|
SecondBestBoy -> RE: 4 New Papers Link Solar Activity, Natural Ocean Cycles To Climate – And Find Warmer Temps During 170 (10/4/2016 12:01:12 PM)
|
Thanks for that ridiculously meaningless cartoon plot, RealOne. That post in fact is the CLASSIC denialist misinformation trope, and it's in keeping with the dishonest angle taken by the very post that started this thread. So, it's topical - in its own pathologically lying sort of way.
Over millions of years, MANY things affect climate (temperature), and most of them ARE natural forces. Chief among these drivers are something called Milankovitch cycles. These are subtle changes in the precessional and other characteristics of the earth's orbit and transit around the sun. Wobbles and gradual changes in the eccentricity, etcetra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Milankovitch cycles - a series of natural climate forcings, the very FASTEST of which operates on time scales of tens of thouands of years - in fact trigger the ice ages and our exit from them. The earth's wobble changes, causing more or less sunlight to hit the northern hemisphere in a given year, which causes some ice to melt, which releases CO2 which warms the earth, which then melts more ice, which then feeds the warming in a positive feedback effect. Then when the Milankovitch cycle reverses polarity, the inverse happens and we very slowly plunge into another ice age again. That's some of what you're seeing on that denialist red herring visual aid there.
But there are other things happening over those large time spans too. Huge vegetation changes, which soak up large amounts of CO2. Time periods in which the sun did indeed change its average output over long periods of time. None of those things are happening today.
For these and other reasons, CO2 and temperature don't correlate very well over huge epochs. But on the short time scale of a hundred or two hundred years, all of those geologically "slow" forces and processes are essentially static. And DURING that stable period - in which we have formed civilization on the current shorelines, involving massive infrastructure and billions of people, the relationship of CO2 to temperature has been definitively "seen" (to answer your disingenuous question):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html
"how about you spell out where you see the direct correlation between Co2 and dt? "
*I* don't need to "spell out" this phenomenon that's been shown by thousands of peer reviewed science papers, to the extent that the National Academy of Science and every other similar body in the world is convinced. It's not *my* conclusion, but theirs.
|
|
|
|
