What caused global temperatures to fall in the past?

CC, the reason I ignore you is that you approach debate in a hostile, obnoxious manner, responding more to your perceptions of disagreement rather than issues raised, presumably triggered by prejudices you cannot control. As a consequence, you have disrupted rather than contributed to substantive debate. Your debating style is contrary to forum rules (for example, personal attacks, suggesting I've joined the fools bandwagon or describing my comments as "bullshit" without any convincing explanation why. Even starting new threads in an effort to bait me.).
Oh but you believe you have the right to slander and libel scientists and their science??? Then not support your slander and we are supposed to accept that???
describing my comments as “bullshit" without any convincing explanation why.
Really, really :blank: can you explain why this is unconvincing?
Also see Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 since preindustrial times is a given. Understand that the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are very well-understood. Consider heat seeking missiles flying through different altitudes searching for a heat source who's signature is changing with altitude. In order to program the computer, the programmer must know how to accurately compensate for the changing signature. It requires a complete knowledge of the radiative properties of all the gases in the atmosphere, or all that hardware is for naught. {Incidentally, there is not one contrarian "theory" or challenge to the physics that hasn't been looked at by informed individuals. You'll find that contrarian errors, omissions, and falsifications have been clearly explained. Don't believe me, check it out for yourself: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy Continue for the list of CO2 dependent modern marvels: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * Weather satellites that can image heat and moisture and wind's effects into comprehensible images. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * Precipitable water. Contrast brightness temperatures measured via oxygen emissions and via H2O emissions to back calculate how much water is present. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * Heat seeking air to air missiles, they would not function if those guidence computers didn't have a complete description of how heat moves through the atmosphere. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * Lasers wouldn't work if we had radiative physics wrong. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * Early-Warning satellites. How are they going to distinguish between a missile launch from lightning, over Siberia? Better look at IR in DETAIL! (There's much more) Spectroscopic Databases such as HiTran and Geisa have military origins. Going back to WWII and the desire to do Night Bombing better. Then this continued during research programs in the 50's & 60's, with a lot of it through the Cambridge Research Laboratory. The program ModTran that is an example of a narrow band Radiative Transfer Code, for calculating radiative transfer. Half the patents for this are held by the Pentagon. The company that develops it - Spectral Sciences Inc - does so under license to the United States Air Force. http://modtran5.com/ http://www.spectral.com/MODTRAN.shtml http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ For 20 years developments to ModTran were signed off by the Commandant of the USAF GeoPhysics Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, Ma. These days it is the responsibility of the Commandant, the USAF Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, NM. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * The detection of specific chemicals in the atmospheres of exoplanets: By modeling the gases at high pressures, you can produce an expected absorption for infrared from the planet and compare the model to the spectra recorded by the Spitzer space telescope. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ *Spectroscopy includes measurement of absorption of IR wavelengths eg measurement of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and ice cores relies on IR absorption. (that would make using ice core records to "prove" GHE doesn't exists amusing) "Each sample has a volume of 4~6 cm3. CO2 concentration was measured with IR tunable diode laser spectroscopy, scanning a single vibrational-rotational absorption line." https://nsidc.org/data/docs/agdc/nsidc0202_wahlen/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * And it's not just physics of the standard GH gases. Microwave emissions of oxygen molecules gives us satellite temperature sensing of the atmosphere. Nitrogen - Nitrogen collisions form part of the basis of the GH effect on places like Saturn's moon Titan. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * Getting out of the IR range, but the Dobson spectrophotometer designed in 1924 to measure ozone (and the standard instrument for doing so, for many years) is based on the application of Beers Law. Using two close wavelengths that differ mainly in their O3 absorption coefficients, total column O3 is determined by the difference in transmission (sun view). Careful selection of wavelengths allows measurement of many atmospheric gases. IR instruments for CO2 and H2O are off-the-shelf items. