Good post. Above my knowledge in many respects so I can’t give a full substantive critique. Ultimately, what it boils down to, IMHO, is that climate is a really complicated multivariate model and we have no clue what the variables are or how adjusting one changes the output in the model. Anyone strenuously claiming otherwise is a fucking charlatan.
The isolation of one or two gases as the main driver of “climate change” and the cacophony of support for it is by no means scientific. It strikes me as almost wholly political.
It is entirely political. You are correct in that the variables are far too numerous to completely predict a long term reality. But the laws that govern solar and planetary mechanics are well understood. The laws of thermodynamics are a constant. Major variables that drive climate are mainly astronomical and orbital, not atmospheric.
The fact is until about 35 million years ago, the earth only very rarely suffered long ice ages and the two very long snow all earth periods lasting millions of years were galactic in nature. When the earth traverses a dusty arm of the galaxy, less sunlight reaches the earth and it can cool for a million years or more. Sadly the earth and sun's fates to enter a thicker portion of the Sagittarius arm of the galaxy in just about 6,000 years so cold is coming. Currently the mechanics of the various Melancovic' cycles are at play here and so that is why the earth cooled considerably in conjunction with the merging of the non-Indian land mass with the Himalayan uplift that started about 37 million years ago.
Bottom line, we know the patterns and reasons for current cycles of climate change. Three of the last five interglacials have been warner than the current Holocene. Humans baking the planet is laughable to any paleoclimatologist. Until 35 mya, there were no ice ages other than as mentioned above, no polar ice caps, and wwT (climate) was 4-8°K warmer than now.
Good post. Above my knowledge in many respects so I can’t give a full substantive critique. Ultimately, what it boils down to, IMHO, is that climate is a really complicated multivariate model and we have no clue what the variables are or how adjusting one changes the output in the model. Anyone strenuously claiming otherwise is a fucking charlatan.
The isolation of one or two gases as the main driver of “climate change” and the cacophony of support for it is by no means scientific. It strikes me as almost wholly political.
It is entirely political. You are correct in that the variables are far too numerous to completely predict a long term reality. But the laws that govern solar and planetary mechanics are well understood. The laws of thermodynamics are a constant. Major variables that drive climate are mainly astronomical and orbital, not atmospheric.
The fact is until about 35 million years ago, the earth only very rarely suffered long ice ages and the two very long snow all earth periods lasting millions of years were galactic in nature. When the earth traverses a dusty arm of the galaxy, less sunlight reaches the earth and it can cool for a million years or more. Sadly the earth and sun's fates to enter a thicker portion of the Sagittarius arm of the galaxy in just about 6,000 years so cold is coming. Currently the mechanics of the various Melancovic' cycles are at play here and so that is why the earth cooled considerably in conjunction with the merging of the non-Indian land mass with the Himalayan uplift that started about 37 million years ago.
Bottom line, we know the patterns and reasons for current cycles of climate change. Three of the last five interglacials have been warner than the current Holocene. Humans baking the planet is laughable to any paleoclimatologist. Until 35 mya, there were no ice ages other than as mentioned above, no polar ice caps, and wwT (climate) was 4-8°K warmer than now.