °C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).​

Like ikt or not, it is a peer reviewed paper that disagrees with what the activists say.
The 0.6 °C (doubling of CO2) number is not all that crazy when you consider the long term effects of CO2
confined by the basics of the greenhouse effect.
Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature
and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C.
We find that water vapor is the dominant substance — responsible for about 50% of the absorption,
with clouds responsible for about 25% —
and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect.
Taken together all the CO2 since earth had an atmosphere, has caused 6.6°C of total equalized warming.
If we count doubling s between 1 ppm and 280 ppm, we get 8.09 doubling s.
This would mean that each historic doubling of CO2, contributed at most, 0.82°C of warming.
I know this is not the same as the above mentioned 0.6°C, but it is much closer than the predicted 3.0°C!
 
LOL...

This thread isn't very long yet. It's post 24.

LOL

Simulations including an increased solar activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 °C and a solar influence of 0.54 °C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 °C (doubling of CO2) and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 °C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).​

Like ikt or not, it is a peer reviewed paper that disagrees with what the activists say.

The "activists" of which you speak are climate scientists who have done the research and have the data to show that it is human-produced CO2 that is the primary cause of today's global warming. See the OP for a discussion by NASA as to why it's not solar energy that is doing so as the primary cause.
 
The "activists" of which you speak are climate scientists who have done the research and have the data to show that it is human-produced CO2 that is the primary cause of today's global warming. See the OP for a discussion by NASA as to why it's not solar energy that is doing so as the primary cause.
Nasa's analysis of solar energy is strictly based on TSI, (Total solar Intensity) which is measured at the top of the atmosphere.
It is not inclusive of Solar insolation, the amount of solar energy that actually reaches the surface of the Earth.
Historical Total Solar Irradiance Reconstruction, Time Series
Even using the sunspot calculation number the decade averaged TSI increase since 1750 is .379 W m-2,
While it is not a lot, it also is something to consider.
Of the available sunlight hitting the top of the atmosphere, a higher ratio could be reaching the ground.
ENLIGHTENING GLOBAL DIMMING AND BRIGHTENING
Studies have shown that the amount of available sunlight reaching the ground varies widely, and is quite a bit greater that CO2 forcing.
Literature estimates for the overall SSR decline during dimming range from 3 to 9 W m−2
, and from 1 to 4 W m−2 for the partial recovery during subsequent brightening.
 
Does it also have to state 2+2=4?
Of course not. Why would you even ask such a stupid question?
The paper points out that the changes in the surface insolation changes the temperature of the surface which changes the upward IR. They do acknowledge this. The greenhouse effect is driven by upward IR. This is obvious.
You didn't read it... did you?
:ROFLMAO:
You either didn't read it or didn't understand it, and you think you understand science enough to debate me? OK...
I understand the subject far better than you ever will. That's why I have been pretty regularly having to school you on several different subjects. This is just another example.
Like ikt or not, it is a peer reviewed paper that disagrees with what the activists say.
This is just not true. Peer-reviewed articles will list submission, correction, accepted, and published dates. This study of yours is just published in an open letter journal and shows no signs of having been peer-reviewed. And it is contrary to the vast majority of studies done on the subjest.
 
Of course not. Why would you even ask such a stupid question?
I'm being absurd to show you how absurd you are being. You are expecting stuff to be presented that you should already know.

You didn't read it... did you?
:ROFLMAO:
I did. You obviously didn't.

I understand the subject far better than you ever will. That's why I have been pretty regularly having to school you on several different subjects. This is just another example.
This is just not true. Peer-reviewed articles will list submission, correction, accepted, and published dates. This study of yours is just published in an open letter journal and shows no signs of having been peer-reviewed. And it is contrary to the vast majority of studies done on the subjest.
is it or is it not published in a journal?

I'm not going to humor your rationalization. You need to accept that there is valid science that doesn't agree with your agenda.
 
I'm being absurd to show you how absurd you are being. You are expecting stuff to be presented that you should already know.
Nothing I am saying is absurd.
I did. You obviously didn't.
No, you didn't. Because your cited study never even mentions "indirect effects from the surface insolation" as you falsely claimed.
As a matter of fact, the word insolation isn't used even once in the entire study.

So... once again you have shown everyone here that you don't really read the studies you try to debate. And this isn't the first time you have been caught not reading something you are debating.

And what is even funnier is that your cited study actually uses Svensmark's debunked cosmic ray theory for a solar forcing.
:LOL:
is it or is it not published in a journal?
Not everything published in journals is peer-reviewed. This is something that you should know.
I'm not going to humor your rationalization. You need to accept that there is valid science that doesn't agree with your agenda.
And I'm not going to let you get away with cherry-picking the science. If you really read the science like you claim then you would know how ridiculous this study you have cited is. But you don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom