Is the World Ready for Another Ice Age? by Geoff Sharp

[GaWx]

http://www.landschei...nfo/?q=node/205

From this article:

"The blocking high pressure cells that bend the jet stream which allows the southern movement of arctic air. At present there is an unusual permanent high pressure cell over Greenland. I think this pattern should prevail over the next 20 to 30 years and replaces the positive pattern of the last 30 years. The global warming models have suggested that man-made CO2 will keep the AO and NAO in positive mode....how wrong have they been?"

" It is very possible that a solar grand minimum that is in position at the right time could assist the natural orbital changes as outlined via the Milankovitch Cycles. A kick start forced on by 30 years of negative PDO, AO and NAO might be all that is needed to push us over the edge...we are well overdue."

[salbers]

I think a Milankovitch induced ice age is fairly unlikely at this time. The Earth's orbit is currently more circular than usual, thus suppressing the normal effect of the cycles. CO2 forcing is also outweighing the gentle cooling effect of the suppressed Milankovitch cycle.

[BethesdaWX]

I think a Milankovitch induced ice age is fairly unlikely at this time. The Earth's orbit is currnetly more circular than usual, thus suppressing the normal effect of the cycles. CO2 forcing is also outweighing the gentle cooling effect of the suppressed Milankovitch cycle.

CO2 measured in WP by man kind is 0.28% of the GHE. CO2 warming is minimal. In the last 1 billion years, our CO2 ppm # of 390 is actually quite low....CO2 had been normally between 600-2000ppm several hundred million years ago, and that was not CO2 enhanced................ it was caused by natural forcings, rising temperatures support higher CO2 levels.

Temperature is also a major driver in CO2 numbers. Due to the logorithmic forcing effect, eventually CO2 warming looses complete effectivity. So...what could have created the CO2 rise THAT high? Certainly it was not humans, nor could we ever achieve such a feat. Something had to create a more favorable environment for CO2 to exist in.........what did it? THE SUN. There is no other explanation aside from solar & earths orbit.

I find it hilarous that people are crying over how CO2 is a DRIVER... 3% of our atmosphere.......Human activity only causes about 0.33% of CO2 warming...which is 3% of our atmosphere. AND.....that despite our Current levels below the global mean over its existance........ that Humans are somehow going to warm the planet by 6C? Bullsh*t.

CO2 isn't a driver...Its DRIVEN. Only 3% of the world is urbanized! Not to mention.......if all the people that EVER existed (about 178 billion) in the planet were to stand, side by side, we'd cover maybe the size of whales. Now, there are about 6 billion people currently alive. We'd maybe cover the size of maine.

And a trace gas that is the backbone to Life as we know it......is going to kill us all. Think about it. When CO2 levels were higher, it was because temperatures were higher...and Life thrives in warmer temps!

Look at the Earh. Where is the most rich, diverse life, Located? At the EQUATOR. A warmer planet would not only be beneficial to life as we know it....our food supply, an open arctic to easy trade routes, freeing up New lands to move and expand our population....humans adapt. We can adapt to sea level rise. Sure, it'd take some $$$, but if you want to see the NYC/manhattan expansion example over the past 300 years, I'll go right ahead.

This whole argument has turned into a crapload of propaganda, power grabbing, needless fear, anger, and in the end, a meltdown of the human race as a child...striving to get what it wants....but not what it NEEDS. What we want is not what we need most of the time,and we're showing just how ignorant and immature we are.

We'll Kill Ourselves before we can even talk level headed.....at this rate.

[skierinvermont]

CO2 measured in WP by man kind is 0.28% of the GHE. CO2 warming is minimal. In the last 1 billion years, our CO2 ppm # of 390 is actually quite low....CO2 had been normally between 600-2000ppm several hundred million years ago, and that was not CO2 enhanced................ it was caused by natural forcings, rising temperatures support higher CO2 levels.

Temperature is also a major driver in CO2 numbers. Due to the logorithmic forcing effect, eventually CO2 warming looses complete effectivity. So...what could have created the CO2 rise THAT high? Certainly it was not humans, nor could we ever achieve such a feat. Something had to create a more favorable environment for CO2 to exist in.........what did it? THE SUN. There is no other explanation aside from solar & earths orbit.

I find it hilarous that people are crying over how CO2 is a DRIVER... 3% of our atmosphere.......Human activity only causes about 0.33% of CO2 warming...which is 3% of our atmosphere. AND.....that despite our Current levels below the global mean over its existance........ that Humans are somehow going to warm the planet by 6C? Bullsh*t.