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ But wait, there's more . . . Check out this power point for a complete review of what scientists understand, it's first class - perhaps the best summation for nonscientists I've seen: Greenhouse Gas and Climate Science Measurements The SIM Metrology School October 28 – November 1, 2013 James Whetstone Special Assistant to the Director for Greenhouse Gas Measurements National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA http://www.nist.gov/iaao/upload/SIM_School_Climate_Final_James_Whetstone.pdf Outline • The Sun and The Earth–Protection Mechanisms for Life on the Surface • Properties of Earth’s Atmosphere–Earth’s energy budget and greenhouse mechanisms – Greenhouses ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Atmospheric Propagation and Effect The Atmospheric Propagation and Effect department focuses on laser applications in the open atmosphere. Main topics are the use of laser radiation over long distances, such as optical energy transmission (laser power beaming, laser-based air defence) and the remote detection of pollutants and hazardous substances. Home: Institute:Departments:Atmospheric Propagation and Effect http://www.dlr.de/tp/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2789/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "CHRONOLOGY From the Cambridge Field Stations to the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory 1945-1985". Liebowitz, Ruth P. | Hanscom Air Force Base Geophysics Laboratory. Bedford, Massachusetts (For highlights link to http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The Rise and Fall of Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories. Edward E. Altshuler | January 2, 2013. http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Force-Cambridge-Research-Laboratories/dp/1481832514 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_homing ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ History of Australian research into Airborne Laser weapons systems HIGH ENERGY LASER WEAPONS Australian Aviation & Defense Review by Carlo Kopp, December, 1981 http://www.ausairpower.net/AADR-HEL-Dec-81.html ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-science-just-facts.html
And yes you damned well bet I am livid with the decades of easy acceptance of slander and lies and the deliberate misrepresentation of what the serious science is telling us. Okay time to get to the rest of what promises to be your most interesting post. Edit - S.N., finally let me back in to do a couple fixes
As far as I understand, attempts to incorporate Milankovitch cycles into climate simulations (climate models) have not provided a good fit with real data. If I am mistaken, references to reports of the success of such simulations will be much more convincing than simply characterizing my comments (possibly based on ignorance) as "bullshit" without any real evidence to back up the accusation.
But wait a minute - you (and others) haven't presented any references to support your claim to begin with! Cough it up. Also one reason I come off as so hostile is because all it takes is a quick google search, I typed in "incorporate Milankovitch cycles into climate simulations"
Glacial Cycles and Milankovitch Forcing - Minnesota Journal of ... https://mjum.math.umn.edu/index.php/mjum/article/download/13/22/ We incorporate Milankovitch cycles into a recent conceptual climate model of ... The resulting simulations exhibited glacial cycles and also exhibited the skipped ... Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation ossfoundation.us › Projects & Resources › Environment › Global Warming Our current climate forcing shows we are outside of that natural cycle forcing range. ... Oeschger Events · Earth's Radiation Budget · Empirical: Modeling v. ... The Milankovich cycles are caused by changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit around ... factors can help push the climate system into ice ages, when the this cycle is ... Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of ... The first of the three Milankovitch Cycles is the Earth's eccentricity. Missing: incorporate ‎simulations Milankovitch Tutorial - sciencecourseware.org www.sciencecourseware.org/eec/GlobalWarming/Tutorials/Milankovitch/ These Milankovitch Cycles. are named ... Milankovitch, who used them to explain the advance ... believe these cycles play a role in the Earth's climate. In this ... Temperature response of Mars to Milankovitch cycles - Schorghofer ... onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034954/full by N Schorghofer - ‎2008 - ‎Cited by 18 - ‎Related articles Sep 23, 2008 - [3] The orbital elements of Mars are known to about 20 Ma into the ... almost quasi-periodic manner analogous to the Milankovitch cycles of Earth ... forms a seasonal CO2 cover; this is also incorporated in the model. .... Lebofsky, L. A., and J. R. Spencer (1990), Radiometry and thermal modeling of asteroids ... Chapter 12 Cyclostratigraphy and Milankovitch Cycles - ScienceDirect www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0070457108704278 197 Chapter 12 CYCLOSTRATIGRAPW AND MILANKOVITCH CYCLES But to ..... MILANKOVITCH THEORY orbital control, from estuarine into anti-estuarine circulation. ... The climatic simulations show that the change between the two states is ... of sedimentation to climate and because they can integrate climatic variables ... [PPT]Simulating Milankovitch Cycles antipasto.union.edu/engineering/Archives/.../2005/CS.../Fox_Derek_Presentation.ppt Milankovitch Cycles – How Does it Affect Climate? ... Implement Milankovitch mathematics to visually simulate how solar insolation varies as the three cycles change ... Easier to color by breaking the polygon into smaller, 4-sided polygons. ... I accomplished what I set out to do and incorporated the features requested. Generalized Milankovitch Cycles and Longterm Climatic Habitability https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4877 by DS Spiegel - ‎2010 - ‎Cited by 66 - ‎Related articles Jun 7, 2010 - snow and ice, susceptibility to falling into snowball states might be a generic feature of water-rich planets with the ... Earth's eccentricity Milankovitch cycle ( though the ef- fects of the other ..... are possible. The climate simulations described in D10, .... tems, we integrate the orbit-averaged rates of change. Milankovitch cycles include all of the following, except: .... increased temperatures can only be simulated by models when increased atmosphere CO2 ... assemble global instrumental surface temperature data into models showing global ..... Which of these was a new element incorporated into the models used for the 2007 ... etc.
Google Scholar search would probably provide overwhelming papers on the topic, all of which the 'skeptics' chose to ignore. The few I looked at quickly sure don't support your assertion - how about you taking a look and see if you can find something that supports for your assertion. Then lets look at what the scientists have to say about it. So how about it can you offer any evidence to support your claim? :cheese:

