Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MosesZD t1_jdmr97n wrote

Which is 100% meaningless. Here is the real science:

We live in what is called an 'inter-glacial period.' They're short, about 10K-to-12K years. But as our orbital dynamics change, the earth gets cold again. Global temperatures over the next 10K years will drop between 12C and 15C. We have understood those cycles longer than you have been alive. But the fear-mongers don't care about that. After all, 'don't worry, be happy' doesn't get you political power through fear-mongering with pseudoscience.

Or as NASA says:

>Cycles also play key roles in Earth’s short-term weather and long-term climate. A century ago, Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch hypothesized the long-term, collective effects of changes in Earth’s position relative to the Sun are a strong driver of Earth’s long-term climate, and are responsible for triggering the beginning and end of glaciation periods (Ice Ages).

Strong is the wrong word. Primary is the correct word.

In fact, you can see the cycles when you look at EPICA (European Project on Ice Core Analysis) data (which is brought to you by Wikipedia) and you can see with your own eyes that 120K years ago it was warmer than it is now. And a 120K years before that.

There was no industrialization to cause those temperature spikes leading to inter-glacial periods. Humans barely existed.

Yet when you look at the obvious pattersn, you can see the inevitable the global temperature changes caused by the Milankovitch cycles. That's actual science. Not 'lets scare the shit out of people for political power' psuedo science.

Milankovitch driven-climate cycles have been verified by EPCIA, by astronomers and by geologists who (studying sea-core samples) who also discovered the same cycles. But Al Gore can't sell a you line a bullshit if you know how it really works.


scnottaken t1_jdmul89 wrote

"Earth is getting warmer when it should be getting cooler that's how I know climate change is wrong" is a take. Not a good one. But it is one.

But hey since you seem like quoting NASA

"Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago."


ultrastarman303 t1_jdmxlff wrote

You didn't mention how CO2 raises energy accumulation (heat) by lowering how much radiation is reflected back out as it has specific absorption bands that are outside of other greenhouse gases that don't absorb the same, causes ocean acidification, has a lifespan that's 2-3x longer than other greenhouse gases, and it's been emitted in record numbers only recently, creating anthropogenic climate change.


Sanity_LARP t1_jdo318u wrote

  1. Why would human impacts on climate and Milankovitch cycles be mutually exclusive?

  2. Why would it matter that we've "understood something longer than I've been alive" when our ability to measure things and the things we're measuring are changing drastically in our lifetime? Like a century ago a dude figured something out and we've confirmed it lines up with observations of the past, so that's the way it's going to be? The way the world would change every 10 years would have blown his mind and the factors involved now would have been beyond the predictions of sci-fi.

  3. If it's meaningless then is it fine that they're spending billions on it? Or are they heroes? What's more likely: the massive scale of humanities dumping of waste into the ocean and gasses into the air would have no impact on the environment, or that a large corporation would invest to avoid short term changes in crop futures even if it hurts us?