Steve_American wrote:We just disagree. In the video Dr. Britt, says that the 1M years play of the Ice Age as a whole is a result of unusually high mountains being thrust up as India collides with Asia. This exposes eroded rock to the air, where it reacts with the air to remove CO2 from the air.
. . . We are adding CO2 to the air. If we add just the right amount we should be able to stay in an interstadial for a long time.
So, the Ice Age is a result of the Earth's orbital cycles which normally don't cause ice formation because the effect is too small to cool the world enough, being combined with the falling CO2 level caused by the weathering of the rocks in those high mountains, which then causes the temps to fall.
Also, the orbital cycles are not enough to cause the formation of ice sheets 2 miles thick. To get that we need the CO2 levels to drop as a result, which cools the Earth. IIRC, the CO2 levels follow the temps down. This why I said the the onset on an ice advance is caused or triggered by the cycles, but that CO2 is also involved because the CO2 level does track down parallel to the temps on the graphs.
Ah good so you actually have some understanding of the science, that goes beyond regurgitating a few moronic slogans. If we had met off the forum, we might well have been able to have an interesting and stimulating discussion about climate. The theory you just described I have been aware of for quite some time. I accept it as plausible, perhaps even probable. But this is not 100% certain. I do follow the science, or to be more precise accept the established work of scientific specialists. I accept what the experts say about the mass of the electron. I accept that they've nailed it. I accept that they've nailed it to a ridiculous degree of precision.
But nothing in climate science is like the mass of the election. Nothing has remotely the degree of certainty and precision of particle physics, or even macro physics or astronomy. Climate Science and Climate Public policy is not in the same ball park its not even the same sport, to quote Joules from Pulp Fiction in the foot massage debate. Lets say that the theory you outlined above is ninety percent probable, we can't just forget about the 10 percent chance that's its incorrect and move on, because errors accumulate. By the time you get to specific policy proposals you've got a whole superstructure of theories, assumptions, calculations and approximations. Uncertainties and imprecision accumulate.