Oh incidentally John, any reason why you didn’t share the source of your graph?
Do you have some citation to support your warmer than today claim or are we suppose to take your word for it?
rather than vaguely tossing a link to the ten year old IPCC why not cite what you think we should look at, it is a mighty long report?
Incidentally,

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf (2013) 5.3.2 Glacial–Interglacial Dynamics 5.3.2.1 Role of Carbon Dioxide in Glacial Cycles Recent modelling work provides strong support for the important role of variations in the Earth’s orbital parameters in generating long-term climate variability. In particular, new simulations with GCMs (Carlson et al., 2012; Herrington and Poulsen, 2012) support the fundamental premise of the Milankovitch theory that a reduction in NH summer insolation generates suf cient cooling to initiate ice sheet growth. Climate–ice sheet models with varying degrees of complexity and forced by variations in orbital parameters and reconstructed atmospheric CO2 concentrations simulate ice volume variations and other climate characteristics during the last and several previous glacial cycles consistent with paleoclimate records (Abe-Ouchi et al., 2007; Bonelli et al., 2009; Ganopolski et al., 2010) (see Figure 5.3). There is high confidence that orbital forcing is the primary external driver of glacial cycles (Kawamura et al,. 2007; Cheng et al., 2009; Lisiecki, 2010; Huybers, 2011). However, atmospheric CO2 content plays an important internal feedback role. Orbital-scale variability in CO2 concentrations over the last several hundred thousand years covaries (Figure 5.3) with variability in proxy records including recon- structions of global ice volume (Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005), climatic conditions in central Asia (Prokopenko et al., 2006), tropical (Herbert et al., 2010) and Southern Ocean SST (Pahnke et al., 2003; Lang and Wolff, 2011), Antarctic temperature (Parrenin et al., 2013), deep-ocean temperature (Elder eld et al., 2010), biogeochemical conditions in the North Paci c (Jaccard et al., 2010) and deep-ocean ventilation (Lisieckiet al., 2008). Such close linkages between CO2 concentration and climate variability are consistent with modelling results suggesting with high confidence that glacial–interglacial variations of CO2 and other GHGs explain a considerable fraction of glacial–interglacial climate variability in regions not directly affected by the NH continental ice sheets (Timmermann et al., 2009; Shakun et al., 2012).
Oh incidentally John, any reason why you didn't share the source of your graph? Do you have some citation to support your warmer than today claim or are we suppose to take your word for it? rather than vaguely tossing a link to the ten year old IPCC why not cite what you think we should look at, it is a mighty long report? Incidentally,
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf (2013) 5.3.2 Glacial–Interglacial Dynamics 5.3.2.1 Role of Carbon Dioxide in Glacial Cycles Recent modelling work provides strong support for the important role of variations in the Earth’s orbital parameters in generating long-term climate variability. In particular, new simulations with GCMs (Carlson et al., 2012; Herrington and Poulsen, 2012) support the fundamental premise of the Milankovitch theory that a reduction in NH summer insolation generates suf cient cooling to initiate ice sheet growth. Climate–ice sheet models with varying degrees of complexity and forced by variations in orbital parameters and reconstructed atmospheric CO2 concentrations simulate ice volume variations and other climate characteristics during the last and several previous glacial cycles consistent with paleoclimate records (Abe-Ouchi et al., 2007; Bonelli et al., 2009; Ganopolski et al., 2010) (see Figure 5.3). There is high confidence that orbital forcing is the primary external driver of glacial cycles (Kawamura et al,. 2007; Cheng et al., 2009; Lisiecki, 2010; Huybers, 2011). However, atmospheric CO2 content plays an important internal feedback role. Orbital-scale variability in CO2 concentrations over the last several hundred thousand years covaries (Figure 5.3) with variability in proxy records including recon- structions of global ice volume (Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005), climatic conditions in central Asia (Prokopenko et al., 2006), tropical (Herbert et al., 2010) and Southern Ocean SST (Pahnke et al., 2003; Lang and Wolff, 2011), Antarctic temperature (Parrenin et al., 2013), deep-ocean temperature (Elder eld et al., 2010), biogeochemical conditions in the North Paci c (Jaccard et al., 2010) and deep-ocean ventilation (Lisieckiet al., 2008). Such close linkages between CO2 concentration and climate variability are consistent with modelling results suggesting with high confidence that glacial–interglacial variations of CO2 and other GHGs explain a considerable fraction of glacial–interglacial climate variability in regions not directly affected by the NH continental ice sheets (Timmermann et al., 2009; Shakun et al., 2012).
