Valkie wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 12:23pm:


Changes in the earths orbit, changes in the suns radiance, changes in the atmosphere, changes in the ocean currents, changes in the land mass (ie continental drift). All these things change the climate.

Over the past 150 years the only thing that has changed is the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere

Do you think valkie will keep his promise? 

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 12:32pm:



Really?  These guys have not been notified:


The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24


Under a Creative Commons licenseopen access
Abstract
Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least  from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.

Highlights
► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle.
► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations.
► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase.
► A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417
ScienceDirect
The leading platform of peer-reviewed literature that helps you move your research forward.

Valkie wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 12:23pm:


This time, the initial change in forcing is coming from changes in atmospheric CO₂.

In "all those events in the past", the initial forcing came from Milankovich cycles.

Robot wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 3:01pm:


So these changes before the industrial revolution when temperatures had started to climb was due to CO2?

Robot wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 3:01pm:




You must be able to explain the difference between 20,000 and 14,000 years ago then.

lee wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 3:30pm:



Nobody fully understands the climate. There are quite a lot of known unknowns and who know how many unknown unknowns.

Making the known stuff do all the work for all those gaps in understanding is lazy, incurious and very largely politically motivated (which works very well with lazy and incurious).  The response is largely 'do something, ANYTHING', which is not scientific at all but purely political.

Robot wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 7:24pm:



So give us your reference that rebuts it.

But perhaps you would prefer SKS?

"Milankovitch cycles are insufficient to explain the full range of Quaternary climate change, which also requires greenhouse gas and albedo variations, but they are a primary forcing that must be accounted for."

https://skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html



Figure 3 at

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

Not much correlation there.

lee wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 9:23pm:


LOL!

You think the two lines are supposed to follow the same path?
You think the temperature is supposed to go up with every Milankovich cycle?

Did you read the paper, or did you just cite it because you saw this graph on a blog?