Is the world "better off" at 580 ppm or 300 ppm of CO2?

[ReinyDays]

basic human nature ...

Speaking of basic human nature...

For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there are universal standards which exist independent of man how come we all don't follow the same standard? The reason is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to dumb asses thinking 300 ppm is a good idea.

Objectivity comes from rigid mathematical deduction ... I give you T^4 = S(1-a)/4eo ... established scientific law ... our task is to find the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and the "e" term ... without that, we're guessing ... and I'm guessing 300 ppm will be exactly the same as 580 ppm ... a child born today will never notice it's 2ºC warmer on his 100th birthday ... guarantied ...

 

[Turtlesoup]

If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?

Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world. It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world. An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.

The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. The conditions which led to the transition were isolated polar regions from the warm marine currents of the ocean and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. About 400,000 years ago the earth began experiencing a series of glacial-interglacial cycles which were caused in part due to these background conditions but were triggered by orbital cycles.

Current climate models predict extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at ~600 ppm and occurs at the north pole when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at ~250 ppm.

When the industrial revolution began atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ~300 ppm or only ~50 ppm above the threshold of extensive glaciation of the north pole. Today atmospheric CO2 is ~400 ppm or about the same level as when the first glacial cycle was triggered.

So the question is... based upon the available science at our disposal, is the world better off at 300 ppm or 580 ppm?

Plants like the higher Co2.........................they like it a lot.

Warmer climates, if Co2 would actually warm, are easier to survive in than cooler ones if you must know the truth.

 

[ReinyDays]

It has been scientifically shown that happiness leads to success, slap or otherwise.

I have no sisters, I have no daughters ... the 8 nieces are brutal with me ... they know I can't hit back, or even defend myself ... it's awful ...

 

[ding]

basic human nature ...

Speaking of basic human nature...

For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there are universal standards which exist independent of man how come we all don't follow the same standard? The reason is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to dumb asses thinking 300 ppm is a good idea.

Objectivity comes from ridge mathematical deduction ... I give you T^4 = S(1-a)/4eo ... established scientific law ... our task is to find the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and the "e" term ... without that, we're guessing ... and I'm guessing 300 ppm will be exactly the same as 580 ppm ... a child born today will never notice it's 2ºC warmer on his 100th birthday ... guarantied ...

I give you my excel graph. Next?

 

[ding]

basic human nature ...

Speaking of basic human nature...

For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there are universal standards which exist independent of man how come we all don't follow the same standard? The reason is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to dumb asses thinking 300 ppm is a good idea.

Objectivity comes from rigid mathematical deduction ... I give you T^4 = S(1-a)/4eo ... established scientific law ... our task is to find the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and the "e" term ... without that, we're guessing ... and I'm guessing 300 ppm will be exactly the same as 580 ppm ... a child born today will never notice it's 2ºC warmer on his 100th birthday ... guarantied ...

And for the record, there will be a substantial ice sheet when CO2 is at 300 ppm (entering the glacial cycle) as CO2 will be falling because of CO2 sequestration by the oceans after the trigger event changes the climate. 280 is the start of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.

I don't know why you can't understand the concept of a triggering event with specific background conditions that make the triggering event actually cause a climate change. As opposed to those background conditions not being present and the triggering event not trigger a climate change. It's like you think Milankovitch cycles are a new thing and didn't happen back when atmospheric CO2 was at 600 ppm.

 

[ding]

I'm guessing 300 ppm will be exactly the same as 580 ppm ... a child born today will never notice it's 2ºC warmer on his 100th birthday ... guarantied

All the more reasons to be further away from the background conditions that really will cause a climate change.

 

[ReinyDays]

And for the record, there will be a substantial ice sheet when CO2 is at 300 ppm (entering the glacial cycle) as CO2 will be falling because of CO2 sequestration by the oceans after the trigger event changes the climate. 280 is the start of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.

I don't know why you can't understand the concept of a triggering event with specific background conditions that make the triggering event actually cause a climate change. As opposed to those background conditions not being present and the triggering even not trigger a climate change. It's like you think Milankovitch cycles are a new thing and didn't happen back when atmospheric CO2 was at 600 ppm.

I understand triggering events ... and I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics unless it can be explained in every little detail why they don't ...

We have clear and abundant evidence here on the West Coast that sea levels were 10 to 15 feet higher just a short while ago ... 10,000 years ... when temperatures were at their highest ... interglacial maxima ... temperatures have been cooling ever since and we can expect glacial minima in about 100,000 years ... so we've already started the process of expanding the ice sheets and in 100,000 years they will cover the land masses down to about 45º latitude ... there's no known "triggering event" ... if such a thing existed, we missed it by 10,000 years, this was before written language ...

