3 ms·

Here's the smoking gun graph he's hosting: http://donath.org/Photos/TempChange.PNG http://donath.org/Photos/TempChange.PNG This is what he's talking about: htt

by morsch 5y ago

Here's the smoking gun graph he's hosting: http://donath.org/Photos/TempChange.PNG http://donath.org/Photos/TempChange.PNG This is what he's talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles Here's a graph similar to his, hosted on German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovi%C4%87-Zyklen#/media/Datei:Milankovic-Zyklen_2017_(cropped).jpg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovi%C4%87-Zyklen#/media/... Nobody brings it up, because scientists don't believe the observed changes in temperatures are due to Milankovitch cycles, since global warming is happening on the order of decades and not millenia. Here's NASA's take: https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/ https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovi...

yobbo 5y ago
> global warming is happening on the order of decades and not millenia How do we know that temperatures inferred from ice-cores (or whatever) are not extremely smoothed due to natural phenomena? Can we really get resolution down to individual years such that they agree across different test sites and methods?
raxxorrax 5y ago
Scaling the time axis sensibly will quickly reveal that the rising temperature and this cycle cannot explain the rise we see. There are certainly overlapping effects, but the model would fail to predict temperatures.