Great points
The little ice age occurred only 400 years ago accompanied by a temperature fall of less than 1 degree. I'm talking about events that happened more than 100,000 years ago and involved temperatures dropping 5 degrees. There doesn't seem to be solid explanations why that happened.
Actually there is a well established explanation for the changes of climate from glacial and inter-glacial periods. http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
The episodic nature of the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth's circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth's climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth's glaciers. It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.
We already have mike yohe here to play the idiot when it comes to climate change, we really don't need another
CC, the reason I ignore you is that you approach debate in a hostile, obnoxious manner, responding more to your perceptions of disagreement rather than issues raised, presumably triggered by prejudices you cannot control. As a consequence, you have disrupted rather than contributed to substantive debate. Your debating style is contrary to forum rules (for example, personal attacks, suggesting I've joined the fools bandwagon or describing my comments as "bullshit" without any convincing explanation why. Even starting new threads in an effort to bait me.). So, yes, I choose for the most part to ignore you. For anyone with a more level-headed interest here is an image relating several climate variables. You may note that insolation is not well correlated with other changes. As far as I understand, attempts to incorporate Milankovitch cycles into climate simulations (climate models) have not provided a good fit with real data. If I am mistaken, references to reports of the success of such simulations will be much more convincing than simply characterizing my comments (possibly based on ignorance) as "bullshit" without any real evidence to back up the accusation. That is a violation of forum rules. You may note that recent temperatures (the red line at the left side of the graph) have fluctuated within a 2 degree range for the last 10,000 years. About 20,000 years ago temperatures were 8 degrees cooler than those recent temperatures. The Little Ice Age occurred a few hundred years ago and isn't even noticeable in the recent temperature fluctuations, so no, my focus isn't the little ice age. At least one of the temperature spikes at 125,000 240,000 and 320,000 years ago is higher that the IPCC projection for 2050. Other graphs show it more clearly, for example the Wikipedia paleoclimate entry. This is the source of my concern that natural climate changes may have the apparently unrecognized potential to add even more to our global warming problem. This isn't denying or minimizing anthropogenic warming - it is a concern that we could be facing a double-whammy that we don't seem to be prepared for. You may also note the similarities between carbon dioxide and temperature changes in the last 4 temperature cycles. This means that carbon dioxide levels fell (naturally?) In previous climate cycles. The simple question in the OP to this thread was if anyone can point to what triggered this reversal. A further question may be what sources existing to support any explanations. By that I mean hard evidence along the lines of GCMs, not arm-waving generalities or opinion pieces by, for example a cognitive science graduate in a Department of Communication as is John Cook who runs the skeptical science website. No problems with previews but spam when I post
Another obvious climate change denier which means a total intellectual fraud. I'm blocking this latest attempt to kill us all by blocking the actions needed to mitigate the very real threat of human forced climate change.

