What happened in the last peak is irrelevant. We know temperatures are rising now. The evidence strongly points to human actions being a significant contributing factor this time around. We need to brace for the potential effects and do what we can to mitigate them.
Irrelevent that there were previous warming periods? How so, it shows that a warming trend is “normal”.
Yes they are, just like they did back then.
That is still up for debate. Unless you have a link to undisputed proof.
We would need to brace for warming, and we need to brace for another ice age as well.
I’m trying to think what civilization was around during the last interglacial. I’m guessing Aztecs? Probably lots of corn fields too?
And?
How much influence did they have on the climate? If they had no influence, what caused the warming then? And if THEY could find a way to survive the interglacial peek period, should we with all our technology that didn’t have then?
The Aztecs?
Irrelevant. No one has asserted that warming trends are abnormal.
Proof doesn’t exist in science. Empirical evidence does. And the evidence strongly supports the notion that human actions are a major factor in the warming. The evidence continues to pile up, while falsifying evidence is scant. You see, that’s how science works. We have a good idea of various forcings, and natural variability doesn’t account for the level of warming we are seeing.
And yet, a significant portion of one particular side of the political spectrum would even deny that warming is even happening (the “pause” rallying cries and straight up denialism).
Yes I was responding to your post.
How much influence di the Aztec have on the climate? If they could survive with limited technology should we be able to survive as well?
It’s not about simply “surviving.” It’s about trillions of dollars of damage and millions of lives that will be lost or lives that will be uprooted due to the required massive migration.
So the proof of man’s influence is only a theory and NOT proven then. Thanks.
Milankovich cycles. It’s complicated and I’m not claiming to be an expert. But it’s a combination of a few things mainly about how cold the winter gets in the northern hemisphere where glaciation occurs. Basically, we warm up when the Earth’s orbit is more circular (less eccentric), when the Earth’s tilt is more exaggerated (higher obliquity) and when the precession of the equinoxes puts Northern winters at perihelion when the Earth is closest to the sun.
Right now, obliquity is decreasing and precession is shifting to put northern winters at aphelion, far away from the sun, both of which should precipitate cooling.
The thing that saved us is the eccentricity of the orbit is usually on a 100k year cycle but it’s a really complicated movement. It’s influenced by lots of factors and so it’s not as simple as the precession or obliquity cycles. Our eccentricity isn’t very high and isn’t going to be getting very high for tens of thousands of years which should keep the climate remarkably stable for 25 to 50k years without human involvement.
Here’s the best graph from for global temperatures based on dozens (hundreds, I don’t remember) proxy sources to produce the most accurate global record of the last interglacial period.
It clearly shows we were in a long term cooling trend.
Scientific theories aren’t proven. They are supported with evidence, modified with new evidence, or falsified.
Come on man? Really? There were no civilizations around during the last interglacial. I’m yanking your chain.
And if we were to completely illiminage all “greenhouse gass emissions” and the temp still went up what then? Try and use technology to somehow change the climate from “normal warming”?
And do we have a similar graph of a 10k period from the other warming trends to see if this is normal or abnormal?
I don’t, not with nearly the type of accuracy needed.
Did you look at the current graph and think to yourself that the last spike on the right seemed “normal”?
There’s really no physical explanation outside man made global warming that can explain that spike.
So your saying that because climate change has happened without man that its impossible for man to affect climate. Got it.
I think orbital forcing is typically the cause, right?
So any comparison from now to the past is apples to oranges?
Does it look normal for that short 10,000 year period. Yes. But to know if it is really normal or not, you would have to compare a similar 10,000 year period in all other interglacial periods to get a base line for what “normal” looks like.
That’s not true. Were there any spikes like that in previous interglacial periods?
I’m trying to figure out how you could consider an abrupt reversal of a long term cooling trend to be normal.
IF it’s not true, then what is the physical explanation for the recent spike in temperature outside of man made global warming?
I don’t believe man’s influence is significant.
Example a: Deepwater oil spill. Largest at the time that was man made. What does the area look like now? What will it look like in anouther 10 years. Now keep in mind, the ocean NATURALLY secreats more oil every year than came out in that spill.