The climate system is in equilibrium ... any triggering event must violate this equilibrium ... that takes a force, and we've already accounted for all the forces at play here ... so you have to rely on magic, unless you can say how natural forces drive the system away from equilibrium ... very specifically and in every little detail ... it's the law ...

For the record ... none of the Milankovitch cycles or any combination thereof match the period of our glacial/interglacial cycles ... without any correlation at all, you're going to have a hard time connecting the physics ... if there's one thing we know with compete mathematically certainty, then that's orbital mechanics ...

 

[james bond]

Given that you believe the earth is ~6,000 years old this might not be the thread for you.


Just sayin'

What about water vapor? That was created very early. It is the greatest greenhouse gas. You change ppm on that and really upset the chemistry and atmosphere of the world. That will kill the entire planet if someone could do it. That's demonstrable with a greenhouse.

Earth’s atmosphere has a finely calibrated ratio of oxygen to nitrogen -- just enough CO2 and adequate water vapor levels to promote advanced life, allow photosynthesis (without an excessive greenhouse effect), and to allow for sufficient rainfall.

Thus, what do you think you are believing with this CO2 and ppm on it? The science of atheism.

The science of atheism found these fine tuning parameters. They found how gravity affects our greenhouse gases and atmosphere. This was from 2007 - 2011. Today, you won't be able to find the discussion of these parameters on the internet. The science of atheism has disavowed all of it due to it helping people like myself, the creationists. Stephen Hawking knew it because he either led that group or was part of the group of scientists who found them while studying the big bang.

Basically, nothing lasts 65 million years. Our common sense should tell us that rocks and fossils would not be around that long. Our planet would not be around that long. Our universe is churning into destruction.

Anyway, let's wait for the James Webb telescope to see what really is happening around us. We should learn more about our atmospheric conditions compared to other solar systems and galaxies. The science of atheism which you believe does not want to admit that we have the perfect location for life.

Not the thread for you.

It means you are wrong again practicing the science of atheism. Can I say you're playing with fire?

It's just called science. But if you want to call it the science of atheism because you have nothing else, I'm OK with that. More power to ya.

No, you are delusional. You already said that you will never, never, never believe the Book of Genesis. The other delusion is humans are the cause for global warming.

Today, science has become the science of atheism because of evolution. Satan wrote the Antibible of Evolution. It is all based on lies, but has taken over our colleges and universities at the highest levels of learning. It contradicts everything that God said in the Bible and creation science. I even started a thread on it, but realized Satan is too powerful and is "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air." The Earth and universe is his domain now, not humans.

One of the evidence for it is how Darwin's racist ideas became social Darwinism, eugenics, the rise of Nazism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and the genocide of blacks. It has led to racial war today and it may get worse. Instead of civil war, it could be a racial war.

The science of atheism predicts the end of the world through AGW, but this will not be the case. Do you have a year for it? I have 2060 as the year for the end, but not due to AGW.

Isaac Newton predicted the world will end in 2060

Isaac Newton was a legendary scientist best known for establishing the laws of gravity. But in his free time, he dabbled in experiments worthy of Voldemort. Like the “Harry Potter” villain, Newton …

nypost.com

 

[james bond]

Interesting that around 580 ppm CO2 could be reached around 2060.

380 ppm probably means we will be without electricity, cars, and living near poverty levels.

"If the build-up of CO2 continues at current rates, by 2060 it will have passed 560 ppm – more than double the level of pre-industrial times."

Climate change: Sensitive warming forecasts overestimated for 50 years

SENSITIVE climate change models have been dealt a blow as researchers have exposed inconsistencies in global warming trends in the last 50 years.

www.express.co.uk

 

[ReinyDays]

Interesting that around 580 ppm CO2 could be reached around 2060.

380 ppm probably means we will be without electricity, cars, and living near poverty levels.

"If the build-up of CO2 continues at current rates, by 2060 it will have passed 560 ppm – more than double the level of pre-industrial times."

Climate change: Sensitive warming forecasts overestimated for 50 years

SENSITIVE climate change models have been dealt a blow as researchers have exposed inconsistencies in global warming trends in the last 50 years.

www.express.co.uk

What an idiot ... is arithmetic that difficult for you? ... Ian Flemming's Jame Bond is the Antichrist ... and you preach his gospel under his name ...

We're discussing atmospheric physics ... religion discussions are down the hall, to the left ... there you go, have fun ...

