Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
The difference is the rate of change. I expect you were looking at the Antarctica ice core data over the last 800,000 years. This shows the oscillations well, but it is hard to compare to current times due to scale. Using this data as the Earth leaves the ice ages, the temperature could rise 7 or 8 degrees over as short as 5,000 years. Which on a graph of 800,000 years would be an almost vertical line.
But in our recorded times, we are looking at almost 1 degree increase in the last 100 years. At that rate (and all records show the rate increasing) we would hit 8 degrees in less than 1000 years. 5x faster than the normal cycle. When they include exponential growth and feedback loops, this gets even faster.
So the scientific community has consensus that more than just a natural cycle is occurring.
Here is a little primer about why it isn't mostly Milankovitch cycles https://science.nasa.gov/science-res...rrent-warming/ |
I suppose I need to be clear, I understand all the stuff we burn is turbocharging this rise in temperature.
I’m not arguing the planet isn’t warming, I’m not arguing humans aren’t putting our thumbs (or whole fists) on the scale.
I am all for any and all new technologies and sources of energy that make our planet and our neighborhoods cleaner and healthier.
I’m not for a bunch of doomsayers who think they can predict the future.
97% of scientists agree the planet is warming and we’re having an impact - fair enough.
That can’t possibly equate to 97% of them reaching the same conclusions about the long term impact of something as complicated as the climate of the Earth. Not unless a bunch of them are copying each other’s homework.