Which Climate Conditions give us the Best Indication of Climate Change?

When anyone mentions temperature leading CO2 you can be sure that they have not bothered to study the subject. Once and for all, and for Scottar in particular, in normal movement from glacial to interglacial the temperature leads CO2 because that is the way the change begins.

The Milancoviec cycles vary the amount of sunlight falling on the polar region. As the sunlight increases, so the temperature rises When anyone mentions temperature leading CO2 you can be sure that they have not bothered to study the subject of climate change. Once and for all, and for Scottar in particular, in the normal change from glacial to interglacial the temperature leads CO2 because that is the way the change begins.

The Milancoviec cycles vary the amount of sunlight falling on the polar region. As the sunlight increases, so the temperature rises. These variations are very small, but not negligible. The small increase in temperature causes the sea and permafrost to release CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, which cause the temperature to rise further. This obviously leads to the release of more greenhouse gases and so the cycle continues. It is called positive feedback, something that Scottar seems ignorant of. The difference today is that we, as a species, have short-circuited the Milancoviec cycles by releasing the CO2 first. If Scottar cannot understand that, then we can be sure he is a true climate change ‘sceptic’ and no doubt will be awarded a badge by the clowns who orchestrate their increasingly tenuous grasp on reality.

That Scottar has not bothered to explore the subject in any depth should tell their family just how little they care about their future. That is between them and their family and as such, none of our business. That they are trying to hinder action to combat climate change , however is very much our business. No wonder they hide behind a nom de plume. Courage is not something that one expects from people who are so scared of something that they prefer to hide rather than fight the threat. The annoying thing is that they call themselves sceptics. Scientists are sceptics, climate change sceptics are not the least sceptical and it is small wonder that they are so unscientific. Though perhaps the most dangerous are those sceptical scientists who support them, give presentations to the American Congress while taking the fossil fuel industry’s shilling.

If ‘sceptics’, such as Scottar, were to take the trouble to understand the science of climate change, and in particular comprehend it enough to understand the action of positive feedbacks, they would see how the miniscule variations of the Milancoviec cycles can lead to such large changes as those that occur when the planet moves from glacial to interglacial. When they can understand that much, they might be as concerned as the rest of us regarding the melting of the methane clathrates and permafrost, which has the potential to put us into a very dire situation. Whilst I doubt that they would actually support action to combat climate change, they might actually know that it is time to shut up, which would be the most preferable for them to do anyway, albeit a few years too late.

Perhaps the most amazing thing is that some like Scottar can publicly proclaim their ignorant viewpoint in the week when the Arctic sea ice broke, nay smashed, the record for ice loss. A moment’s glance at the graphs tells you that something is going on that cannot by any means be described as natural variation. Anyone wishing to know more about climate change could do worse than visit skepticalscience.com.