 

[ding]

And for the record, there will be a substantial ice sheet when CO2 is at 300 ppm (entering the glacial cycle) as CO2 will be falling because of CO2 sequestration by the oceans after the trigger event changes the climate. 280 is the start of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.

I don't know why you can't understand the concept of a triggering event with specific background conditions that make the triggering event actually cause a climate change. As opposed to those background conditions not being present and the triggering even not trigger a climate change. It's like you think Milankovitch cycles are a new thing and didn't happen back when atmospheric CO2 was at 600 ppm.

I understand triggering events ... and I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics unless it can be explained in every little detail why they don't ...

We have clear and abundant evidence here on the West Coast that sea levels were 10 to 15 feet higher just a short while ago ... 10,000 years ... when temperatures were at their highest ... interglacial maxima ... temperatures have been cooling ever since and we can expect glacial minima in about 100,000 years ... so we've already started the process of expanding the ice sheets and in 100,000 years they will cover the land masses down to about 45º latitude ... there's no known "triggering event" ... if such a thing existed, we missed it by 10,000 years, this was before written language ...

The climate system is in equilibrium ... any triggering event must violate this equilibrium ... that takes a force, and we've already accounted for all the forces at play here ... so you have to rely on magic, unless you can say how natural forces drive the system away from equilibrium ... very specifically and in every little detail ... it's the law ...

For the record ... none of the Milankovitch cycles or any combination thereof match the period of our glacial/interglacial cycles ... without any correlation at all, you're going to have a hard time connecting the physics ... if there's one thing we know with compete mathematically certainty, then that's orbital mechanics ...

NASA would disagree with you.

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

climate.nasa.gov

"... the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."

So... atmospheric CO2 level + polar regions isolated from warm marine currents + orbital cycles = climate change. Yoar welcome.

 

[ReinyDays]

And for the record, there will be a substantial ice sheet when CO2 is at 300 ppm (entering the glacial cycle) as CO2 will be falling because of CO2 sequestration by the oceans after the trigger event changes the climate. 280 is the start of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.

I don't know why you can't understand the concept of a triggering event with specific background conditions that make the triggering event actually cause a climate change. As opposed to those background conditions not being present and the triggering even not trigger a climate change. It's like you think Milankovitch cycles are a new thing and didn't happen back when atmospheric CO2 was at 600 ppm.

I understand triggering events ... and I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics unless it can be explained in every little detail why they don't ...

We have clear and abundant evidence here on the West Coast that sea levels were 10 to 15 feet higher just a short while ago ... 10,000 years ... when temperatures were at their highest ... interglacial maxima ... temperatures have been cooling ever since and we can expect glacial minima in about 100,000 years ... so we've already started the process of expanding the ice sheets and in 100,000 years they will cover the land masses down to about 45º latitude ... there's no known "triggering event" ... if such a thing existed, we missed it by 10,000 years, this was before written language ...

The climate system is in equilibrium ... any triggering event must violate this equilibrium ... that takes a force, and we've already accounted for all the forces at play here ... so you have to rely on magic, unless you can say how natural forces drive the system away from equilibrium ... very specifically and in every little detail ... it's the law ...

For the record ... none of the Milankovitch cycles or any combination thereof match the period of our glacial/interglacial cycles ... without any correlation at all, you're going to have a hard time connecting the physics ... if there's one thing we know with compete mathematically certainty, then that's orbital mechanics ...

NASA would disagree with you.

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

climate.nasa.gov

"... the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."

So... atmospheric CO2 level + polar regions isolated from warm marine currents + orbital cycles = climate change. Yoar welcome.

"He calculated that Ice Ages occur approximately every 41,000 years. Subsequent research confirms that they did occur at 41,000-year intervals between one and three million years ago. But about 800,000 years ago, the cycle of Ice Ages lengthened to 100,000 years, matching Earth’s eccentricity cycle. While various theories have been proposed to explain this transition, scientists do not yet have a clear answer."

[emphasis mine]

The period is 125,000 years ... no correlation ... try reading your whole citation next time ...

 

[ding]

And for the record, there will be a substantial ice sheet when CO2 is at 300 ppm (entering the glacial cycle) as CO2 will be falling because of CO2 sequestration by the oceans after the trigger event changes the climate. 280 is the start of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.

I don't know why you can't understand the concept of a triggering event with specific background conditions that make the triggering event actually cause a climate change. As opposed to those background conditions not being present and the triggering even not trigger a climate change. It's like you think Milankovitch cycles are a new thing and didn't happen back when atmospheric CO2 was at 600 ppm.

