Thanks for your response here Robert. I grant that you have greater knowledge of the finer points of climatology than I do.Robert Tulip wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
One of the main arguments against man made global warming is that historically co2 increases in the atmosphere have followed not preceded periods of warming. I would be interested to hear a response to this argument from those who hold to man made global warming.
Hi Flann, that is easy. Natural climate change is driven by earth’s orbital cycles. When northern summer is at perihelion, closest to the sun, the snow that fell in winter melts and glaciers retreat. When northern summer is at aphelion, furthest from the sun, the snow that fell in winter does not melt, and glaciers advance. This is called the Milankovitch Cycle. Now, when the orbital warming or cooling factor gets going, it produces other impacts, such as albedo, or whiteness. When there is lots of snow the earth reflects more sunlight and gets colder, and vice versa. Also, it affects the ocean carbon cycle.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2 ... te-system/ is a very good simple science article you can read to get more detail.
I just don't get the logical argument.
It seems to be accepted science that temperature increases also increase co2 levels,or do you dispute that?
If global temperature increases also increase co2 levels and increased co2 levels increase global temperature then we should see a continuous relentless rise in temperatures.
Historically this is not the case and co2 level variations seems to lag behind temperature variations.
What do you make of the correlation between solar activity (sunspots) and inactivity and warming and cooling? It does seem to be very closely matched don't you think?
This thread is meant to be about Bill Nye of course. I'm sure Nye is convinced that global warming is a dire threat but his defend the polemic at all costs approach,and use of scare tactics are questionable.
It's now being called "climate disruption" apparently. The constant changing of language from climate "warming" to "change" to "disruption" strikes me as Orwellian.
Something I'm sure you would appreciate Robert.