Another Epic Fail for Climate Science

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think that every one of those photons manages to miss the Sun?

What the hell are you talking about?

Pointing out the idiocy of your confused claims.

OK...lets cut to the chase, OK...you have become really boring with this windmill tilting quest you are on so answer one question for me...yes or no.

Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

Microstate statistical mechanics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you do, then you are completely wrong and if you don't then you agree with me whether you know it or not.

...you have become really boring with this windmill tilting quest you are

Yes, trying to show you your errors has been a pointless quest.

Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

You think that molecules in the atmosphere, happily radiating in all directions according to SB, cannot radiate toward the ground, because the microstate of the ground "has filled up"?

Does this mean you feel the ground can't absorb more energy?

Can't manage a yes no answer...how unsurprising is that? Again, Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

Trying to translate from idiot to English, before I answer.

Why do you feel warmer microstates are "filled up"?

 

[SSDD]

What the hell are you talking about?

Pointing out the idiocy of your confused claims.

OK...lets cut to the chase, OK...you have become really boring with this windmill tilting quest you are on so answer one question for me...yes or no.

Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

Microstate statistical mechanics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you do, then you are completely wrong and if you don't then you agree with me whether you know it or not.

...you have become really boring with this windmill tilting quest you are

Yes, trying to show you your errors has been a pointless quest.

Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

You think that molecules in the atmosphere, happily radiating in all directions according to SB, cannot radiate toward the ground, because the microstate of the ground "has filled up"?

Does this mean you feel the ground can't absorb more energy?

Can't manage a yes no answer...how unsurprising is that? Again, Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

Trying to translate from idiot to English, before I answer.

Why do you feel warmer microstates are "filled up"?

Is it radiating?

 

[MrDVS1]

Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science

Your first link:
Abstract
Presently, there are no global measurement constraints on the surface emissivity at wavelengths longer than 15 μm, even though this surface property in this far-IR region has a direct impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and infrared cooling rates where the column precipitable water vapor (PWV) is less than 1 mm. Such dry conditions are common for high-altitude and high-latitude locations, with the potential for modeled climate to be impacted by uncertain surface characteristics. This paper explores the sensitivity of instantaneous OLR and cooling rates to changes in far-IR surface emissivity and how this unconstrained property impacts climate model projections. At high latitudes and altitudes, a 0.05 change in emissivity due to mineralogy and snow grain size can cause a 1.8–2.0 W m−2 difference in the instantaneous clear-sky OLR. A variety of radiative transfer techniques have been used to model the far-IR spectral emissivities of surface types defined by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. Incorporating these far-IR surface emissivities into the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario of the Community Earth System Model leads to discernible changes in the spatial patterns of surface temperature, OLR, and frozen surface extent. The model results differ at high latitudes by as much as 2°K, 10 W m−2, and 15%, respectively, after only 25 y of integration. Additionally, the calculated difference in far-IR emissivity between ocean and sea ice of between 0.1 and 0.2, suggests the potential for a far-IR positive feedback for polar climate change.

Significance
We find that many of the Earth's climate variables, including surface temperature, outgoing longwave radiation, cooling rates, and frozen surface extent, are sensitive to far-IR surface emissivity, a largely unconstrained, temporally and spatially heterogeneous scaling factor for the blackbody radiation from the surface at wavelengths between 15 μm and 100 μm. We also describe a previously unidentified mechanism that amplifies high-latitude and high-altitude warming in finding significantly lower values of far-IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces than for sea ice and snow. This leads to a decrease in surface emission at far-IR wavelengths, reduced cooling to space, and warmer radiative surface temperatures. Far-IR emissivity can be measured from spectrally resolved observations, but such measurements have not yet been made.

SSDD, what do you think the effect of positive feedback would be?

Why were the model results differences given as a POSITIVE 2K?

Three guesses and the first two don't count. This article is contending that the Earth will heat up FASTER than current models show.

How did you get this stupid?

