CO2 ppm, sun and climate variability

[Obamot]

Obamot brings out the climato-skeptic theses of V Courtillot largely dismantled.
And pacien who forgets the anthropogenic CO2 factor

pacien has not forgotten anything at all (we are talking about the anthropogenic part above, 1,5% surplus to correct OMG!)

Apart from that, you who claim to refer to science all the time, do you think it would advance without skepticism? Even if, by the way, I have NEVER been a climate skeptic, ever! (based on the facts, it's out of the question, but what do they mean?) this contraction of 2 words does not mean much, and even nothing, the goal, like your use of " complotiste" has no basis, except to discredit your interlocutors — find a single passage where I would minimize, and we'll talk about it again — So, starting from your paradigm, we could also say that as a supporter of the IPCC, you would be a "conspirator"

The fact-based middle way is more reasonable:

[izentrop]

I have NEVER been a climate skeptic, ever!

he says while quoting another climatosceptic.

[Obamot]

I quote who I want, and apart from that on the substance of the debate?

[pacien-]

A glaciation is not global according to what I know, when the ice rages in the N hemisphere, by the modification of the currents the temperature rises in the S hemisphere (further explanation). The problem is that like our ancestors, we will have to migrate south, but by the billions, which will quickly cause problems.

Who have not informed about anthropogenic warming on Earth izentrop and its billions of $! I recall another correlation:


And a possible causality:
If said that a meteorite at dryasR caused impact volcanism, we can estimate the duration of its influence on the climate.
According to an article, its size would be 3km, so it would be 3.5* smaller than that of the yucatan for an impact energy of 3.5 (cubed) lower. If the yucatan meteorite doubled the eruptions on 50a, it took 000a for a return to normal.
We can assume that the influence on the volcanism and the climate of this meteorite (12a) will be: 000/500 = 000a, which seems to confirm the warming trend since the dryasR.
Without volcanic cooling, the previous global warming must resume naturally, but at the height of the insolation! Which doesn't bode well.

[utl]https://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/france-monde/extinction-des-dinosaures-volcans-ou-meteorite-sans-doute-un-peu-des-deux[/url]

woof woof: the Milankovitch cycle is made up of alternating heating then cooling. If our warming hadn't been
thwarted by an event, it would resemble the warming of 140a ago.

[Woof woof]

woof woof: the Milankovitch cycle is made up of alternating heating then cooling. If our warming had not been thwarted by an event, it would resemble the warming of 140 years ago.

Regardless of the event that upset the warming, does the end of the upset justify the speed of temperature rise that we are experiencing?

[pacien-]

Regardless of the event that upset the warming, does the end of the upset justify the speed of temperature rise that we are experiencing?

Climate cooling is chaotic, the speed of warming is sometimes 20 times higher, but the context is different.
If there is a catch-up of 10a at the maximum of the insolation, the speed should be faster than before the accident of the dryas-r, in theory, especially with an inevitable anthropogenic. If it's anthropogenic that we see and that a catch-up or the sun is added to it, it's going to be overwhelming and the places in Siberia are going to be expensive!

[Woof woof]

If there is a catch-up of 10a at the maximum of the insolation, the speed should be faster than before the dryas-r accident,

In thermals there is no recovery.

Imagine a pot of cold water under constant fire. It is warming up (end of the glaciation)
At one point I insert a thermal insulator between the fire and the pan (aerosols - atmospheric dust), it heats up less, or even cools if the insulation is very effective. (cool from the Younger Dryas)
I stay like this for a very long time, the pan cools down.
Then I remove the insulation, gradually or not. The pan does not say, "hold on, the fire has been heating for hours before, I'll be nice, I'll catch up and warm up faster".
The pan will heat up at the same rate as before, since the fire is constant.

In the case of sunshine, it varies naturally but slowly, nor can it explain the steepness of the peak that we are currently observing.

[pacien-]

Good example wow-, we can't make up for the time spent! My formulation is ambiguous, it is not the 10a that we catch up but the stronger insolation 000a after the dryas-r. In your example, the fire is mounted, except that the atmosphere does not have the same inertia as water.
If there is this catch-up, it is surely insufficient to explain the peak. It is more likely to be the solar peak of the graph with anthropogenic!

[Woof woof]

but the stronger insolation 10a after the dryas-r.

On the graph we see that after recovery from the Younger Dryas, the temperature is "stable" 4 to 5000 years.
Consequently the effect of the cooling of the Younger Dryas is far away, everything returned to normal for 4 to 5000 years.
Then comes the anthropogenic peak.

It is not only the sun to justify the steepness of a deglaciation, there are also the GHGs released during this process, but currently we are not experiencing a deglaciation, the current peak is unfortunately only attributable to us even because the purely solar action remains slow.

We can only hope for a recent Dryas-type cooling that would thwart our consequences.

[pacien-]

the current peak is unfortunately only attributable to ourselves because the purely solar action remains slow.

Astronomical cycles are slow, but the vagaries of the sun are fast!

We can only hope for a recent Dryas-type cooling that would thwart our consequences

It's all in the dosage!

Consequently the effect of the cooling of the Younger Dryas is far away, everything returned to normal for 4 to 5000 years.

The reference is the last warming peak (120a). Before switching to cool down there is a bump where we should be. It is the higher insolation that would take us out of stability for a moment.

More "concrete" explanation on "catching up":
On an elliptical orbit around the sun, the perigee is the closest and hottest point, conversely for the apogee, the dryas-r in the middle. It heats up more and more as you advance towards the perigee. Then at dryas-r the extraterrestrials of the MIB can no longer bear the heat, they activate their air conditioning to stabilize the temperature on Earth. But no luck, the air conditioning exploded 12a later as close to the sun (now)!
It must be as if we are in the valley of death in the afternoon and we get out of the air-conditioned car, don't have a heart!