CO2 isn't a driver...Its DRIVEN. Only 3% of the world is urbanized! Not to mention.......if all the people that EVER existed (about 178 billion) in the planet were to stand, side by side, we'd cover maybe the size of whales. Now, there are about 6 billion people currently alive. We'd maybe cover the size of maine.

And a trace gas that is the backbone to Life as we know it......is going to kill us all. Think about it. When CO2 levels were higher, it was because temperatures were higher...and Life thrives in warmer temps!

Look at the Earh. Where is the most rich, diverse life, Located? At the EQUATOR. A warmer planet would not only be beneficial to life as we know it....our food supply, an open arctic to easy trade routes, freeing up New lands to move and expand our population....humans adapt. We can adapt to sea level rise. Sure, it'd take some $$, but if you want to see the NYC/manhattan expansion example over the past 300 years, I'll go right ahead.

This whole argument has turned into a crapload of propaganda, power grabbing, needless fear, anger, and in the end, a meltdown of the human race as a child...striving to get what it wants....but not what it NEEDS. What we want is not what we need most of the time,and we're showing just how ignorant and immature we are.

We'll Kill Ourselves before we can even talk level headed.....at this rate.

Co2 is not .28% of the GH effect. You are grossly misinformed.

[BethesdaWX]

Co2 is not .28% of the GH effect. You are grossly misinformed.

Human related WP is 0.28% in relation to the GHE in general, all gases combined. Who said CO2 was 0.28%?!?!? I think you may have grossly misread

In reality, Water Vapor is about 95% WP.....so.... you understand?

Either way, you Completely missed the message behind my post!

[skierinvermont]

Human related WP is 0.28% in relation to the GHE in general, all gases combined. Who said CO2 was 0.28%?!?!? I think you may have grossly misread

In reality, Water Vapor is about 95% WP.....so.... you understand?

Either way, you Completely missed the message behind my post!

what are you using WP to abbreviate?

CO2 is something like 40% of the GH effect.. I will have to look it up.

[Fujiwara Effect]

CO2 measured in WP by man kind is 0.28% of the GHE. CO2 warming is minimal. In the last 1 billion years, our CO2 ppm # of 390 is actually quite low....CO2 had been normally between 600-2000ppm several hundred million years ago, and that was not CO2 enhanced................ it was caused by natural forcings, rising temperatures support higher CO2 levels.

Temperature is also a major driver in CO2 numbers. Due to the logorithmic forcing effect, eventually CO2 warming looses complete effectivity. So...what could have created the CO2 rise THAT high? Certainly it was not humans, nor could we ever achieve such a feat. Something had to create a more favorable environment for CO2 to exist in.........what did it? THE SUN. There is no other explanation aside from solar & earths orbit.

I find it hilarous that people are crying over how CO2 is a DRIVER... 3% of our atmosphere.......Human activity only causes about 0.33% of CO2 warming...which is 3% of our atmosphere. AND.....that despite our Current levels below the global mean over its existance........ that Humans are somehow going to warm the planet by 6C? Bullsh*t.

CO2 isn't a driver...Its DRIVEN. Only 3% of the world is urbanized! Not to mention.......if all the people that EVER existed (about 178 billion) in the planet were to stand, side by side, we'd cover maybe the size of whales. Now, there are about 6 billion people currently alive. We'd maybe cover the size of maine.

And a trace gas that is the backbone to Life as we know it......is going to kill us all. Think about it. When CO2 levels were higher, it was because temperatures were higher...and Life thrives in warmer temps!

Look at the Earh. Where is the most rich, diverse life, Located? At the EQUATOR. A warmer planet would not only be beneficial to life as we know it....our food supply, an open arctic to easy trade routes, freeing up New lands to move and expand our population....humans adapt. We can adapt to sea level rise. Sure, it'd take some $$, but if you want to see the NYC/manhattan expansion example over the past 300 years, I'll go right ahead.

This whole argument has turned into a crapload of propaganda, power grabbing, needless fear, anger, and in the end, a meltdown of the human race as a child...striving to get what it wants....but not what it NEEDS. What we want is not what we need most of the time,and we're showing just how ignorant and immature we are.

We'll Kill Ourselves before we can even talk level headed.....at this rate.