CC, why do you beat around the bush? Having trouble answering JohnH question directly? What you seem to want to play here is a game of look what I can post. You win. You always win when it comes to who can post the most links. With over 10,000 papers on climate change filed each year. You can find backing for any idea you want. For example, DougC claims that climate change is created by the rich and the tobacco industry. Then when Trump was elected, he is creating climate change.
There is nothing wrong with saying, “We don’t really know for sure".
Point being. In today’s news, this article by an atmospheric scientist about how the models can’t yet explain how clouds work. And yet I can find thousands of articles explaining how the clouds work. Yet this atmospheric scientist claims that “People have been guessing for years, but not everybody agrees“. Meaning that the data for how clouds work needs to be established before the computer models can work.
Cloud physics could be the key to understanding climate change

Most people of knowledge understand that when people resort to name-calling they are propagandists who use this technique hoping people will reject ideas base on the negative remarks instead of looking at the evidence with logic.

CC, why do you beat around the bush? Having trouble answering JohnH question directly?
What direct question? http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19424/#234548 I also directly responded to his opening queries with explanation about the fact that Atmospheric physics has been nailed - Where the confusion comes in is in measuring how its being circulated and stored around our planet. I explained some of the main factors at play. What more do you want?
The little ice age occurred only 400 years ago accompanied by a temperature fall of less than 1 degree. I'm talking about events that happened more than 100,000 years ago and involved temperatures dropping 5 degrees. There doesn't seem to be solid explanations why that happened.
The hell there aren't, you just haven't tried finding anything and seriously learning about it. Plus you delude yourself into thinking you can skip the physics of greenhouse gases and still arrive at any satisfactory answers about paleoclimatology. Can't be done. That only works in the Alt-reality of politically passionate liars.
IPCC - 5th assessment - Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Information from Paleoclimate Archives http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
The Discovery of Global Warming A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly)(that's science speak for there's always more to learn) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm If you think I'm doing a shit job of answering, then be more specific and less devious in your own utterances and supposed questions. Oh and also respond as though you actually spent a moment consider what I'm sharing. Because I am doing my best to explain in a good faith manner - intellectual honesty and better understanding our planet is what's paramount, it's not about me or my course grain. that's why I've dedicated my entire life to learning about this wonderful planet, it's history and it's reality.

This response is actually intended more for any students of the Tactics of Denial, rather than this disingenuous crazy-maker who avoids every serious point made with smoke screens of distractions all intended to raise uncertainty and confusion, rather than to resolve better understanding.
Considering contrasts between a Constructive Debate v Destructive Debate.
In a Constructive Debate each side stakes their positions, then offers up citations or links to substantive sources of information.
Because the object is to help further educate each other, thereby raising the general communal aware.
In a Constructive Debate we listen to our opponents arguments, look at their evidence, evaluate it as objectively as possible in light of one’s own experiences and understanding.
Once we digest our opponents position and evidence, then we respond by first,
Honestly retelling and representing your opponents position, then,
responding to your opponents stated position and facts, rather than distracting with emotionalizing rhetoric.

