Sorry Don but I am going to have to call foul.
Your attachment is not a “NASA report” but an un-attributed opinion piece which provides an interpretation of the real “NASA report”. As usual the author refers to some parts of the real NASA report and ignores the parts that don’t substantiate the author’s opinion.
The real NASA report can be easily found on the NASA Earth Observatory website at https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_3.php
This report is a short read and states, in a dry scientific journal style, how Milankovic’s theory was eventually proven accurate by using sub-sea cores to extract a record of earth temperatures and correlate them to Milankovic’s theory over a period of 450,000 years.
The National Research Council did conclude, as stated in you opinion piece, that:
...orbital variations remain the most thoroughly examined mechanism of climatic change on time scales of tens of thousands of years and are by far the clearest case of a direct effect of changing insolation on the lower atmosphere of Earth (National Research Council, 1982).
The current climate change debate is centered on climate changes over a very short time, essentially the period since the industrial revolution and the accelerated growth in global population.
I think it’s a pretty big stretch to try to postulate that a proven theory that explains slowly rising and falling earth temperature changes over tens of thousands of year can explain the temperature increases over the past 250 years. If it was that easy yo correlate then I would expect to find that correlation on a NASA official website as well as in other scientific journals.
Sorry but this opinion piece does not convince me of anything,
Bob T
On Nov 3, 2022, at 7:46 PM, Donald Hoyda <donaldhoyda@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gentlemen, Here is a NASA report on the Milankovich cycles that are known to be natural drivers of climate change.
Don Hoyda, P.Geol.
Sent from my iPad
