Earth's tilt influences climate change

[Threegoofs]

Thank you for reading my mind!:mrgreen:
I cited the article, because it references the amount of warming the models were expecting.

From 1998, an anomalous year.

But I'm sure you didn't even think of that .

 

[longview]

From 1998, an anomalous year.

But I'm sure you didn't even think of that .

What do you think was anomalous about 1998?
And did they count that anomalous warming in the total showing how much global warming was occurring?
They clearly said so in the article!

 

[Threegoofs]

What do you think was anomalous about 1998?
And did they count that anomalous warming in the total showing how much global warming was occurring?
They clearly said so in the article!

So you dont think 1998 was anomalous? How long have you been posting here?

And again, yes, the paper you picked shows what you wanted it to say. Its not real relevant to the overall warming occuring.

 

[humbolt]

Skeptic?

Not denier?

 

[Visbek]

If this oscillation is responsible for climate changes, there's not a damn thig we can do about it. Letting eggheads fool with trying to change it could lead to worse outcomes.

1) A 23,000 year long oscillation is not causing a massive change in global temperatures over a ~150 year period.

2) We are currently in a decreasing Obliquity cycle. I.e. temperatures should be very gradually declining, not increasing.

3) What those "eggheads" are trying to do is STOP human activity from impacting the climate. They're trying to change MAN-MADE sources of warming, not natural ones. Unless you think that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels is a natural process.

 

[Visbek]

What? Do you AGW guys eat a box of condescension every morning? You have absolutely no idea what I know or don't know.

So what do you know?

The OP is interesting. It probably isn't a significant factor all by itself, but it does highlight that there are probably far more events occurring that influence climate than we know. Nobody with any credibility at all believes we shouldn't seek to reduce carbon emissions. I would note, however, that it's hardly possible to tax orbital changes.

The OP is not saying anything particularly new, and nothing that applies to the current situation.

Scientists have hypothesized about Milankovitch cycles since the 1920s, and a cycle that takes 20,000+ years to complete -- and should currently be in a downward trend -- is not going to explain an unprecedented jump in global temperatures over the past 150 or so years.

P.S. A large number of highly credible scientists believe we need to reduce carbon emissions ASAP. Cue endlessly repeated flame war in 3, 2, 1....

 

[humbolt]

So what do you know?

Nothing useful.

The OP is not saying anything particularly new, and nothing that applies to the current situation.

Scientists have hypothesized about Milankovitch cycles since the 1920s, and a cycle that takes 20,000+ years to complete -- and should currently be in a downward trend -- is not going to explain an unprecedented jump in global temperatures over the past 150 or so years.

P.S. A large number of highly credible scientists believe we need to reduce carbon emissions ASAP. Cue endlessly repeated flame war in 3, 2, 1....

Yeah. I know that. (See above).

 

[longview]

So you dont think 1998 was anomalous? How long have you been posting here?

And again, yes, the paper you picked shows what you wanted it to say. Its not real relevant to the overall warming occuring.

Oh, 1998 was an anomalously high El Nino year, yet they included it in the warming trend.
As to the question about the difference between how much warming was predicted vs how much was observed,
the article, regardless of their selected end year, describes what they were expecting to continue.
Had that amount of warming continued, as the article says,

Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012.

Then the globe should have warmed at the 0.21 °C per decade rate for the next 1.6 decades.
.21 X 1.6 = .336 C
Instead, the delta between 1998 and 2014 was only .019 per decade.
If you think 1998 should not be used as a starting point because it was anomalous,
then it should net be used when counting the warming ether, but that would
drop the base period warming by over 25%, and not sound so scary.

 

[ludin]

LSU paleoclimatologist Kristine DeLong contributed to an international research breakthrough that sheds new light on how the tilt of the Earth affects the world's heaviest rainbelt. DeLong analyzed data from the past 282,000 years that shows, for the first time, a connection between the Earth's tilt called obliquity that shifts every 41,000 years, and the movement of a low pressure band of clouds that is the Earth's largest source of heat and moisture -- the Intertropical Convergence Zone, or ITCZ.

