Doesn't the Milankovitch Theory explain global warming best?

Question

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovi...

Warming occurs naturally every 22,000 years.

Answer 1

No absolutely not, the Milankovitch theory does not really explain anything as far as changes in glaciation, major glacial advances occur and last for 100,000 years on average and interglacial periods such as our current epoch last for about 10,000 years on average.  Glacial advances occur rapidly and last for 100,000 years or more, and interglacial periods occur very rapidly, the orbital forcings associated with the Milankovitch theory do occur rapidly enough and at the proper frequency to explain the last several hundred thousand years of climate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitc...

Answer 2

No - the warming & cooling won't match the slight orbital & tilt changes over time.

Was Your link a copy & paste?: - the real link:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovi...

What Alarmists don't want you to see:

Ocean Water temperatures one year ago:

http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite...

Ocean Water temperatures Today:

http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite...

This is about 2+ degree drop in water temperature = which is FAR FAR more important than a few degrees of air temperature.

It's the Oceans Heating & Cooling that drives the World's climates or weather patterns = El Nino & La Nina .

Alarmists (the true denyalists) want you to ignore the tremendous heat source from within the earth!

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/...

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/...

The fact is - Scientists don't really know how much effect this 'internal heat source' has on our oceans.

"The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes,"  

http://environment.newscientist.com/arti...

The Sounds of Climate Change

http://www.iceagenow.com/Sounds_of_Clima...  - or

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...

Also be aware that warmers oceans will expel CO2 not absorb it like it normally does.  So 80-100 years of an active Sun which effects how the earth's magma flows could explain  the CO2 increasing while temperatures increase slightly.

Answer 3

Climate change in general?  Yes.

The current global warming?  No.  According to Milankovitch Cycles, we should be in the middle of a stable and very slowly cooling portion of the cycle right now.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

Answer 4

nope

Answer 5

Sun spot activity is global warming. The science has shown that our temperature closely relates to this activity. A quote from the 2nd link:

"These data show clearly that the Sun is in a state of unusually high activity, for about the last 60 years. The time interval for which this statement can be made has been tripled by these new investigations, for now the reconstructed sunspot numbers extend back to 850 AD. Another period of enhanced solar activity, but with substantially fewer sunspots than now, occurred in the Middle Ages from 1100 to 1250. At that time, a warm period reigned over the Earth, as the Vikings established flourishing settlements in Greenland."

This one statement is very telling in that it correlates our current warming and the warming around the 1100 era.

This easy to read graph clearly shows the current increase in the suns output. It has also predicted all the major climate variations of the  last  1100 years.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:...

http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspo...

Answer 6

No. The geologic record does not show a 22,000 year repeating cycle. It shows a more chaotic pattern of ice ages and interglacials.

Answer 7

I found this additional link.

Certainly it's another theory out there...  Might even be the correct one.

People have to remember too, that Global Warming is not FACT.  We have theories.   Just like the existence of God.

Answer 8

I'd like to read that, but this is a dead link you posted.

Answer 9

No, because....

The Milankovic cycles aren't magic.  They cause an increase in solar radiation that would be easily detectable.

Scientists have looked.  It isn't there.

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.st...

In addition we know a lot (not perfect) about when the cycles cause a temperature increase.  The last one got us out of the ice age 10,000 years ago.  The next isn't due for many thousands of years.

So, no.  Scientists know about the Milankovic cycles, and have considered this.  It's completely impossible that this is the cause of the recent temperature increase.