[Fujiwara Effect]

And lets say you are right... - unfortunately you are not, this acceleration in temp man made will (is beginning) to cause mass extinctions because of the time frame compression is just way to fast. Over several hundred years, thousand years eco-systems can then catch up yes, otherwise it's lights out for multitudes of species, and dude well that's the food chain. It's very ignorant to apply tropical beauty to temperate reality let alone temperate to arctic and playing god is disturbing without consideratiion off all things connected arrogance!

[LakeEffectKing]

And lets say you are right... - unfortunately you are not, this acceleration in temp man made will (is beginning) to cause mass extinctions because of the time frame compression is just way to fast. Over several hundred years, thousand years eco-systems can then catch up yes, otherwise it's lights out for multitudes of species, and dude well that's the food chain. It's very ignorant to apply tropical beauty to temperate reality let alone temperate to arctic and playing god is disturbing without consideratiion off all things connected arrogance!

If you carry this out to the extreme, our existance itself is playing God....we wouldn't be able to eat/move/etc. Every step we take, determines if an ant lives or not....every bite we consume determines what lives or dies.

I don't feel guilty about living....not so sure why many people do, and then try so hard to make others feel the same way. Your arbitrarily derived argument above is futile, for each and every human exists to survive and procreate (THAT"S NATURAL!)

Merry Christmas.....hope you stay warm via whatever solar or wind powered methods you use.

[Msalgado]

If you carry this out to the extreme, our existance itself is playing God....we wouldn't be able to eat/move/etc. Every step we take, determines if an ant lives or not....every bite we consume determines what lives or dies.

I don't feel guilty about living....not so sure why many people do, and then try so hard to make others feel the same way. Your arbitrarily derived argument above is futile, for each and every human exists to survive and procreate (THAT"S NATURAL!)

Merry Christmas.....hope you stay warm via whatever solar or wind powered methods you use.

Sure you can make a determination that it is impossible for any action undertaken by a human is a natural once since it is impossible to remove us from nature. That doesn't mean our decision making process is ultimately limited to survival as other lifeforms on this planet. Merely surviving is not the only qualification for humans. We very much factor in quality of life and morality into our decision making.

Your argument is a complete straw man. No one is asking you to commit suicide for the better health of the planet. No need to feel guilty about living, but maybe more about in the manner in which you live. Somehow, the rest of the world gets by with much lower consumption than Americans. You play a nice martyr though. I mean can you believe the NEVER of some people? Asking you not to LIVE? (lol)

Merry Christmas to you too. This holiday season maybe as a start you'll turn down your thermostat a bit and wear a sweater indoors. You needent use solar, wind, or oil.

[salbers]

CO2 measured in WP by man kind is 0.28% of the GHE. CO2 warming is minimal. In the last 1 billion years, our CO2 ppm # of 390 is actually quite low....CO2 had been normally between 600-2000ppm several hundred million years ago, and that was not CO2 enhanced................ it was caused by natural forcings, rising temperatures support higher CO2 levels.

Temperature is also a major driver in CO2 numbers. Due to the logorithmic forcing effect, eventually CO2 warming looses complete effectivity. So...what could have created the CO2 rise THAT high? Certainly it was not humans, nor could we ever achieve such a feat. Something had to create a more favorable environment for CO2 to exist in.........what did it? THE SUN. There is no other explanation aside from solar & earths orbit.

I find it hilarous that people are crying over how CO2 is a DRIVER... 3% of our atmosphere.......Human activity only causes about 0.33% of CO2 warming...which is 3% of our atmosphere. AND.....that despite our Current levels below the global mean over its existance........ that Humans are somehow going to warm the planet by 6C? Bullsh*t.

CO2 isn't a driver...Its DRIVEN. Only 3% of the world is urbanized! Not to mention.......if all the people that EVER existed (about 178 billion) in the planet were to stand, side by side, we'd cover maybe the size of whales. Now, there are about 6 billion people currently alive. We'd maybe cover the size of maine.

And a trace gas that is the backbone to Life as we know it......is going to kill us all. Think about it. When CO2 levels were higher, it was because temperatures were higher...and Life thrives in warmer temps!

CO2 is likely at the highest level since hominids started walking the planet. It's hard to say if humans could actually live on the Earth the way it was 1 billion years ago. There weren't any plants or animals to eat then. 100 million years ago we of course didn't evolve yet, partly out of competition with dinosaurs. So it seems appropriate to compare CO2 levels with other times when hominids have been around. It's a big moral step to return the world to a dinosaur loving environment, after the havoc wrought by rapid climate change.

