Yes, the famous Milankovich cycles. Given that we are halfway through our current interglacial, the next glaciation is sure to start within the next 10.000 years and to be nearing it's end in 100.000 years time, to give way to another interglacial.
So perhaps this AGW isn't such a bad idea after all?
Thank you for so clearly revealing your motivation.
I have not paid close attention to your posts in the past as I generally read more closely the contributors here who help me learn the things I need to know. I now know where to place you with regards to perspective on AGW.
Was someone feeling a bit grumpy yesterday? One small joke and it's eternal banishment ...
My first graph was in response to somebody talking about the unreliability of pre-industrial temperature estimates. I disagree with that assessment when it comes to AGW because changes in global temperature can only be realisistically judged on a decadal scale. Proxy measurements have besides a much better spatial resolution than the point measurements that make up the "proper" temperature record, except for satellite measurements who have their own problems. So I don't really see that we have to have a "before and after" point where "proper" measurements began when we want to talk about AGW.
The second graph was to demonstrate the use of the 1980-2010 baseline, which is the "official" baseline when it comes to meteorology. It was the first temperature graph I found that clearly stated the baseline (which is unfortunately a separate problem - the baseline should always be clearly stated but rarely is). I borrowed the second graph from the Pettit climate graphs page (
https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/pettit-climate-graphs)
But now I get jumped upon by a grumpy selfproclaimed non-reader of my posts, asking me why I was using this graph (which by implication was a no-no in polite society) to make my point (which I didn't know I was making!)
Then the talk veers away to the impending Ice age and I made a small joke and am hit by a ton of bricks!
So let me state my position as clearly as I can:
1) I believe that humanity has caused a rise in global temperatures in the region of 1.5 degrees Centigrade in the last 150 years or so.
2) I believe that this warming is continuning and even accelerating because of the common failure of humanity to stem CO2 pollution.
3) I belive that a rise of 1.5 in 150 years is catastrophic. A cataclysm that is slowly unfolding before our eyes. A threat to human civilization like none other.
And surprisingly enough, I find that many people on this forum are very ready to support points 1 and 2 but seem to think that there is still time to do something.
So I guess that I'll make everybody extremely stroppy by stating that a) there is nothing we can do and b) the catastrophe is already here.