I understand triggering events ... and I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics unless it can be explained in every little detail why they don't ...

We have clear and abundant evidence here on the West Coast that sea levels were 10 to 15 feet higher just a short while ago ... 10,000 years ... when temperatures were at their highest ... interglacial maxima ... temperatures have been cooling ever since and we can expect glacial minima in about 100,000 years ... so we've already started the process of expanding the ice sheets and in 100,000 years they will cover the land masses down to about 45º latitude ... there's no known "triggering event" ... if such a thing existed, we missed it by 10,000 years, this was before written language ...

The climate system is in equilibrium ... any triggering event must violate this equilibrium ... that takes a force, and we've already accounted for all the forces at play here ... so you have to rely on magic, unless you can say how natural forces drive the system away from equilibrium ... very specifically and in every little detail ... it's the law ...

For the record ... none of the Milankovitch cycles or any combination thereof match the period of our glacial/interglacial cycles ... without any correlation at all, you're going to have a hard time connecting the physics ... if there's one thing we know with compete mathematically certainty, then that's orbital mechanics ...

NASA would disagree with you.

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

climate.nasa.gov

"... the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."

So... atmospheric CO2 level + polar regions isolated from warm marine currents + orbital cycles = climate change. Yoar welcome.

"He calculated that Ice Ages occur approximately every 41,000 years. Subsequent research confirms that they did occur at 41,000-year intervals between one and three million years ago. But about 800,000 years ago, the cycle of Ice Ages lengthened to 100,000 years, matching Earth’s eccentricity cycle. While various theories have been proposed to explain this transition, scientists do not yet have a clear answer."

[emphasis mine]

The period is 125,000 years ... no correlation ... try reading your whole citation next time ...

Maybe you should have read the whole citation. Specifically the last sentence. "... the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."

Stop being obtuse. All components play their part. The last component to fall into place was atmospheric CO2 falling to 400 ppm. That, coupled with the polar regions being isolated from the warm marine currents is what created the tipping point. But it is the orbital cycle which triggers or initiates the glacial cycle.

Weren't you the guy that said it goes against the scientific principle to say something is wrong without stating what is right. I seem to be the only one here stating what is right.

 

[ding]

And for the record, there will be a substantial ice sheet when CO2 is at 300 ppm (entering the glacial cycle) as CO2 will be falling because of CO2 sequestration by the oceans after the trigger event changes the climate. 280 is the start of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.

I don't know why you can't understand the concept of a triggering event with specific background conditions that make the triggering event actually cause a climate change. As opposed to those background conditions not being present and the triggering even not trigger a climate change. It's like you think Milankovitch cycles are a new thing and didn't happen back when atmospheric CO2 was at 600 ppm.

I understand triggering events ... and I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics unless it can be explained in every little detail why they don't ...

We have clear and abundant evidence here on the West Coast that sea levels were 10 to 15 feet higher just a short while ago ... 10,000 years ... when temperatures were at their highest ... interglacial maxima ... temperatures have been cooling ever since and we can expect glacial minima in about 100,000 years ... so we've already started the process of expanding the ice sheets and in 100,000 years they will cover the land masses down to about 45º latitude ... there's no known "triggering event" ... if such a thing existed, we missed it by 10,000 years, this was before written language ...

The climate system is in equilibrium ... any triggering event must violate this equilibrium ... that takes a force, and we've already accounted for all the forces at play here ... so you have to rely on magic, unless you can say how natural forces drive the system away from equilibrium ... very specifically and in every little detail ... it's the law ...

For the record ... none of the Milankovitch cycles or any combination thereof match the period of our glacial/interglacial cycles ... without any correlation at all, you're going to have a hard time connecting the physics ... if there's one thing we know with compete mathematically certainty, then that's orbital mechanics ...

NASA would disagree with you.

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

climate.nasa.gov

"... the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."

So... atmospheric CO2 level + polar regions isolated from warm marine currents + orbital cycles = climate change. Yoar welcome.

"He calculated that Ice Ages occur approximately every 41,000 years. Subsequent research confirms that they did occur at 41,000-year intervals between one and three million years ago. But about 800,000 years ago, the cycle of Ice Ages lengthened to 100,000 years, matching Earth’s eccentricity cycle. While various theories have been proposed to explain this transition, scientists do not yet have a clear answer."

[emphasis mine]

The period is 125,000 years ... no correlation ... try reading your whole citation next time ...