The estimates don't seem to take into account that once all the ice is gone that the warming of the Earth will increase rapidly. The ice will be gone but the heat that melted it will still be present and without the ice reflecting that heat at all, the Earth will absorb it instead. Water will evaporate like crazy, on a positive note that will alleviate the flooding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can't manage a yes no answer...how unsurprising is that? Again, Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

Trying to translate from idiot to English, before I answer.

Why do you feel warmer microstates are "filled up"?

Is it radiating?

Is it radiating?

Yes, all matter above absolute zero is radiating. Even if it is next to warmer matter.

 

[mamooth]

CO2 emits in the far IR spectrum...if sea water is a poor absorber of far IR, which is what CO2 is emitting,

But since seawater is an excellent absorber in the far IR, as has been known for the past century, you're just babbling nonsense in the name of your cult.

When you figure out the very important and obvious differences between "absorptivity" and "amount of radiation absorbed", do let us know. You fail hard at understanding the basics. Until you reach at least a college freshman level of understanding, you're not qualified to be in the discussion. Don't feel too bad, though, given that Ian fails just as hard.

The root of your failure is equating "low absorptivity" with "most radiation is not absorbed". That's completely and disastrously wrong.

Reflectivity is the factor that matters. Liquid water reflects only about 3% of the far IR. 97% travels into the water. If it travels into the water, it is eventually absorbed. It has to be. Conservation of energy must hold, always, period.

Absorptivity defines an average path length before the radiation is absorbed. Since that path length is in the range of 10 microns for water with far IR, all of the penetrating far IR will be absorbed within the first millimeter. "Low absorptivity" is a relative term. It's "low" in relation to, say, a hunk of iron. It's quite high in relation to, say, air.

As I keep asking, if you disagree, explain why you think you have a waiver to violate conservation of energy. According to your theory, IR penetrates the oceans and then just vanishes. It's not reflected or absorbed; the energy apparently travels into a mystery dimension. Can you tell us how the physics of that work?

 

[SSDD]

Can't manage a yes no answer...how unsurprising is that? Again, Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

Trying to translate from idiot to English, before I answer.

Why do you feel warmer microstates are "filled up"?

Is it radiating?

Is it radiating?

Yes, all matter above absolute zero is radiating. Even if it is next to warmer matter.

Keep thinking...you will get it...maybe I should have said is it radiating at a particular temperature?...if all the microstates are not full, then its macrostate would be at a lower temperature...activate even higher microstates which require higher frequency energy and the macrostate exhibits a higher temperature...again, do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up, or displace the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 emits in the far IR spectrum...if sea water is a poor absorber of far IR, which is what CO2 is emitting,

But since seawater is an excellent absorber in the far IR, as has been known for the past century, you're just babbling nonsense in the name of your cult.

When you figure out the very important and obvious differences between "absorptivity" and "amount of radiation absorbed", do let us know. You fail hard at understanding the basics. Until you reach at least a college freshman level of understanding, you're not qualified to be in the discussion. Don't feel too bad, though, given that Ian fails just as hard.

The root of your failure is equating "low absorptivity" with "most radiation is not absorbed". That's completely and disastrously wrong.

Reflectivity is the factor that matters. Liquid water reflects only about 3% of the far IR. 97% travels into the water. If it travels into the water, it is eventually absorbed. It has to be. Conservation of energy must hold, always, period.

Absorptivity defines an average path length before the radiation is absorbed. Since that path length is in the range of 10 microns for water with far IR, all of the penetrating far IR will be absorbed within the first millimeter. "Low absorptivity" is a relative term. It's "low" in relation to, say, a hunk of iron. It's quite high in relation to, say, air.

As I keep asking, if you disagree, explain why you think you have a waiver to violate conservation of energy. According to your theory, IR penetrates the oceans and then just vanishes. It's not reflected or absorbed; the energy apparently travels into a mystery dimension. Can you tell us how the physics of that work?