The higher CO2 levels (due to volcanoes, etc) hundreds of millions of years ago probably caused the temperature rises. Where's the mechanism for the converse?

[BethesdaWX]

what are you using WP to abbreviate?

CO2 is something like 40% of the GH effect.. I will have to look it up.

Uhhh, what??? WP (warming potential), given that CO2 is about 3% of the atmosphere.... and only 3% of that is human enhanced, CO2 is not a driver, but driven.

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

On its own, whatever CO2 is released by humans, compared to other gases, is very insignificant. Water vapor is not only a Driver, but the KING of the GHE.

CO2 "levels" is a relaitve term. No matter how you put it, Human enhanced WP is, in the end, 0.28%, or.....in other words...... not major.

[beneficii]

Uhhh, what??? WP (warming potential), given that CO2 is about 3% of the atmosphere.... and only 3% of that is human enhanced, CO2 is not a driver, but driven.

Uhh...

LOL.

In Memphis, we could have a White Christmas this year. Therefore, global warming is not true.

Let's keep the non sequitur game going!

[skierinvermont]

Uhhh, what??? WP (warming potential), given that CO2 is about 3% of the atmosphere.... and only 3% of that is human enhanced, CO2 is not a driver, but driven.

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

On its own, whatever CO2 is released by humans, compared to other gases, is very insignificant. Water vapor is not only a Driver, but the KING of the GHE.

CO2 "levels" is a relaitve term. No matter how you put it, Human enhanced WP is, in the end, 0.28%, or.....in other words...... not major.

THere you go again with your only "3% of the CO2 is human enhanced." We've been over this before... humans are responsible for the entire increase from 280ppm to 400ppm... in other words 30% of the CO2 is from humans.

Co2 is responsible for about 40% of the greenhouse effect which raises the earth's temperature significantly.

[beneficii]

THere you go again with your only "3% of the CO2 is human enhanced." We've been over this before... humans are responsible for the entire increase from 280ppm to 400ppm... in other words 30% of the CO2 is from humans.

Co2 is responsible for about 40% of the greenhouse effect which raises the earth's temperature significantly.

According to this:

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

CO2 is responsible for 9-26%. That's still significant, especially when you've had the increases we've seen.

[BethesdaWX]

THere you go again with your only "3% of the CO2 is human enhanced." We've been over this before... humans are responsible for the entire increase from 280ppm to 400ppm... in other words 30% of the CO2 is from humans.

Co2 is responsible for about 40% of the greenhouse effect which raises the earth's temperature significantly.

Yes we've been over it before, and you fail to understand the proper science. CO2 DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE 40% OF OUR GHE!!! Holy sh*t man...why do you make things up like this? Did you read my link? Do you read anything?

Where are your sources?

CO2 is 3% of Earths atmosphere.....Humans are responsible for 3% of earths TOTAL CO2 __WP__ in relation to WV & other gases.

No matter how much we put out, WV, Solar GCR & the reating GCC, SRI, & Ocean cycles will determine our global temp. 3% CO2 vs Massive WV, The Sun, The Oceans.......Hmmmmm.....what will win out? Not CO2 my friend.

WV makes up 95% of our GHE, and is overly dominant over CO2. Human enhanced WP is 0.28% when accounting for the GHE total forcings as a whole.

[salbers]

Yes we've been over it before, and you fail to understand the proper science. CO2 DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE 40% OF OUR GHE!!! Holy sh*t man...why do you make things up like this? Did you read my link? Do you read anything?

Where are your sources?

CO2 is 3% of Earths atmosphere.....Humans are responsible for 3% of earths TOTAL CO2 __WP__ in relation to WV & other gases.

No matter how much we put out, WV, Solar GCR & the reating GCC, SRI, & Ocean cycles will determine our global temp. 3% CO2 vs Massive WV, The Sun, The Oceans.......Hmmmmm.....what will win out? Not CO2 my friend.

WV makes up 95% of our GHE, and is overly dominant over CO2. Human enhanced WP is 0.28% when accounting for the GHE total forcings as a whole.

