Friday, September 28, 2007

Global Warming and Milankovitch Cycles

New Scientist has published a second article reporting on several studies which support the theory that global warming is not due to man-made CO2 but that it is instead due to slight changes in Earth's orientation toward the sun can cause it to cool or warm in so-called Milankovitch cycles. Milankivitch cycles and other similar phenomenon describe variations in the Earth's axis as well as the extend of spherical vs elliptical shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun. Since the Southern Hemisphere's surface is comprised of more water than the Northern Hemisphere, if the Earth is tilted so, that the Southern Hemisphere receives more light, then the global oceans will warm to a greater extent.

The famous Artic and Antartic ice-core temperature/CO2 data mis-used by Al Gore in his "An Inconvenient Truth" docudrama clearly shows that CO2 elevations lag 800 years behind elevations in ocean temperature. This clearly suggests that as the oceans warmed by another mechanism, the warmer water disolved less CO2 which was released into the atmosphere. When the cause of ocean warming stopped, the atmospheric CO2 disolved back into the ocean.

These recent studies suggest that Milankovitch cycles are the main driver of global warming. Yes, we shouldn't pollute and yes, we should become more energy independent, but we need to be careful when the UN tries to tell us that all scientists are unified in the opinion that man-made Co2 is the cause of global warming. The UN was clearly trying to take advantage of an environmental issue to dictate global policy.

7 comments:

Gustav said...

You have clearly not understood the Milankovitch cycle and its connection with the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere.

Yes the warming of the ocean is triggered by increased sun insulation, i.e. due to the Milankovitch cycles. This leads to increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. But this in turn leads to increased green house effect, which leads to increased atmospheric temperature, warming the sea, leading to increased carbon dioxide levels, and so on. This is a positive feedback loop. And this positive feedback, as well as other positive and negative feedbacks are needed to explain the climatic changes triggered by the Milankovitch cycles. The Milankovitch cycle in itself cannot explain the historic climate changes (such as ice ages, etc.).

Thus the Milankovitch cycle and the following ice ages do not contradict the AGW theory, but strengthens it as it underlines the importance of the CO2 level for climate change.

Also, the time lag between oceanic warming and increased atmospheric CO2 level is irrelevant, as this time the CO2 levels increases first (due to burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc.).

BRoz said...

Yes, I agree that it is a bit more complicated than this cycle alone. In my most recent post and a previous post I list more of these factors having to do with sun luminosity, sun spots/solar rays, cloud formation ect. This science is explained by a dozen expert climatologist in the BBC documentary "global warming swindle" especially Dr. Lindzen from MIT.

What your explaination fails to explain is that If CO2 was such a major driver of climate change and global warming with such a powerful "feed-forward" mechanism as you suggest, then that would fail to explain why global temps could fall after their initial rise like during the Monder Min following the Midievil Warm Period and the cooling during the last 10 years.

Fact is Michael Mann at Penn State lied in his "hockey stick" graph covering up the Midievil Warm Period and hiding the cooling and exaggerating the warming 50%. Email about his "nature tricks" prove this.

Also, according to ice core data, CO2 lags 800 years behind temp and therefore cannot be causative but reactionary, and the most recent sat data released by Lindzen & Choi at MIT demonstrates increased radiation of heat into space and not less as 11 climate models errantly predict. Co2 is not a significant greenhouse gas at it's current concentrations. Water vapor and clouds rule.

You are on the wrong side of the science and the truth here. And with this UN Climate treaty, you are on the wrong side of freedom. Freedom and US Sovergnity were paid for with human blood, and unfortunately it can be so easily lost by the stroke of the pen. I feel for the 3rd world who the UN is bribing to sign onto the treaty. Instead of giving the 3rd world a fish, we need them to lean to fish for themselves, industrialize minus our pollution mistakes.

If you read my latest post on Direct Carbohyrate FuelCell all this need for a treaty is going to be pointless. this fuelcell works and is 100% renewable. I built it 10 years ago and it's now finally patented, published and currently undergoing commercial development.

Global Warming Essay said...

well post, i was looking the same information to write essay on global warming.

William said...

Your comment on the "hockey stick" graph alone indicates you don't know what you're talking about. Your assessment is simply outdated and useless.

gzuckier said...

The Milankovitch cycle is 41,000 years long. How much effect do you think you will see over 100 years?

Anonymous said...

Problem with the "positive feedback" involving co2. It takes a logarithmic increase in co2 to have a linear effect, i.e., if the first 40 ppm has X effect, it takes an additional 400 ppm to have 2X effect. There is also a limit; After a certain point, co2 has NO MORE EFFECT. Frankly, it defies common sense that a substance that is half as abundant in the atmosphere as ARGON could have so dramatic an effect. The "positive feedback loop" argument was already debunked, as has AGW in general, and most thoroughly. CO2 levels have been as much as 25 times higher in the past than they are today, and were 5 times today's level at the start of the ice age. I'm simply astonished at the number of people posting half-truths and outright lies all over the internet on this topic. It is a politically motivated hoax being driven by the UN.

Anonymous said...

I don't think you even realize that the Scientific American article you link to says exactly the opposite of what you claim.
It talks of Milankovitch cycles being a starter for change but you should have noticed how it goes on at length about "carbon moving through the oceans." When it's talking about that it's talking about CO2 being absorbed or emitted by oceans depending on the stage of the cycle. What this is referring to is the well know CO2 feedback that changes forcings enough to actually cause or end ice ages. What you have published supports the IPCC and the scientific consensus.

Rugbyguy59