Keep denying hairball....you have shown graphs which you claim to support your claims but the do not even address the far IR frequencies...This graph does address the far IR and as you can see, for sea water, there is a dramatic drop in emissivity as one enters into the far IR range...that being the case, sea water must also be a poor absorber in the far IR range....unless of course, you are going to deny Kirchhoff's Law...it wouldn't be the first physical law you have denied in favor of your cult beliefs...absorption must equal emission at all frequencies...go ahead, deny it.

From the paper:

Despite its importance in the planet’s energy budget, it’s difficult to measure a surface’s effectiveness in emitting far-infrared energy. In addition, its influence on the planet’s climate is not well represented in climate models. The models assume that all surfaces are 100 percent efficient in emitting far-infrared energy.

That’s not the case. The scientists found that open oceans are much less efficient than sea ice when it comes to emitting in the far-infrared region of the spectrum. This means that the Arctic Ocean traps much of the energy in far-infrared radiation, a previously unknown phenomenon that is likely contributing to the warming of the polar climate.

Note he acknowledges that climate models assume that all surfaces are 100% efficient in emitting far IR energy...the models also assume 100% efficiency at absorbing far IR. Then he goes on to make his own assumption, not realizing that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths...therefore if sea water is a poor emitter, it must also be a poor absorber...

Deny some more hairball...deny physical laws....show us who the true denier is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can't manage a yes no answer...how unsurprising is that? Again, Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

Trying to translate from idiot to English, before I answer.

Why do you feel warmer microstates are "filled up"?

Is it radiating?

Is it radiating?

Yes, all matter above absolute zero is radiating. Even if it is next to warmer matter.

Keep thinking...you will get it...maybe I should have said is it radiating at a particular temperature?...if all the microstates are not full, then its macrostate would be at a lower temperature...activate even higher microstates which require higher frequency energy and the macrostate exhibits a higher temperature...again, do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up, or displace the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up.

again, do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up, or displace the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up

Who said anything about "fill[ing] up, or displac[ing] the higher energy microstates"?
Let's try this again.
The cooler [than the ground] atmosphere will radiate in all directions (as long as it's above 0K), even toward the warmer ground.
That won't increase the temperature of the ground (as long as the ground started out warmer than the atmosphere), because the ground (also constantly radiating) is radiating faster (more).
This energy from the radiating atmosphere will slow the loss of energy from the ground.

If you weren't such a moron, you'd have realized this months ago.

Start thinking...you will get it...

 

[SSDD]

The cooler [than the ground] atmosphere will radiate in all directions (as long as it's above 0K), even toward the warmer ground.

You keep saying that, but can't provide even one observed measured example....you are speaking about a mathematical model, not observable reality.

This energy from the radiating atmosphere will slow the loss of energy from the ground.

If the greenhouse effect works like that, then where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result?

Tell me Todster...do you think photons exist inside, or outside of space and time? Assuming that photons exist, is it not true that a photon traveling at the speed of light c, experiences neither space nor time? From a photon's "point of view" is not all spacial length infinitely contracted...meaning that from a photon's "point of view" it has no where to travel?.....and from a photon's "point of view" is time not at a standstill because of infinite time dilation?

So from a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel in no time, it really does "know" what its destination is like and therefore you can limit radiative transfer of energy is essentially the same as if there were physical contact...as is the case with conduction.

So prove me wrong. Surely there will be a nobel in it for you...

 

[mamooth]

Keep denying hairball....you have shown graphs which you claim to support your claims but the do not even address the far IR frequencies...

You're essentially the only person on the planet claiming seawater doesn't absorb most far IR. If you'd like anyone to believe your astounding discovery, you might want to consider showing some evidence, as crying loudly is unlikely to convince the scientific community. They all think that far IR is absorbed very effectively by water, which would be why all far IR astronomy is done either by satellite, or by the instruments on Mauna Kea which are above most of the water vapor. Be sure to let them know they're all wasting their time, and that far IR isn't absorbed by water at all.