CC, why do you beat around the bush? Having trouble answering JohnH question directly?
Beating around the bush? Pray tell please do explain. If I have been unclear, a serious debater would enunciate my failings - offer specific critique and further questions. Instead, you offer up another rhetorical slap in the face and then proceed straight back to your Dog-Chasing-Tail game. Here we see MikeYohe, et al.'s Big Lie in action: If having 95% accurate/complete understanding is the best we can hope for and if we have only achieved 90% understanding - they believe they have a right to ridicule, dismiss and ignore all that scientists have gotten an extremely excellent understanding of. That’s dishonest in the extreme.
What you seem to want to play here is a game of look what I can post. You win. You always win when it comes to who can post the most links. With over 10,000 papers on climate change filed each year. You can find backing for any idea you want.
Providing links to resources that explain why scientists have an exquisite understanding of atmospheric GHG physics, ... Providing links to resources that explain why scientists have a damned clear understanding of paleoclimate and causes of various fluctuation to an amazing resolution, sure not perfect - but life has never ever ever behaved that why what the hell gives the GOP et. al state demanding absolutely complete and perfect understanding of every nuance and detail of our climate engine. Providing links that explain that it's more than "The Sun" and minor variations in insolation - it's also about heat distribution and the many factors that play a hand in that, the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere, landmasses.
For example, DougC claims that climate change is created by the rich and the tobacco industry. Then when Trump was elected, he is creating climate change.
This is funny, notice how Mike waltzes right past the fact that there is mountains of evidence, proof, supporting those claims and assertions. Why refuse to digest that reality??? Fact isn the conceivers of the Tobacco PR game switched to Anthropogenic Global Warming (and "environmentalism" among others.) (That’s what we called it back when most folks still had their feet planted on the ground, rather than lost in cyber-space of self-inflicted fantasy, as we are these days.) It is solid reality with plenty of a solid evidence adding up to overwhelming proof.
Talk by the Harvard Historian, Naomi Oreskes - about her book Merchants of Doubt Published on Apr 16, 2012 - Pirate Television: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNPRgR-2o-A Political sectors that do not support the concerns of global warming emphasize scientific uncertainty and insist there is no consensus about global warming. Scientific communities since 1995 have claimed the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human impact on global climate. Doubt mongering that was used in the tobacco industry is now used on environmental issues as a way to make the science on global warming look unsettled. Around 700 billion dollars annually is spent to bailout fossil fuel industries. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(One of these days gonna have to watch the documentary, I did read the book ;))

Stunning film exposes climate sceptics #MerchantsOfDoubt Climate State - Published on Aug 30, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s&t=319s Merchants of Doubt is a 2014 American documentary film directed by Robert Kenner and inspired by the 2010 book of the same name by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. The film traces the use of public relations tactics that were originally developed by the tobacco industry to protect their business from research indicating health risks from smoking. The most prominent of these tactics is the cultivation of scientists and others who successfully cast doubt on the scientific results.
Yes, and as Doug pointed out the future exacerbation of our global warming crisis into an even faster growing and more hideously disruption and degradation of our biosphere, that we’ll be able to lay at the Trump Puppet’s feet - though he’s only a figure head for other sinister forces.
There is nothing wrong with saying, “We don’t really know for sure".
The fuk there isn't,if you are lying about all that is know,... If you are setting impossible expectations, ... If that "for sure" becomes a justification for doing nothing in the face of overwhelming evidence both physical and theoretical, ... Then yes that is wrong as hell.
(One of these days gonna have to watch the documentary, I did read the book ;))
