Simply not true.
What about the earth Axial tilt is acidifying the ocean? What about the Earth Axial tilt is releasing particulate matter into the Air? What about the Earth Axial tilt is releasing methane and CO2 into the Air? What about the Earth axial tilt has caused a 68% drop in animal populations? What about the Axial tilt has made humans cut down forests and trees and drive animals to extinction?
The earth Axial tilt Is one variable in the multi varied issue that powers our climate. however there are so many instances of that having nothing to do with climate changes. The Younger dryas was not caused by changes in the Milankovitch cycle. The little Ice age wasn’t caused by it, the Medieval warm period wasn’t caused by it. Etc. The list goes on forever.
This is honestly the biggest over simplification of the climate sciences I’ve ever seen. There wouldn’t be entire degree plans and Thousands of scientists studying it if it was determined by one cycle that we’ve known about for a long time now.
I don’t even think humans are the driving force of climate change, but the oversimplification of this topic on this website is hilarious. Coming from people who try to act like experts in every topic. So sit down Archie Bunker and stick to your rage bait politics.
Do you have any form of mathematics, physics, or chemistry to say that humans have no effect on the climate? Because there is a lot of math, chemistry, and physics that points out very clearly that CO2 warms the atmosphere. I will paste that information below. If you can’t overcome this quality of evidence then you need to change your opinion from over simplification to actual consideration of how science and math works. I know there is no point in attempting to change your mind, so this is all I will stick with. You try to be an expert on everything which is why you’re arguments in this topic pick out one variable in the entire equation of climate sciences. I’ve been in school for this shit for 3 years, it’s much more complicated than the milankovitch cycle. Which is something you learn and prove in a legitimate introduction to geoscience class. Everyone knows what it does, and yes it’s a very powerful climate changer, but it certainly doesn’t power everything besides large scale glacial retreats and climate epochs. It does not control nor determine small intermediate climate changes between those types of events. Like I listed, the LIA was not a product of this, the MWP was not a product of this, the YD was not a product of this, the 25 separate Dansgaard-Oeschger events were not a product of this. Theres so many more that had nothing to do with this cycle.
Below is evidence that uses Mathematics and basic physics to explain how CO2 warms the atmosphere and how we can prove it. Like I said Theres really no point in engaging with you so I know I’m wasting my breath. However, it’s worth st least trying to help you learn and make you humble yourself a bit to accept you’re not an expert in everything.
I won’t respond to you so say whatever over simplified foolish shit about this topic you’d like to. Just know that there’s a whole lot of evidence saying humans do impact the climate and also know that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about if You think the Milankovitch cycle is the end of the story when it comes to climate sciences and climate change.
“Now part two of the recipe: how hot will the extra CO2 make us? Most physics students, once they learn about radiative heat transfer (affectionately called sigma-T-to-the-fourth), are tasked with calculating the Earth’s temperature in radiative equilibrium with the Sun. If done “correctly,” the answer is disappointingly cold because the greenhouse effect is not incorporated in the simple calculation.
The way it works is, the sun imbues a radiative flux of 1370 Watts per square meter at the position of the Earth. Given its radius of R = 6378 km, the Earth intercepts 1370 W/m² × πR² of the incident sunlight, since the Earth appears as a projected disk to the Sun. Most of this incident flux is absorbed in the oceans, land, atmosphere, and clouds, while the remainder is immediately reflected back to space so the aliens can see our planet. The absorbed part (70%) heats the earth surface environment and eventually is re-radiated to space as thermal infrared radiation, at wavelengths centered at about 10 microns—far beyond human vision (0.4 to 0.7 microns).
The law for thermal radiation is that a surface emits a total radiative power of A·σT4, where A is the surface area, σ=5.67×10−8 W/m²/K4 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and Tis the surface temperature in Kelvin. For instance, a patch of Earth at the average surface temperature of 288 K (15°C, or 59°F) emits 390 W/m² of infrared radiation. To figure out the temperature of the Earth, we demand that power in equals power out, and radiative transfer is the only game in town for getting heat on and off the Earth. If we did not have a balance between power in and power out, the Earth’s temperature would change until equilibrium was re-established. Hey—that’s what global warming is doing. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves…
While the Earth intercepts a column of light from the sun with area πR², the Earth has a surface area of 4πR² to radiate. Considering that 70% of the incoming sunlight is in play, we have an effective influx of 960 W/m² onto one quarter of the Earth’s surface area (why not half? much of the Sun-side of the Earth is tilted to the sun and does not receive direct, overhead sunlight). So the radiated part must work out to 240 W/m², which implies an effective temperature of 255 K, or a bone-chilling −18°C (about 0°F). Incidentally, if the Earth were black as coal, absorbing all incident solar radiation, the answer would have been a more satisfactory 279 K, or 6°C, but still colder than observed.
We know that 255 K is the wrong answer; off by 33°C. The discrepancy is the greenhouse effect, and to this we owe our comfort and our liquid oceans. The greenhouse gases absorb some of the outbound infrared radiation and re-radiate in all directions, sending some of the energy back toward Earth. Two-thirds of the effect (about 22°C) is from water vapor, about one-fifth (~7°C) is from carbon dioxide, and the remaining 15% is from a mix of other gases, including methane.
One can see from the absorption figure that water vapor is responsible for the lion’s share of the infrared absorption at relevant wavelengths (under the blue curve), but that the CO2 absorption feature from 13–17 microns also eats some of the spectrum. A crude assessment tells me that the spectrally-weighted water absorption across the outgoing wavelength range is approximately three times as significant as the CO2 absorption feature, reassuringly in line with the 22:7 ratio.
Crudely speaking, if CO2 is responsible for 7 of the 33 degrees of the greenhouse effect, we can easily predict the equilibrium consequences of an increase in CO2. We have so far increased the concentration of CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, or about 40%. Since I have some ambiguity about whether the 7 K contribution to the surface temperature is based on the current CO2 concentration or the pre-industrial figure, we’ll look at it both ways and see it doesn’t matter much at this level of analysis. If CO2 increased the pre-industrial surface temperature by 7 K, then adding 40% more CO2 would increase the temperature by 7×0.4 = 2.8 K. If we instead say that 7 K is the current CO2 contribution, the associated increase is 7−7/1.4 = 2 K. Either way, the increase is in line with estimates of warming—though the system has a lag due to the heat capacity of oceans, slowing down the rate of temperature increase.
Keep in mind that these figures are based on today’s CO2 concentrations, not the impact of continuing to burn vast amounts of fossil fuels. We have spent about half our total conventional petroleum, and less than half of our total fossil fuel deposits. Thus the ultimate temperature climb could be well over 5 K (9°F) if we continue our practices unabated.
Using a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature change does not constitute a correct treatment, and would fail miserably for large adjustments to CO2 (like a factor of 2 or 3). But for the 40% change under consideration, it captures the direction and approximate magnitude of the effect reasonably well, which is the strength of the estimation approach: get the essential behavior without the burden of unnecessary complexity. A real treatment would acknowledge the saturated nature of the 15 micron absorption feature and use ΔT = C·ln(390/280), where ln() is the natural logarithm function, and C≈2.9–6.5 K according to the IPCC. This leads to an expected increase of 1–2 K at today’s excess concentration. But the point is already made without the fancy pants.“