This graph does address the far IR and as you can see, for sea water, there is a dramatic drop in emissivity as one enters into the far IR range...that being the case, sea water must also be a poor absorber in the far IR range...

Dear god, you're stupid.

As I keep pointing out, you're equating "low absorptivity" with "never absorbs the energy, no matter how far it travels". Total physics failure on your part.

Absorptivity is a measure of the average path length a bit of radiation travels in matter before it gets absorbed.

In liquid water, that's around 10 microns. So as long as you have at least a millimeter of water, 100% of the far IR energy penetrating the water gets absorbed.

"Low" or "high" absorptivity doesn't matter in this case. Given enough distance, all matter eventually absorbs all the energy penetrating it. "Low absorptivity" in water just means the average path length is 10 microns instead of 10 nanometers.

Again, you need to explain why your kook theory gets a waiver to violate conservation of energy. According to you, the far IR penetrates the ocean and then magically vanishes without transferring any energy. You consistently refuse to address that, which makes it obvious that you're babbing cult pseudoscience. Until you explain why you're allowed to violate conservation of energy, everyone will continue to correctly define you as a babbling crank.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The cooler [than the ground] atmosphere will radiate in all directions (as long as it's above 0K), even toward the warmer ground.

You keep saying that, but can't provide even one observed measured example....you are speaking about a mathematical model, not observable reality.

This energy from the radiating atmosphere will slow the loss of energy from the ground.

If the greenhouse effect works like that, then where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result?

Tell me Todster...do you think photons exist inside, or outside of space and time? Assuming that photons exist, is it not true that a photon traveling at the speed of light c, experiences neither space nor time? From a photon's "point of view" is not all spacial length infinitely contracted...meaning that from a photon's "point of view" it has no where to travel?.....and from a photon's "point of view" is time not at a standstill because of infinite time dilation?

So from a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel in no time, it really does "know" what its destination is like and therefore you can limit radiative transfer of energy is essentially the same as if there were physical contact...as is the case with conduction.

So prove me wrong. Surely there will be a nobel in it for you...

You keep saying that, but can't provide even one observed measured example

I can't provide one example of matter radiating? Can you show that the Earth does not radiate toward the Sun?

If the greenhouse effect works like that, then where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result?

You need a hotspot to understand that an atmosphere slows the loss of energy from the surface?
Have you noticed the Moon lately?

do you think photons exist inside, or outside of space and time?

Will my answer make your errors any less ridiculous?

So from a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel in no time,

Of course, your magic "smart photons".

So prove me wrong. Surely there will be a nobel in it for you...

I'll be happy to speak at your Nobel ceremony. Your prize for showing that matter can stop radiating, while above 0K will change a lot of minds for sure.
It'll be the SSDD footnote to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

 

[SSDD]

The cooler [than the ground] atmosphere will radiate in all directions (as long as it's above 0K), even toward the warmer ground.

You keep saying that, but can't provide even one observed measured example....you are speaking about a mathematical model, not observable reality.

This energy from the radiating atmosphere will slow the loss of energy from the ground.

If the greenhouse effect works like that, then where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result?

Tell me Todster...do you think photons exist inside, or outside of space and time? Assuming that photons exist, is it not true that a photon traveling at the speed of light c, experiences neither space nor time? From a photon's "point of view" is not all spacial length infinitely contracted...meaning that from a photon's "point of view" it has no where to travel?.....and from a photon's "point of view" is time not at a standstill because of infinite time dilation?

So from a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel in no time, it really does "know" what its destination is like and therefore you can limit radiative transfer of energy is essentially the same as if there were physical contact...as is the case with conduction.

So prove me wrong. Surely there will be a nobel in it for you...

You keep saying that, but can't provide even one observed measured example

I can't provide one example of matter radiating? Can you show that the Earth does not radiate toward the Sun?

If the greenhouse effect works like that, then where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result?

You need a hotspot to understand that an atmosphere slows the loss of energy from the surface?
Have you noticed the Moon lately?

do you think photons exist inside, or outside of space and time?