"I took the data and put it through a mathematical prism so I could look at the patterns and that's where we see the obliquity cycle, that 41,000-year cycle. From that, we can go in and look at how it compares to other records," said DeLong, who is an associate professor in the LSU Department Geography & Anthropology.
snip...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151214142053.htm







Talking with some folks who live in Alaska this past weekend and this subject came up. Simple, to the point and no one is to blame.

this is an outrage you mean that there is more that controls earths climate than CO2.
this lady is a kook a fraud. she is purposely spreading scientific knowledge in a poor
attempt to stop the doom and gloom of our CO2 issue.

co2 is the cause of all climate change. a gas that makes up less than .5% of our atmosphere is responsible for
everything that happens from floods to earthquakes to snow.

how dare someone say otherwise.

yep we knew that there are other factors that control earths climate. this was just a given.

 

[Nilly]

So much still unknown about the Earth climate system. Probably premature to take any drastic action.

If we wait until we know absolutely everything then we may be too late. Sometimes you have to take action quickly, and when we strongly suspect we do have some causal factors, then best thing to do is to mitigate those while we can.

 

[Threegoofs]

Oh, 1998 was an anomalously high El Nino year, yet they included it in the warming trend.
As to the question about the difference between how much warming was predicted vs how much was observed,
the article, regardless of their selected end year, describes what they were expecting to continue.
Had that amount of warming continued, as the article says,

Then the globe should have warmed at the 0.21 °C per decade rate for the next 1.6 decades.
.21 X 1.6 = .336 C
Instead, the delta between 1998 and 2014 was only .019 per decade.
If you think 1998 should not be used as a starting point because it was anomalous,
then it should net be used when counting the warming ether, but that would
drop the base period warming by over 25%, and not sound so scary.

LOLwut?

You should use all the data, but using an anomalously high year as a starting point and then complaining that the IPCC didnt calculate the warming for the 1.6 decades following correctly is just ridiculous.

 

[WCH]

1) A 23,000 year long oscillation is not causing a massive change in global temperatures over a ~150 year period.

2) We are currently in a decreasing Obliquity cycle. I.e. temperatures should be very gradually declining, not increasing.

3) What those "eggheads" are trying to do is STOP human activity from impacting the climate. They're trying to change MAN-MADE sources of warming, not natural ones. Unless you think that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels is a natural process.

When there are a number of volcanoes erupting and natural fires burning unimpeded....sure.

I'm talking about artificially dicking with things having no idea whether there will be good or bad outcomes.

 

[WCH]

this is an outrage you mean that there is more that controls earths climate than CO2.
this lady is a kook a fraud. she is purposely spreading scientific knowledge in a poor
attempt to stop the doom and gloom of our CO2 issue.

co2 is the cause of all climate change. a gas that makes up less than .5% of our atmosphere is responsible for
everything that happens from floods to earthquakes to snow.

how dare someone say otherwise.

yep we knew that there are other factors that control earths climate. this was just a given.

Yep, for those here claiming to be scientists, the extent of narrow-mindedness is astounding. Maybe they should spend more time broadening their horizons and less time acting snotty on a debate forum.

 

[WCH]

If we wait until we know absolutely everything then we may be too late. Sometimes you have to take action quickly, and when we strongly suspect we do have some causal factors, then best thing to do is to mitigate those while we can.

That's if you buy into the dooms day ALGORE scenarios. Lose much sleep over that?

 

[Visbek]

When there are a number of volcanoes erupting and natural fires burning unimpeded....sure.

I'm talking about artificially dicking with things having no idea whether there will be good or bad outcomes.

Then I should thank you for the straw man.

Climate scientists are trying to do everything possible not to artificially manipulate the climate. It's only being considered at all because, wait for it... People keep pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

And did you miss the part where the 23,000 year long cycle should be in a declining phase...?

 

[Visbek]

this is an outrage you mean that there is more that controls earths climate than CO2.

Climatologists already know there are numerous forces acting on the climate. Again: What she's talking about is not new, it's a hypothesis first discussed in the 1920s.

And the focus is on CO2, because it's the single largest greenhouse gas we're emitting into the atmosphere.

Global greenhouse emissions, by type of gas:

Global emissions:

co2 is the cause of all climate change. a gas that makes up less than .5% of our atmosphere is responsible for
everything that happens from floods to earthquakes to snow.

Good grief. Do you never get tired of bashing straw men?

