This is a long podcast - nearly 2 hours so I am going to add below the YouTube url with just a space before the last letter so people can copy/paste with minimum issues to get to the presentation on YouTube itself so you can also follow the transcript. This in fact is fair as the producers only get income from YouTube and not from videos linked here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN1y9kHTPS c please address the video itself I.e discuss the presentation of what are milankovitch cycles rather than posting about what you think it MIGHT cover
That is why I gave the link to the original but basically it goes over what Milankovitch cycles are and why they do not apply now as a cause of global warming - what we know has changed the climate in the past the role os the jet streams and ocean currents, solar cycles, volcanoes, feedback mechanisms in other words it is a primer for climate science. However I am sort of betting you won’t watch it but will post one of those blog entries you seem to favour
I do intend to watch the program at the link the OP provided, and I thank Bowerbird for doing so. Truthfully, I had never even heard of Milankovitch cycles before now, so, like most of us do these days, I googled it. I found this as a starting point, from NASA: https://science.nasa.gov/science-re...l-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/ . And, in an 'overview' sense, this at the Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
And your video is somehow superior to blog entries? With regard to Milankovitch cycles, I think you're leaning against a door no one is trying to open.
Yep! Sure is! Astrum has a strong reputation for scientific accuracy and apart from one or two minor points (I.e. they did not discuss the role of the Gulf Stream it is pretty solid to what is known. He links to the UN site for climate change which he has obviously used as a reference. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change But I love that you are prepared to dismiss it even before viewing it
Been thinking Jack. What say we take it a bit at a time I.e you watch the bit about orbital variations (Milankovitch) and we discuss that, then the next bit an out albedo (although he doesn’t use that term) and we discuss that then say the El Niño/La Nina southern oscillation section - see what bits you do have an issue with
I simply don't find Milankovitch cycles especially interesting or important. And yet you wave off peer-reviewed research results.
Well, then let’s discuss this - make a change from posting the latest blog post and sitting back expecting to change the mind anyone with even a modicum of education on climate change. Why do you think they are not important, especially given the correlation between the cycles and ice ages NASA in Milankovitch cycles https://science.nasa.gov/science-re...ital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Let me know when there are actual peer reviewed research and not cherry picks and misrepresentations from blogs
In the words of Bill Murray: "It just doesn't matter." What Is Milankovitch Theory, What Is It Not, And What Can We Learn from It? John A. Parmentola The RAND Corporation The interglacial periods are initiated by amplification and terminated by reduction of the insolation due to the eccentricity through the precession index. . . . Milankovitch Theory is not a complete theory. It’s more of a hypothesis concerning insolation changes over time and the associated recurrence of ice ages. It is also not a climate model, as some assume. The Milankovitch hypothesis represents a set of insolation conditions on the earth’s climate system; however, the earth’s specific climate response to these conditions is not understood. That is a critical unknown factor relevant to predicting the future state of the earth’s climate. . . .
No you haven’t What you mostly post are links to blogs who cherry pick the peer reviewed articles or misinterpretations of those articles. But back to the OP - why do you think Milankovitch cycles are not pertinent?
Another blog post showing a misinterpretation of what the Milankovitch theory is actually about - which you would have understood had you watched the video. You would also have been surprised to learn that the video also agrees that the science whilst noting the correlation has not pinpointed the causation Round one to me as you ASSUMED what would be on the video - next topic on the video is at 1230 and is only very short talking about the feedback effect of the planetary albedo then he talks about the southern oscillation
It is actually not a bad documentary, and actually a repost of one a couple of years ago. This shows as new, so I am not sure if they actually just reposted it, or made some changes before reposting it. No matter what side of this debate somebody is on, I would encourage anybody to watch roughly the first 3/4 of it as they go into great detail about many of the cycles that do influence our climate. However, the last 1/4 I took much less seriously, as they almost completely ignored the geological evidence we have going back billions of years, as well as what the last interglacial was like. Myself, I find it fascinating that they spend almost the entire length talking about Milankovitch cycles, and then pretty much throw it all away and say "Man's doing it" at the end. But no matter which side somebody falls in, they should at least watch the majority of it. As they do compress a lot of hard factual science into that portion.
That is largely I believe from either lack of understanding of the larger picture, or editorial bias. One thing I noticed both times I watched this is that in the first half they pretty much threw their hands up in the air and essentially said "nobody has any idea why the current ice age cycles started". Which is very much incorrect, and it relates directly to what they said in another part of the video, and what you just mentioned. Geologists have confirmed that the current ice age cycles started when North and South America merged in Central America, and cut off the equatorial current (around 3 mya). As those weather patterns always run from east to west, before that happened the weather used to be much more severe than it is today. Imagine a tropical cyclone not just moving from Africa to North America, but one slipping though a huge gap between the continents and starting to cross the Pacific. And that current through that gap would lessen the effects of the circumpolar currents we have now, most spectacularly in the Atlantic and to a lesser degree in the Pacific. But when North and South America merged, it not only killed the equatorial current, it created much more severe currents in the two oceans that border those continents. And there are a great many things that influence the air and water currents. Like they did mention El Niño and La Niña, and even traced it back over 300 years. Yet for some reason some still try to blame those patterns on humans. But this is a good starting point for anybody that wants to get an idea of how complex the weather is, and how many variables impact it.
That sounds like a change that could be considered permanent rather than cyclic. I doubt that north and south America are going to change directions. Plus, it doesn't seem like the results of that change have completely played out.
Tell me, do you absolutely disbelieve all science and believe that the planet is static, and should never change from how it is currently? Because only such a person could make such a silly statement. But yes, the placement of the Continents is in a great many ways cyclic. And there is a reason why the next Supercontinent is called "Pangaea Proxima", because in most ways it is almost the exact same placement of continents as was seen in the last Pangaea. Yes, North and South America are going to change directions. However, the biggest shift is going to come as both the Americas continue to move northward, expanding the gap between South America and Antarctica and allowing the currents through there to become stronger. And of course Antarctica starting to move towards Australia, which will eliminate that 45 million plus year old ice sheet and instead give it an ice cap like in the Arctic. And of course we already know what the climate conditions will be like in Pangaea Proxima, because we know what they were like in Pangaea. The Eastern Continents will be lush rainforests, the Western Continents will largely be barren wastelands. Think of the climates of South America, but coving a single massive climate. But the very reason that you just stated is why I tend to consider you almost scientifically illiterate. You actually do seem to believe that the planet how it is now is how it should be and will always be. Myself, I am aware it is constantly changing, including the formation and breakups of supercontinents. And Pangaea is not even the first such to have appeared, it is just the most recent. But there have been at least nine others to have formed and broken up before Pangaea. So I think that there having been 10 known ones in the past and another one in the future, that does indeed count very much as "cyclic". But to give a larger picture, here is another that stretches from 250 mya to 250 my in the future. And remember, even that is a relatively short time in the history of the planet. But if you want a real deep dive, here is one that goes back over 3 gya. Now, do you really think that the current placement of the Continents is permanent?
Bingo. Blatant anti-science. I have lots of counterarguments, and I have made them. But there is a difference between "not thought of" and "contrived a disingenuous rationalization for dismissing."