Actually any reasonable source will show CO2 is 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere. However the 40% increase of CO2 in the last century or two is caused by humans. There's no other reasonable mechanism. The radiative effect we know for a CO2 doubling is around 1.2C. WIth feedbacks including water vapor it rises to around 3C (depending on other feedbacks). These are the important numbers. The only debate I see as relevant is what are the other feedbacks, including aerosol changes.

It's true the total greenhouse effect is tens of degrees caused largely by water vapor. However it's the human caused changes (smaller than the total H2O, yet still significant) that are the focus of this debate.

[binovc]

I am going to veer off a little from this argument. If humans are indeed causing global warming, the fastest and least expensive solution would be less humans. Think how many world problems go away, or become manageable with a smaller population. Every species has its carrying capacity,

[beneficii]

CO2 is 3% of Earths atmosphere.....

Were that true, we'd all be dead.

[BethesdaWX]

Actually any reasonable source will show CO2 is 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere. However the 40% increase of CO2 in the last century or two is caused by humans. There's no other reasonable mechanism. The radiative effect we know for a CO2 doubling is around 1.2C. WIth feedbacks including water vapor it rises to around 3C (depending on other feedbacks). These are the important numbers. The only debate I see as relevant is what are the other feedbacks, including aerosol changes.

It's true the total greenhouse effect is tens of degrees caused largely by water vapor. However it's the human caused changes (smaller than the total H2O, yet still significant) that are the focus of this debate.

So then, why are global temps colder now than they were 125,000 years ago....yet CO2 is Higher now.......... Co2 rises would have created some immense "feeback" then too, right?

There really is no WV feedback syndrome in relation to CO2, or any of these so called feedbacks. There is a reason CO2 is logorithmic, once a certain forcing load has been reached, the WP is lost....the heating effectiveness is lost.

Models not only overdo forcings, but place to little balance on other effects such as Oceans, solar, GCR & GCC. Once those issues are taken care of, we can resume our normal lives without the useless propaganda from Hansen.

[BethesdaWX]

And lets say you are right... - unfortunately you are not, this acceleration in temp man made will (is beginning) to cause mass extinctions because of the time frame compression is just way to fast. Over several hundred years, thousand years eco-systems can then catch up yes, otherwise it's lights out for multitudes of species, and dude well that's the food chain. It's very ignorant to apply tropical beauty to temperate reality let alone temperate to arctic and playing god is disturbing without consideratiion off all things connected arrogance!

Worst post of the month award right here

[BethesdaWX]

Actually any reasonable source will show CO2 is 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere. However the 40% increase of CO2 in the last century or two is caused by humans. There's no other reasonable mechanism. The radiative effect we know for a CO2 doubling is around 1.2C. WIth feedbacks including water vapor it rises to around 3C (depending on other feedbacks). These are the important numbers. The only debate I see as relevant is what are the other feedbacks, including aerosol changes.

It's true the total greenhouse effect is tens of degrees caused largely by water vapor. However it's the human caused changes (smaller than the total H2O, yet still significant) that are the focus of this debate.

So then, why are global temps colder now than they were 125,000 years ago....yet CO2 is Higher now.......... Co2 rises would have created some immense "feeback" then too, right?

There really is no WV feedback syndrome in relation to CO2, or any of these so called feedbacks. There is a reason CO2 is logorithmic, once a certain forcing load has been reached, the WP is lost....the heating effectiveness is lost.

Models not only overdo forcings, but place to little balance on other effects such as Oceans, solar, GCR & GCC. Once those issues are taken care of, we can resume our normal lives without the useless propaganda from Hansen.

[beneficii]

So then, why are global temps colder now than they were 125,000 years ago....yet CO2 is Higher now.......... Co2 rises would have created some immense "feeback" then too, right?

There really is no WV feedback syndrome in relation to CO2, or any of these so called feedbacks. There is a reason CO2 is logorithmic, once a certain forcing load has been reached, the WP is lost....the heating effectiveness is lost.

Models not only overdo forcings, but place to little balance on other effects such as Oceans, solar, GCR & GCC. Once those issues are taken care of, we can resume our normal lives without the useless propaganda from Hansen.

In those scenarios, the initial warming is caused by orbital changes (the Milankovitch cycles), and that warming causes the ocean to keep releasing CO2 which amplifies the warming, creating a feedback cycle. This is explaned here, which also gives sources to peer-reviewed papers that study this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

[beneficii]

Worst post of the month award right here

He's talking about the accelerating rate of change in the temperature causing major adaptive issues for many organisms. Were the warm up much slower, organisms would have been better able to adapt.