Will my answer make your errors any less ridiculous?

So from a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel in no time,

Of course, your magic "smart photons".

So prove me wrong. Surely there will be a nobel in it for you...

I'll be happy to speak at your Nobel ceremony. Your prize for showing that matter can stop radiating, while above 0K will change a lot of minds for sure.
It'll be the SSDD footnote to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

No answer. Again, not surprising. .you claim to believe QC but apparently cherry pick what you believe...did I not accurately describe what reality is like for a photon according to QM?

And again making up my arguments to argue against only makes you dishonest...by the way...do you also believe in back conduction?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The cooler [than the ground] atmosphere will radiate in all directions (as long as it's above 0K), even toward the warmer ground.

You keep saying that, but can't provide even one observed measured example....you are speaking about a mathematical model, not observable reality.

This energy from the radiating atmosphere will slow the loss of energy from the ground.

If the greenhouse effect works like that, then where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result?

Tell me Todster...do you think photons exist inside, or outside of space and time? Assuming that photons exist, is it not true that a photon traveling at the speed of light c, experiences neither space nor time? From a photon's "point of view" is not all spacial length infinitely contracted...meaning that from a photon's "point of view" it has no where to travel?.....and from a photon's "point of view" is time not at a standstill because of infinite time dilation?

So from a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel in no time, it really does "know" what its destination is like and therefore you can limit radiative transfer of energy is essentially the same as if there were physical contact...as is the case with conduction.

So prove me wrong. Surely there will be a nobel in it for you...

You keep saying that, but can't provide even one observed measured example

I can't provide one example of matter radiating? Can you show that the Earth does not radiate toward the Sun?

If the greenhouse effect works like that, then where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result?

You need a hotspot to understand that an atmosphere slows the loss of energy from the surface?
Have you noticed the Moon lately?

do you think photons exist inside, or outside of space and time?

Will my answer make your errors any less ridiculous?

So from a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel in no time,

Of course, your magic "smart photons".

So prove me wrong. Surely there will be a nobel in it for you...

I'll be happy to speak at your Nobel ceremony. Your prize for showing that matter can stop radiating, while above 0K will change a lot of minds for sure.
It'll be the SSDD footnote to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

No answer. Again, not surprising. .you claim to believe QC but apparently cherry pick what you believe...did I not accurately describe what reality is like for a photon according to QM?

And again making up my arguments to argue against only makes you dishonest...by the way...do you also believe in back conduction?

I don't have to make up your arguments, their idiocy needs no assistance.
Have you noticed the speed that energy leaves the Moon's surface, when the Sun sets?
Is that because of a hot spot or absence of a hot spot somewhere?

 

[SSDD]

I don't have to make up your arguments, their idiocy needs no assistance.

And yet, you keep attributing statements to me that I have never made...are you stupid or just dishonest?

Is that because of a hot spot or absence of a hot spot somewhere?

you are the one who chooses to believe in the magic...according to the greenhouse hypothesis as climate science describes it, a hot spot is inevitable if CO2, in fact slows heat from escaping the atmosphere.....a million radiosondes have failed to find it...either the hypothesis is wrong and CO2 doesn't slow heat from escaping the atmosphere or perhaps the hot spot is hiding wherever trenberths missing heat is hiding.

Again, do you think photons experience time and space as we do?....or do you accept what QM says about the reality of an entity that moves about at the speed of light? And do you believe in back convection and back conduction the same as you believe in back radiation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't have to make up your arguments, their idiocy needs no assistance.

And yet, you keep attributing statements to me that I have never made...are you stupid or just dishonest?

Is that because of a hot spot or absence of a hot spot somewhere?

you are the one who chooses to believe in the magic...according to the greenhouse hypothesis as climate science describes it, a hot spot is inevitable if CO2, in fact slows heat from escaping the atmosphere.....a million radiosondes have failed to find it...either the hypothesis is wrong and CO2 doesn't slow heat from escaping the atmosphere or perhaps the hot spot is hiding wherever trenberths missing heat is hiding.