Stunning film exposes climate sceptics #MerchantsOfDoubt Climate State - Published on Aug 30, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s&t=319s Merchants of Doubt is a 2014 American documentary film directed by Robert Kenner and inspired by the 2010 book of the same name by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. The film traces the use of public relations tactics that were originally developed by the tobacco industry to protect their business from research indicating health risks from smoking. The most prominent of these tactics is the cultivation of scientists and others who successfully cast doubt on the scientific results.
Yes, and as Doug pointed out the future exacerbation of our global warming crisis into an even faster growing and more hideously disruption and degradation of our biosphere, that we’ll be able to lay at the Trump Puppet’s feet - though he’s only a figure head for other sinister forces.
There is nothing wrong with saying, “We don’t really know for sure".
The fuk there isn't,if you are lying about all that is know,... If you are setting impossible expectations, ... If that "for sure" becomes a justification for doing nothing in the face of overwhelming evidence both physical and theoretical, ... Then yes that is wrong as hell.
You are all hype. It is more about Trump than science for you. If there is overwhelming physical and theoretical evidence. Then what are you waiting for? Why don’t they just shut down the IPCC? After all, you have all the answers, all world has to do is ask you, and you will tell them. It has been established that the problem is caused by over population. Something that you never talk about. Trump, yes, every chance your get. Solution to the problem, never.
(One of these days gonna have to watch the documentary, I did read the book ;))
Stunning film exposes climate sceptics #MerchantsOfDoubt Climate State - Published on Aug 30, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s&t=319s Merchants of Doubt is a 2014 American documentary film directed by Robert Kenner and inspired by the 2010 book of the same name by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. The film traces the use of public relations tactics that were originally developed by the tobacco industry to protect their business from research indicating health risks from smoking. The most prominent of these tactics is the cultivation of scientists and others who successfully cast doubt on the scientific results.
Yes, and as Doug pointed out the future exacerbation of our global warming crisis into an even faster growing and more hideously disruption and degradation of our biosphere, that we’ll be able to lay at the Trump Puppet’s feet - though he’s only a figure head for other sinister forces.
There is nothing wrong with saying, “We don’t really know for sure".
The fuk there isn't, if you are lying about all that is known,... If you are setting impossible expectations, ... If that "for sure" becomes a justification for doing nothing in the face of overwhelming evidence both physical and theoretical, ... Then yes that is wrong as hell.
You are all hype. It is more about Trump than science for you. If there is overwhelming physical and theoretical evidence. Then what are you waiting for? Why don’t they just shut down the IPCC? After all, you have all the answers, all world has to do is ask you, and you will tell them. It has been established that the problem is caused by over population. Something that you never talk about. Trump, yes, every chance your get. Solution to the problem, never. Oh, oh, Mikie did I strike your funny bone. Careful now temper, temper, blood pressure and all that. So, I'm all hype - Yeah that's why I'm the only one who can support his position with real explanations and genuine scientific evidence. If you took one look at Merchants of Doubt you'd realize how ludicrous it is bringing up Trump in context with it. Trump is merely the postern child for what we can expected from that gold plated greed driven absolutism. Trump knows more about science than me - here we have example of your obsessive prejudice blinding you. I know I understand the science because I can point to specifics that support my positions, oh but I'm not above being skeptical of my own position so am always willing to put it to the test and continue the learning process. More than can be said for your tunnel visioned approach. Also here's an indication of how little you actually pay attention to what I've said - if your actually believe I've never pinned this (and other current 'issues') on over-population is ridiculous. Hot air is hot air. I stand ready for any fact based debate you want to initiate regarding climate science.

