You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: These glass beads explain climate change.
Precession of Earth’s rotational axis takes approximately 26,000 years to make one complete revolution. Through each 26,000-year cycle, the direction in the sky to which the Earth’s axis points goes around a big circle. In other words, precession changes the “North Star” as seen from Earth.
Source
Evidence for this can be seen in the type of remains found in the deserts of Northern Africa
Source
I don't think that it is that people don't want to take responsibility but that it is a multivariate problem not just something that is one source. By focussing on one aspect (man made CO2) which should lead to global warming, it neglects that a number of events are happening at the same time. For instance in this video
you can see the expansion of rifts in Africa. In no way can CO2 be held responsible for this type of event. I think we have a situation of a sinking ship that catches fire. Focussing on one crisis while denying the other exists might lead to unfortunate consequences.
But how would precession lead to the desertification of the sahara?
Of course not, but the number of geological catastrophes is not rising. Only the number of reported ones is.
Even if the ship is actually sinking, we should not set it consciously on fire.
I agree that CO₂ is not our only problem, but most of the other problems I see are like CO₂ mostly made by ourself (except from a few earth-quakes here and there), and not by some widely unknown and badly documented astrophyical phenomenon.
Precession has affected weather a couple of ways. The first effect of the wobble is that about 8000 years ago the northern hemisphere received more sunlight. This in turn shifted the amount of rainfall which occurred in Africa. The second aspect is that during that time Earth was closest to the sun in the winter. Now it is closest during the summer. This article describes how a change in the "Hadley circulation" shifted with the end result of the Sahara turning to desert.
This phenomenon is actually known by scientists in the field. One problem with these other factors which are affecting climate is that they are a single news cycle event. Imagine if only precession was the cause (all the other factors were irrelevant). News broadcasters come on an say "Climate change is because of the wobble". There is no follow up to that item. People cannot change the wobble. You cannot raise money to fight the wobble etc.
Carbon caused climate change is something that can be spun out time and time again. I am perhaps being a little cynical but it is like investing in the stock market. When the bellboy has a hot tip ... its time to get out.
You are right, precession can change the local climate, but on a global scale it doesn't change average temperatures because even though it makes our summers warmer, it also makes our winters colder, meaning the average stays constant.
And if it would have any effect on the temperature, we would be able to see that effect in the temperature history of the earth every 26000 years.
Where I live, it is possible to vary between 100f (or more) to -50f (38c to -45c) summer to winter. Let us consider that 9000 to 6000 years ago the North hemisphere was closer to the sun in the winter then it is now. This would have made the temperature more moderate in both winter and summer. While the mathematics might be a little more complex than every 26000 years we can point out that the most recent interglacial occurred about 20,000 years ago. Before that there was another one about 40,000 which possibly killed out the majority of the neanderthals. Before that was the Toba Catastrophe roughly 75,000 years ago. While it was caused by the a volcano which caused a volcanic winter, that might have been a symptom of precession.
No a volcano definitely cannot be caused by precession.
Also based on your logic we should see a cooling right now instead of a warming. Also precession is a rather slow process → the temperature change would be slow, too. But we are seeing a rapid rise in average temperature in the last hundred years → the only way to explain this are greenhouse gases.
I am not sure I would definitely say that volcanic activity is not linked to precession
The scientific community have been trying to answer that question for about the last 10 years.
As far as the second part, I believe that it is more important to talk about change vs weather temperature rises or falls. Indeed the temperature in the area that I reside has been colder than when I was a child. If you look at temperature maps for about the last decade and you see a blue dot in the middle signifying below average temperature, that is where I live. Speaking from personal observation, the crops on our farm were finally planted June 19. It has never been this late before (due to cold wet conditions). It is a maxim that crops must be in before the first of June. A statistic is that you lose a bushel per acre of corn production for every day past the end of May. In an area that produces roughly 100 bushels per acre, you can see that we are starting the season off already with a roughly 20% loss. This video shows an aggregation of the crop failures that are heading our way this year largely US numbers.
This isn't due to warming it is due to it being too cold and wet. Of course this can be attributed to changes in the jet stream pulling the cold air from the arctic which might be attributed to China's pollution.
About your source:
This clearly is no scientific article, so to gather any trustworthy you would need to examine the sources of it.
On the article two sources were linked:
The main claim of both articles is that there is a 41000 year cycle in volcanic activity caused by ice ages created by axial tilt(which is not the same as precession which you initially claimed to be the cause).
After searching for anything regarding volcanic activity during the past 100000s of years(and finding nothing), I decided to search for the ice ages first and found this:
At least the temperature seem to line up on the 40000 year scale starting roughly 30000 years ago.
So if the theory holds the next colder age should be in roughly 10000 years.
What you can also see in the graph is that temperature and CO₂-levels seem to line up(except from the cooler regions every 41000 years). This also suggests that the 41000 year colds are created by external factors. But it also tells us that higher CO₂ levels lead to higher temperatures. Also the correlation of CO₂ and temperature seems to be very linear. So based on the graph I think you could say that a change in CO₂ of 100 ppm corresponds to a change in temperature of 8K(I don't take into account here the effects that temperature has on the amount of CO₂ being released. The actual value would be more something like 1K). Assuming a linear growth of CO₂-levels(of 1.5 ppm/a) we would rise our CO₂-levels by 150 ppm/100 years. So after the 10000 years we got left to the next ice age, that level will rise towards a much higher level that will be completely able to reverse the cooling effects and make them unmeasurable.
As you state jet streams lead to an actually colder climate in the USA(that's probably why most climate change deniers come from there). Also on most places in the world the warming is quite visible. Where I lived there used to be a 2 month long period of snow in winter, but during the last decade or so the amount of snow decreased(currently there are a few days of snow left). Also the summers here keep getting hotter each year(on average).