[salbers]

So then, why are global temps colder now than they were 125,000 years ago....yet CO2 is Higher now.......... Co2 rises would have created some immense "feeback" then too, right?

There really is no WV feedback syndrome in relation to CO2, or any of these so called feedbacks. There is a reason CO2 is logorithmic, once a certain forcing load has been reached, the WP is lost....the heating effectiveness is lost.

Models not only overdo forcings, but place to little balance on other effects such as Oceans, solar, GCR & GCC. Once those issues are taken care of, we can resume our normal lives without the useless propaganda from Hansen.

Well 125000 years ago there may have been help from the Milankovitch cycles (as explained above). Plus the warming now takes a while to take hold in the oceans - be patient it will get there.

I thought you said H2O was such a strong GHG. So when the CO2 forcing starts the temperature rise, the H2O continues it as a "slave" gas. Constant relative humidity means higher absolute humidity as I'm sure you know. You may have seen this discussed a bit over at Eastern Wx.

Ocean and solar cycles aren't well handled by models (predictively), and this is somewhat irrelevant. It's the CO2 that will win out in the end as it is persistantly upward and lasts a longer time. Retrospectively the models handle these other cycles OK though.

[skierinvermont]

So then, why are global temps colder now than they were 125,000 years ago....yet CO2 is Higher now.......... Co2 rises would have created some immense "feeback" then too, right?

I have explained this to you. Milankovich cycles. Just because Milankovich cycles caused our ice age cycles doesn't mean CO2 will not cause warming presently.

You've made this logical fallacy about a dozen times.. it's getting old.

[BethesdaWX]

In those scenarios, the initial warming is caused by orbital changes (the Milankovitch cycles), and that warming causes the ocean to keep releasing CO2 which amplifies the warming, creating a feedback cycle. This is explaned here, which also gives sources to peer-reviewed papers that study this:

http://www.skeptical...temperature.htm

Missing the point. What exactly caused the CO2 levels to rise during those Warm periods NOT created by man?

We're in a partially warm sector now, yet, with higher CO2 levels, we've failed to warm significantly.

So, you're saying that Milankovitch Cycles outweigh CO2 warming? Wheres the feedback we're supposed to be seeing? Last time I checked, NYC was supposed to be under 20ft of water by now Via Hansen

[BethesdaWX]

I have explained this to you. Milankovich cycles. Just because Milankovich cycles caused our ice age cycles doesn't mean CO2 will not cause warming presently.

You've made this logical fallacy about a dozen times.. it's getting old.

You've missed the point of my argument everytime, and skipped around the main points. Start debating with some sense

[beneficii]

Missing the point. What exactly caused the CO2 levels to rise during those Warm periods NOT created by man?

We're in a partially warm sector now, yet, with higher CO2 levels, we've failed to warm significantly.

So, you're saying that Milankovitch Cycles outweigh CO2 warming? Wheres the feedback we're supposed to be seeing? Last time I checked, NYC was supposed to be under 20ft of water by now Via Hansen

Chibi Maruko Chan is a really good cartoon, especially if you are learning Japanese.

BTW, where did I say that MIlankovitch cycles outweigh CO2 warming? Where is that said in the scientific literature? For what caused CO2 levels to rise during those warm periods, I did explain it, and it is explained in my source.

You also continue the fallacy that because CO2 levels rose in the past naturally, they must be rising like that right now naturally.

So, Chibi Maruko Chan, whose real name is Momoko Sakura, lives in a family of 6 in Shimizu City (which is today Shimizu Ward in Shizuoka City), her paternal grandparents, her parents, and her big sister. The show pretty much goes into her everyday life, and it's very heartwarming.

[BethesdaWX]

Chibi Maruko Chan is a really good cartoon, especially if you are learning Japanese.

BTW, where did I say that MIlankovitch cycles outweigh CO2 warming? Where is that said in the scientific literature? For what caused CO2 levels to rise during those warm periods, I did explain it, and it is explained in my source.

You also continue the fallacy that because CO2 levels rose in the past naturally, they must be rising like that right now naturally.

So, Chibi Maruko Chan, whose real name is Momoko Sakura, lives in a family of 6 in Shimizu City (which is today Shimizu Ward in Shizuoka City), her paternal grandparents, her parents, and her big sister. The show pretty much goes into her everyday life, and it's very heartwarming.

You've basically just screwed your own argument.