 

[Deuce]

Not denier?

I mostly use that word for people who delve into conspiracy theory territory. When I use it at all.

 

[WCH]

Then I should thank you for the straw man.

Climate scientists are trying to do everything possible not to artificially manipulate the climate. It's only being considered at all because, wait for it... People keep pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

And did you miss the part where the 23,000 year long cycle should be in a declining phase...?

Apparently, up until now or maybe not at all, they haven't been putting the Earth's tilt into the predictions.

Maybe it's because they haven't studied it enough.

 

[Russell797]

Apparently, up until now or maybe not at all, they haven't been putting the Earth's tilt into the predictions.

Maybe it's because they haven't studied it enough.

The Earth's axial tilt is no factor on time scales of decades to centuries. The shift in axial tilt cycles over 41,000 years while the precession of the equinoxes cycles on a 26,000 year cycle.

 

[Russell797]

And yet calling for action now on what might happen in 100 years is precisely working with information you don't know.

It's not happening only in 100 years but 100 years ago, today and 500+ years hence. And no, it is based on what we do know. We can not work with information we do not have and may never have. It would be quite remarkable if there is some factor working on a scale of decades to centuries which we are not aware of that would be of more importance than what we already know.

The three most important factors are solar radiance, albedo and the opacity of the atmosphere. Those three factors alone allow scientists to know the surface temperature of Venus, Earth and Mars. It's not really all that complicated once you know the relevant values.

 

[iguanaman]

So much still unknown about the Earth climate system. Probably premature to take any drastic action.

Who cares if the damage is not reversible, right? Let's wait until it is too late and then say oh well, game over. It's not like the human race is so special anyway.
What IS so wrong about erring on the side of caution anyway?

 

[Russell797]

Even that .14 C per decade is below the expected amount.
I suspect there is a danger in measuring from peaks of events which have unknown intensities.

The statistical methodology used is a running mean which smooths out the variability inherent to complex trend analysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instr...rd#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

 

[Nilly]

That's if you buy into the dooms day ALGORE scenarios. Lose much sleep over that?

I don't know how old you are WCH, but there's a reason that climate change is top of the agenda for a majority of millennials. It's because we're the ones who'll get ****ed over if the prevailing theory (y'know, the one backed up by the vast majority of scientists) is correct. There's a way of refining theories called bayesian inference. It means we take our best guess at what the data says, and we then update our predictions based off of new data. We don't know everything, but right now what we do know is overwhelmingly pointing towards there being a large anthropogenic factor to climate change, so lets act on the information we do have instead of sitting around with our thumbs stuck up our arses.

And as iguanaman's excellent picture above states, what exactly is so wrong with cleaning up our act a bit? Worried that we'll move below China in GDP rankings??? Who gives a ****, it baffles me that people's pride is more important to them than the potential future of the planet. As for the whole 'well they aren't doing it so why should we', lets be a leader, lets take the first steps and once we've done that then we can pressure people to follow.

Oh and here's something to think about, something like oil is a limited resource, even if we get better at finding out. It's going to run out at some point, whether it's in 100 years or 500. Thing is, there are always going to be applications where oil is more suited than battery power (due to energy density/ease of transport etc). Commercial airliners, for example. Why is cutting down on usage of a limited resource a bad thing, especially when we know that said limited resource has more valuable uses. We could easily cut down on oil consumption with public transport initiatives etc, and whilst that might cost us a little more now, it might just mean that in 100 years time, oil will still be prevalent enough that little Timmy can still afford to fly across country to see his Grandma for thanksgiving. There's a world after you're gone, you know.

 

[Poor Debater]

As I have been saying for decades, if we still don't fundamentally know all of the drivers of climate we can not extract the effect of any one driver of climate from the noise of the unknown.

For decades now the CO2 sensitivity has contained both the actual sensitivity of CO2 in the atmosphere and all of the yet unknown drivers.

 

[Poor Debater]

It was the nature article that picked 1998 not me.
They also counted that hottest year as part of the warming,
to show how quickly it had warmed.
Don't you think it is just as disingenuous to count a known El Nino period,
when showing how fast it is warming?

And yet you routinely start at a known El Niño period when trying to show that it hasn't warmed.

I guess you're just a hypocrite.