Fears of global cooling

[Berzerker]

what I dont get is why people are upset by GW, I welcome a warmer world.

[Lorizael]

Same here. I welcome mass extinctions and radical climate change. It would shake things up a bit. Get humans back on track with natural selection.

[Berzerker]

I repeat: Meteorology and climatology are different fields. They are related, yes; they are both atmospheric sciences. But they are not the same. Each field has different techniques for doing what they do.

And paleo-climatologists overwhelmingly accept that orbital parameters drive ice advances and retreats, not if CO2 is a half percent or 1 percent of the atmosphere.

[Patroklos]

And paleo-climatologists overwhelmingly accept that orbital parameters drive ice advances and retreats, not if CO2 is a half percent or 1 percent of the atmosphere.

Nonsense.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And paleo-climatologists overwhelmingly accept that orbital parameters drive ice advances and retreats, not if CO2 is a half percent or 1 percent of the atmosphere.

I'll admit ignorance: what constitutes orbital parameters?

[Berzerker]

Same here. I welcome mass extinctions and radical climate change. It would shake things up a bit. Get humans back on track with natural selection.

a warmer world is a more stable world, think of what greenhouses actually do. If you want radical climate change, take a look at the extent of the ice sheets 18,000 years ago. Or maybe all the massive flooding as the ice began to melt that gave rise to flood "myths" qualifies as stability in your world

[dannubis]

yes. lets only hope the system does not overshoot the target before we get to stability.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And I believe in GW

Does that mean that you believe the globe is warming, or that you believe humans are causing it?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Less public scientific fields work on incomplete knowledge and models all the time. Science is a building process - a neverending one.

The results of those fields aren't usually used to encourage us to restructure our economy.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
When scientists can't reliably predict weather a week out why should I care what they predict fifty years out using the same models?

Like Lori said, this is so wrong it's silly.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Nope, they are all related. Models don't change depending on the time frame you use

Yes they do. NEXT.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The models are flawed, anyone can see that.

Newtonian physics is flawed. General relativity and quantum mechanics are flawed. That doesn't mean anything.

[Lorizael]

Kuci has turned into some strange hybrid of LOTM and KH.

[Kuciwalker]

[Berzerker]

I'll admit ignorance: what constitutes orbital parameters?

The position of the earth wrt the sun... The Earth cycles between more elliptical and more circular orbits (eccentricity) with the former more conducive to ice advances. The tilt of the Earth also cycles between 21.5 and 24.5 degrees, we're around 23.5 now heading for the lower limit. About 7,000 years ago the Earth had its maximum tilt and experienced a warm(er) period between 9 K and 5 K years ago. Precession gradually changes where in the sky our pole points so at one point in time the northern hemisphere will get its summer when the Earth is closer to the sun, another point in time it will have summer when the Earth is furthest from the sun.

Today's parameters are similar to 400,000 years ago when the Earth got a 40,000 year break from the ice age, we're about 14,000 years into our warming period. But we'll hit that 21.5 degree minimum long before that so we will still get cold, just not enough sustained cooling for ice sheets to grow and expand over much of the northern hemisphere. That kind of world takes the coinciding of cycles conducive to a cooler world.

Nonsense

You actually know paleoclimatologists who reject Milankovich Cycles?