Again, do you think photons experience time and space as we do?....or do you accept what QM says about the reality of an entity that moves about at the speed of light? And do you believe in back convection and back conduction the same as you believe in back radiation?

you are the one who chooses to believe in the magic...

You believe that it's magic which makes temperature extremes on Earth milder than those on the Moon? LOL!
Just as you believe that matter which has been known since SB to constantly radiate, magically ceases when a warmer object approaches, despite no link or textbook backing your claim.

 

[mamooth]

Pissdrinker's kook science keeps getting funnier. Now the photons no longer exist in space and time, so they "know" all of existence simultaneously. That's groovy, man.

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Denialists
The Age of Denialists
Denialists! Denialists!

So, if CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, how did the earth break out of its snowball earth phase?

 

[SSDD]

You believe that it's magic which makes temperature extremes on Earth milder than those on the Moon? LOL!

You just get further out there all the time...now you want to bring the moon into the equation?...the moon with essentially no atmosphere proves my point, not yours. The daytime side of the moon can reach an excess of 250 F....what is our maximum daytime temp? Clearly the atmosphere keeps us from burning up during the daytime...the night time temps can drop below -240..not so here on earth primarily because of water vapor. Back radiation is not a factor since it does not happen.

Just as you believe that matter which has been known since SB to constantly radiate, magically ceases when a warmer object approaches, despite no link or textbook backing your claim.

Again, you are misinterpreting the SB...the SB tells us that the radiation a blackbody emits is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....set the difference to zero and P=0....and again, the SB describes a one way energy flow between a radiator and its surroundings...

You seem to be dodging Toddster....do you believe in back conduction and back convection like you believe in back radiation?.....Do you think a photon experiences time and space in the same manner as we do?....Do you visualize photons zipping around like souped up corvettes, or do you visualize photons as particles travelling at the speed of light and therefore subject to an entirely different sort of experience of time space than we know...where distance is meaningless because all spatial length is infinitely contracted and time is essentially standing still due to infinite time dilation? And if you accept that the reality of time and space is different for a photon than it is for us, why do you try to constrict it to our reality rather than its own?

 

[SSDD]

Pissdrinker's kook science keeps getting funnier. Now the photons no longer exist in space and time, so they "know" all of existence simultaneously. That's groovy, man.

So you don't accept the Lorentz relativity equations or relativity either? You view photons as souped up corvettes zipping around experiencing time and space in the same manner as you? Not surprising. Do you imagine them with racing stripes or flames?

So, if CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, how did the earth break out of its snowball earth phase?

If CO2 drives the climate via its so called greenhouse gas properties, how did the earth break out of its snowball earth phase...during the snowball earth phase, nearly all of the CO2 was locked up...the atmospheric CO2 concentration during that time would have been small to the point of insignificance. The warming that brought the earth out of its snowball phase would have been well underway before any appreciable amount of CO2 were released.. You just can't manage to think no matter how hard you try can you hairball?

 

[Crick]

There is significant work that now shows that greenhouse warming has enhanced Milankovitch cycle changes on every move from cold to warm. And before you throw your bag of memes at me, that is not an endorsement of runaway warming.

An interesting point to consider: is the change in TSI brought about by the greatest Milankovitch deviation possible, sufficient to lower the Earth's temperature sufficient to produce a snowball Earth? I think you will find that without the sequestration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (water vapor solidified and lying on the ground), that the Earth wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as cold as it did - the Milankovitch change was insufficient to have done that by itself.

Low GHG levels during snowball Earth is a validation of the greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

Low GHG levels during snowball Earth is a validation of the greenhouse effect.

No they aren't because if CO2 were the driver of climate on earth as the greenhouse hypothesis claims, the snowball phase could never have happened with CO2 levels as high as they were at the time....and the earth has repeatedly descended into ice ages when CO2 levels were very high....the ice age we are presently exiting began with CO2 levels over 1000ppm.