Isn't one of the main factor the earth orbital forcing. The earth north/south a is tilts/ rotates a bit over time. Kind a like a ball which rolls a tiny bit away from the sun and than back towards it. This eventually causes ice ages on the Northern henisphere because it receives less energy from sun light up to 25 to 50%. (Milanktovich cycle)
While there are solar cycles, periods in which the sun is more active and less active. They usually don't take longer than11years.
I've read that too, along with the orbital pattern around the sun changing every so slightly, which happens over long durations, and both apparently contribute to more major climate changes when they occur. My point was directed more at climate change as it effects us today.
That's pure bullshit. If it were true then the earth would be cooling off for years again, as solar activity is very low right now.
Solar activity is cyclic, every dozen years or so the sun switches between high and low activity, but the climate doesn't follow suit. The melting isn't stopping (which it should have by now according to that theory), it's not getting cooler, the sea level continues to rise (even outside of the melting due to thermal expansion, the warmer the oceans, the more volume they take)...
That "documentary" had been largely criticized by most climatologists, and also some scientists appearing in the flick who got quote mined and misrepresented.
You didn't consider cloud formations. If there are lots of clouds but the sun is at a peak, more get's reflected before it get's to Earth and leads to cooler weather than if the sky is clear. If the sun is at a low but the sky is clear, it can more easily reach Earth and lead to warmer weather, yet with cloudy skies can lead to much cooler weather. The warmer and cooler weather also effects how and when clouds form, so they directly effect each other.
"Antarctica’s eastern ice sheet was stable for millions of years during the Pliocene warm period when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were about the same as today, according to a new study."
"The study on the Earth’s largest ice sheet surviving a period scientists believe was warmer than modern times was published in the journal Nature, but got little media attention, especially when compared to a study published the same day in the very same journal alleging Antarctic ice melt had tripled from ten years ago."
If the Pliocene era, 4 million years ago, had CO2 levels the same or higher than that of today, then CO2 must also be cyclic, or at the very least can rise and fall naturally, since there weren't humans back then.
Seems like there is a clear discrepancy between the results and the reason's for them. I'm not one who's made up my mind that CO2 is not to blame at all, but at this point in time it seems it's less to blame than it's made out to be. That doesn't mean more evidence won't surface over time proving that's actually the case though.Last edited by EricHiggin - on 07 October 2018