Committing to a major change to the way that humans live is a risky experiment (as is continuing to use fossil fuels). — Agree-to-Disagree

Yeah life is a risky game. I wouldn't play it if I had the choice.

But your suggestion seems to be to ignore the best prediction we have and all the evidence we have, in favour of some unimagined factor that will work in our favour rather than making things even worse. I call that wishful thinking.

800 thousand years isn’t short. — Mikie

The increased availability of standardized thermometers and the growth of climate data collection networks in the 19th century further contributed to the widespread use of thermometers for monitoring and studying climate.

NOAA and NASA satellites started collecting data on global temperatures in late November 1978, about 45 years of data.

Ice cores come from only a few places on the earth which are very cold. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland.

Why is there a pattern of regular interglacials about every 100,000 years. The current interglacial fits that pattern. From your graphs the current interglacial appears to have plateaued, and it is at a temperature less than the previous interglacial.

Our knowledge is not complete or precise. Predictions are made from climate models which are based on various assumptions. Different models give different results, so they "average" them. If you average many incorrect results you probably won't get the correct result.

800 thousand years isn’t short. — Mikie

It is compared to 4.5 billion years. What does the data say about the other 4,499,200,000 years the earth has existed?

the graph you present shows a spike in co2 and temperature about every 40-60 thousand years.

What accounts for that?

You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. But that tracks with literally everything else you’ve posted.

Anyway: (1) 800 thousand years isn’t short, and the data is accurate indeed. (2) We’re warming at an alarming rate, and we know why (greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation). Nothing to do with “models.”

The “models” you do speak of have been remarkably accurate. What they’ve done is underestimated the warming, however.

Also, this isn’t normal:



If you can’t see why this would be troubling to climate scientists, you’re practically illiterate. Or going out of your way to find reasons for denial. We all know you’re a climate denier— but maybe there’s something to the illiteracy part too— I can’t be certain.

milankovitch cycle?

milankovitch cycle — frank

Are you suggesting that there may be causal factors beyond the human?

Are you suggesting that there may be causal factors beyond the human? — Merkwurdichliebe

For climate change? Of course. The climate has been changing since there's been a climate.

For climate change? Of course. The climate has been changing since there's been a climate. — frank

Yes, for climate change. Why do you think current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age?

Why do you think current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age? — Merkwurdichliebe

Basically a shit ton of computer modelling by a shit ton of scientists all over the world. It's called the IPCC.

Basically a shit ton of computer modelling by a shit ton of scientists all over the world. It's called the IPCC. — frank

And what is the IPCC explanation for why the current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age?

And what is the IPCC explanation for why the current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age? — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't know what you mean by "the same pattern." We're in a interglacial period. The glacial periods are the dips.

don't know what you mean by "the same pattern — frank

I'm going off 's graph:

That graph covers 800,000 years in 4 inches. You're just a tiny speck at the end.

That graph covers 800,000 years in 4 inches. You're just a tiny speck at the end. — frank

Nevertheless, it shows an obvious pattern. Don't play dumb.

Nevertheless, it shows an obvious pattern. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes.

Yes — frank

So then, what explanation does IPCC give us for the occurrence of that pattern in the absence of human industrialization and modernization?

So then, what explanation does IPCC give us for the occurrence of that pattern in the absence of human industrialization and modernization? — Merkwurdichliebe

It's partly the earth's axial wobble, and partly the way the earth's orbit changes from circular to elliptical. I haven't read a book about the climate in a couple of years, and that's long enough to get out of date. So, don't take my word. Look it up.

It's partly the earth's axial wobble, and partly the way the earth's orbit changes from circular to elliptical. I haven't read a book about the climate change in a couple of years, and that's long enough to get out of date. So, don't take my word. Look it up. — frank

From the looks of it, climate change is far from being human caused. From what you have told me, it seems like it has more to do with axial wobbles and solar cycles than human activity.

i rarely do... but i always watch your videos. You are obviously insane

Despite your display of supremacy, the question remains:

According to @Mikie's graph- what explanation does IPCC give us for the occurrence of the pattern of climate change over the past 800,000 years (which the current trend fits into perfectly on time), in which all prior events occurred in the absence of human industrialization and modernization?

what explanation does IPCC give us for the occurrence of the pattern of climate change over the past 800,000 years (which the current trend fits into perfectly on time), in which all prior events occurred in the absence of human industrialization and modernization? — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't even know what you're asking, but I have a feeling you're going to ask again, in spite of the video. :grimace:

's

The IPCC attributes pre-industrial spikes in CO2 and temperature to natural factors such as volcanic activity, changes in solar radiation, and variations in Earth's orbit. These natural influences have historically played a role in climate change. However, the IPCC attributes the recent trend in climate change to human activity. The current trend of climate change fits perfectly into the prehistorical pattern of climate change, so why is it now attributed to human activity as opposed to natural causes as it is in every previous case?

Why do you think current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age? — Merkwurdichliebe

Follow the money.

It also gives certain people the power to control other people.

i want a real answer so i can be readily convinced. I'm willing to ignore the money trail if I can get a solid explanation for why, in the 4.5 billion years of naturally caused climate change, it is only in the past 150 years that human activity has become the overwhelming cause of the current trend. But i get nothing but evasions. I know why. I should follow the money.

I have to ask you: did you think the earth's climate had pretty much always been the way it is now?

I have to ask you: did you think the earth's climate had pretty much always been the way it is now? — frank

I did not. And I never atttibuted any of the changes in the earth's climate to human activity. I'm just curious about why the pattern of climate change is attributed to natural causes in every instance except for the present one.

I did not. And I never atttibuted any of the changes in the earth's climate to human activity. I'm just curious about why the prehistorical pattern of climate change is attributed to natural causes in every instance except for the present one — Merkwurdichliebe

I asked because you keep saying the cycle from the 800,000 year graph is happening now. It's not. You're overlooking the massive difference in scale between the glacial/interglacial cycle versus the few centuries of anthropogenic climate change.

I'm just saying, when I first started looking into climate change it was because of a book I read about Egypt. If you read about ancient Egypt, you find out that during the last glacial period, the Sahara was a prairie, not a desert. There were people living there. The history of Egypt starts when the glacial period was finally finishing, but there were still big rivers and lakes where now, there's only desert. And all this is just looking at changes over the last 12,000 years.

The graph that shows the milankovitch cycle covers eight hundred thousand years. That's gigantic. Our species has only been around for maybe 300,000. It's kind of mind blowing to get the scale of geological time. I found it that way, anyway.

The graph that shows the milankovitch cycle covers eight hundred thousand years. That's gigantic. Our species has only been around for maybe 300,000. It's kind of mind blowing to get the scale of geological time. I found it that way, anyway. — frank

And the scale of geological time makes our current predictions of "human caused" climate change look like a political agenda when a regular guy cannot get a straight answer about why human activity has superseded natural causes as reason for climate change, despite any historical precedent. I expect no explanation or effort to convince me. We are all simply meant to accept what the great masters tell us.

I know why. I should follow the money. — Merkwurdichliebe

Have you followed the oil industry money?

no, i just want to know one thing and i cannot get a straight answer.