Fixed a couple typos up there, yeah bet I missed a few more.
I came across an interesting recent paper today that underscores the level at which scientists are actually working to understanding distant climate changes, the details and what they can add to our understanding of current dynamics.
This also has implications for helping understand the dynamics that dictated past climate fluctuations and the factors that went into specific fluctuations.

"Glacial weathering, sulfide oxidation, and global carbon cycle feedbacks," PNAS (2017). Mark A. Torres el al., http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/25/1702953114 Significance We compile data showing that, as hypothesized previously, waters draining glaciers have solute chemistry that is distinct from nonglacial rivers and reflects different proportions of mineral weathering reactions. Elevated pyrite oxidation during glacial weathering could generate acidity, releasing carbon to the atmosphere. We show that this effect could contribute to changes in CO2 during glacial cycles of the past million years. Over the longer, multimillion-year timescales that Earth transitions into and out of glaciated states, sustained addition of pyrite-derived sulfate to the oceans could shift the balance of the global carbon cycle toward increasing CO2 in the ocean–atmosphere, thus providing a negative-feedback mechanism preventing runaway glaciation. This mechanism depends on oxidation and thus sufficient O2. Abstract Connections between glaciation, chemical weathering, and the global carbon cycle could steer the evolution of global climate over geologic time, but even the directionality of feedbacks in this system remain to be resolved. Here, we assemble a compilation of hydrochemical data from glacierized catchments, use this data to evaluate the dominant chemical reactions associated with glacial weathering, and explore the implications for long-term geochemical cycles. Weathering yields from catchments in our compilation are higher than the global average, which results, in part, from higher runoff in glaciated catchments. Our analysis supports the theory that glacial weathering is characterized predominantly by weathering of trace sulfide and carbonate minerals. To evaluate the effects of glacial weathering on atmospheric pCO2, we use a solute mixing model to predict the ratio of alkalinity to dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) generated by weathering reactions. Compared with nonglacial weathering, glacial weathering is more likely to yield alkalinity/DIC ratios less than 1, suggesting that enhanced sulfide oxidation as a result of glaciation may act as a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. Back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that oxidative fluxes could change ocean–atmosphere CO2 equilibrium by 25 ppm or more over 10 ky. Over longer timescales, CO2 release could act as a negative feedback, limiting progress of glaciation, dependent on lithology and the concentration of atmospheric O2. Future work on glaciation–weathering–carbon cycle feedbacks should consider weathering of trace sulfide minerals in addition to silicate minerals.
Fascinating, though it doesn't change anything about the reality of what we have done to our planet with our profligate fossil fuels burning (and general contempt and ignorance towards the planetary processes that made our lives and society possible.).
Carbon Dioxide and Climate An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: "A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man's activities influence the climate of the future?" By Gilbert N. Plass Reprinted in Scientific American on December 4, 2008 The theories that explain worldwide climate change are almost as varied as the weather. The more familiar ones attribute changes of climate to Olympian forces that range from geological upheavals and dust-belching volcanoes to long-term variations in the radiation of the sun and eccentricities in the orbit of the earth. Only the so-called carbon dioxide theory takes account of the possibility that human activities may have some effect on climate. This theory suggests that in the present century man is unwittingly raising the temperature of the earth by his industrial and agricultural activities. Even the carbon dioxide theory is not new; the basic idea was first precisely stated in 1861 by the noted British physicist John Tyndall. He attributed climatic temperature-changes to variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to the theory, carbon dioxide controls temperature because the carbon dioxide molecules in the air absorb infrared radiation. The carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere are virtually transparent to the visible radiation that delivers the sun's energy to the earth. But the earth in turn reradiates much of the energy in the invisible infrared region of the spectrum. This radiation is most intense at wavelengths very close to the principal absorption band (13 to 17 microns) of the carbon dioxide spectrum. When the carbon dioxide concentration is sufficiently high, even its weaker absorption bands become effective, and a greater amount of infrared radiation is absorbed [see chart on page 42]. Because the carbon dioxide blanket prevents its escape into space, the trapped radiation warms up the atmosphere. ...
To summarize, explanations for past fluctuations in global temperatures are available for those with a sincere desire to learn about it. Prerequisite the intellectual integrity to do the homework required.

Fascinating article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

In review I noticed this

In one way or another, most of the energy on Earth originates from the sun. Heat from the sun “powers” all of the major processes in the atmosphere. The heat-trapping greenhouse properties of the Earth’s atmosphere and the planet’s tilt also play vital roles in weather dynamics and air circulation. Everything about Earth’s weather, however, comes back to the sun.
Where Does Nearly All of the Earth's Energy in the Atmosphere Come From? | Sciencing

Mike what was your point with all that?
Where do you find me or anyone else who’s serious about climate science denying that the sun is by far Earth’s major source of energy?
Have you ever heard me claim that our atmosphere makes heat?
Or is its just reflexive arm waving?
Remember the slogan: IT’S THE ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION S…

since S.N. insists
Or is it just reflexive arm waving?

Feeding climate change denial trolls makes you part of the problem not part of the solution, stop pretending they have any relevance at all.
Would you debate someone over whether or not cigarette smoking kills?
Let them post whatever the hell they want it’s all utter nonsense in the interests of selling a deadly product, trying to “debate” them just gives them a platform to kill even more.

Dick the Butcher in Henry the Sixth had the right idea for global warming,
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
That should lower the heat substantially. :roll:

Feeding climate change denial trolls makes you part of the problem not part of the solution, stop pretending they have any relevance at all.
Yeah that's why after nearly a half century of knowing better most of Americans are still in denial (or oblivion) about manmade global warming. Ignoring the trolls only gives them the field. :long:
Every 120,000 years global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels fall quite dramatically. About a half million years ago it happened every 40,000 years. What caused it?
What is "quite dramatically"? One degree per 1,000 years? In geological time that is fast. In historical human terms it is not. The world population did not reach One Billion until 1800 and people probably did not know at the time. The issue is SEVEN Billion people with 'high' technology consuming the sh!t out of the planet. psik