I don't understand what you think the importance of the intervals are. About 3 to 5 million years ago the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet began. Just look at the oxygen isotope curve for the change. About 400,000 years ago the transition to an icehouse world was completed. So everything in between was in a state of flux so to speak. Trying to compare the last 400,000 years to the time when the planet was transitioning from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[ding]

I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics

I would love to hear how this violates the laws of thermodynamics. I'm all ears.

 

[ding]

scientists do not yet have a clear answer."

They should have asked me. Orbital cycles are just one of the components in climate change. Comparing ice age cycle times during the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world to the ice age cycle times of an icehouse world is comparing apples to oranges and in no way diminishes the influence of orbital cycles or their influence upon climate. Which is why "the theory that [orbital cycles] drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."

They aren't dumb enough to question the role orbital cycles play just because the cycle time times for ice ages are different during a transition period and the other side of the transition.

 

[ding]

And for the record, there will be a substantial ice sheet when CO2 is at 300 ppm (entering the glacial cycle) as CO2 will be falling because of CO2 sequestration by the oceans after the trigger event changes the climate. 280 is the start of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.

I don't know why you can't understand the concept of a triggering event with specific background conditions that make the triggering event actually cause a climate change. As opposed to those background conditions not being present and the triggering even not trigger a climate change. It's like you think Milankovitch cycles are a new thing and didn't happen back when atmospheric CO2 was at 600 ppm.

I understand triggering events ... and I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics unless it can be explained in every little detail why they don't ...

We have clear and abundant evidence here on the West Coast that sea levels were 10 to 15 feet higher just a short while ago ... 10,000 years ... when temperatures were at their highest ... interglacial maxima ... temperatures have been cooling ever since and we can expect glacial minima in about 100,000 years ... so we've already started the process of expanding the ice sheets and in 100,000 years they will cover the land masses down to about 45º latitude ... there's no known "triggering event" ... if such a thing existed, we missed it by 10,000 years, this was before written language ...

The climate system is in equilibrium ... any triggering event must violate this equilibrium ... that takes a force, and we've already accounted for all the forces at play here ... so you have to rely on magic, unless you can say how natural forces drive the system away from equilibrium ... very specifically and in every little detail ... it's the law ...

For the record ... none of the Milankovitch cycles or any combination thereof match the period of our glacial/interglacial cycles ... without any correlation at all, you're going to have a hard time connecting the physics ... if there's one thing we know with compete mathematically certainty, then that's orbital mechanics ...

NASA would disagree with you.

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

climate.nasa.gov

"... the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."

So... atmospheric CO2 level + polar regions isolated from warm marine currents + orbital cycles = climate change. Yoar welcome.

"He calculated that Ice Ages occur approximately every 41,000 years. Subsequent research confirms that they did occur at 41,000-year intervals between one and three million years ago. But about 800,000 years ago, the cycle of Ice Ages lengthened to 100,000 years, matching Earth’s eccentricity cycle. While various theories have been proposed to explain this transition, scientists do not yet have a clear answer."

[emphasis mine]

The period is 125,000 years ... no correlation ... try reading your whole citation next time ...

I really expected better from you.

 

[ReinyDays]

I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics

I would love to hear how this violates the laws of thermodynamics. I'm all ears.

I explained equilibrium to you ... you failed to understand this ... not my job to teach you basic physics ... take a class at your local community college ... learn how force, work and power are interrelated ...

 

[ReinyDays]

scientists do not yet have a clear answer."

They should have asked me. Orbital cycles are just one of the components in climate change. Comparing ice age cycle times during the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world to the ice age cycle times of an icehouse world is comparing apples to oranges and in no way diminishes the influence of orbital cycles or their influence upon climate. Which is why "the theory that [orbital cycles] drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."

They aren't dumb enough to question the role orbital cycles play just because the cycle time times for ice ages are different during a transition period and the other side of the transition.

Show me the math ... calculate distance at apsis, then calculate irradiation, then plug into SB ... we're looking for ∆T = 12ºC ... and show your work ... once the Fall rains come, I'll take the time and show you how to calculate all this for the entire orbit ...

Your claims are subjective and biased ... see post #295 ...

 

[ding]

I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics

I would love to hear how this violates the laws of thermodynamics. I'm all ears.

I explained equilibrium to you ... you failed to understand this ... not my job to teach you basic physics ... take a class at your local community college ... learn how force, work and power are interrelated ...

In an engineer so I’m pretty familiar with thermodynamics and physics. In fact, I know enough about them that I can spot someone who doesn’t.

Pro tip: the next time you try to bluff about knowing thermodynamics and get called on it, don’t start talking about physics and equilibriums.