Antarctica has grown ice for more than 2.7 million years, disproving "interglacials" completely

[Anomalism]

Show me.

Looking at this graphic, it’s actually a pretty clear visual explanation of how orbital changes drive Northern Hemisphere glacial interglacial cycles. The middle panel shows the three main orbital variations, precession (~19–24 kyr), obliquity (~41 kyr), and eccentricity (~95–125 kyr, ~400 kyr), which control how sunlight hits the Northern Hemisphere, especially during summer at high latitudes. That’s critical because ice sheet growth or melting is very sensitive to summer insolation.

The left panel tracks cold vs. warm periods over the last million years, marking glacial vs. interglacial stages, and the right panel shows proxy records confirming those cycles. The arrows connecting the orbital variations to the proxy record illustrate the timing alignment: changes in orbit shift high-latitude insolation, which triggers ice sheet advance or retreat, producing the cycles we see in the geological record.

So yes, the northern hemisphere orbital variations are directly linked to the timing of glacial interglacial cycles, as the graphic makes clear.

 

[EMH]

WHEN DID PLANET EARTH LAST HAVE AN

orbital change

????????????????????????

 

[ding]

Looking at this graphic, it’s actually a pretty clear visual explanation of how orbital changes drive Northern Hemisphere glacial interglacial cycles. The middle panel shows the three main orbital variations, precession (~19–24 kyr), obliquity (~41 kyr), and eccentricity (~95–125 kyr, ~400 kyr), which control how sunlight hits the Northern Hemisphere, especially during summer at high latitudes. That’s critical because ice sheet growth or melting is very sensitive to summer insolation.

The left panel tracks cold vs. warm periods over the last million years, marking glacial vs. interglacial stages, and the right panel shows proxy records confirming those cycles. The arrows connecting the orbital variations to the proxy record illustrate the timing alignment: changes in orbit shift high-latitude insolation, which triggers ice sheet advance or retreat, producing the cycles we see in the geological record.

So yes, the northern hemisphere orbital variations are directly linked to the timing of glacial interglacial cycles, as the graphic makes clear.

I don't see the correlation you are seeing or how it compares to similar events. Can you circle some events and use the data to explain how orbital forces led to several of the glacial periods and interglacial periods? And while you are at it maybe explain why the length of time for the cycles changed from 40k years to 100k years.

 

[EMH]

Yes, South America and Antarctica were once connected, and the continents have drifted over tens of millions of years.

That statement 100% contradicts what Milankovich says about Antarctica



This is GoogAI answering with McBullshit

Google Search

www.google.com

Antarctica has been positioned over the South Pole for roughly the last 70 to 100 million years,,




And this is EMH's refutation of that...

Thread 'The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago'

Aug 9, 2023

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure...

We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old dinosaur fossils, and clearly they did not live on top of 2+ mile thick ice at -60F...

• EMH
• Replies: 63
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

 

[Anomalism]

I don't see the correlation you are seeing or how it compares to similar events. Can you circle some events and use the data to explain how orbital forces led to several of the glacial periods and interglacial periods? And while you are at it maybe explain why the length of time for the cycles changed from 40k years to 100k years.

Sure. If you look at the ice core and proxy records over the past 800,000 years, you can see multiple cycles where glacial and interglacial periods align closely with variations in Earth’s orbit.

Eccentricity (100,000 year cycle) - Sets the long term shape of Earth’s orbit. Periods when eccentricity amplifies seasonal differences tend to line up with the largest glacial-interglacial swings in the Northern Hemisphere.

Obliquity (41,000 year cycle)-Changes in tilt affect high-latitude summer insolation. Low summer insolation in the Northern Hemisphere favors ice sheet growth, while high insolation triggers partial melting and interglacials.

Precession (19 24,000 year cycle) - Alters the timing of perihelion relative to the seasons. This modulates when and where peak summer radiation occurs, influencing ice sheet stability.

When you overlay these orbital cycles with reconstructed temperatures or ice volume proxies, you see a consistent pattern: ice sheets expand during periods of low Northern Hemisphere summer insolation and retreat during periods of high insolation. The arrows from orbital peaks to ice sheet minima/maxima illustrate the timing: orbital changes initiate the warming or cooling, and CO2 and other feedbacks amplify the effect.


example...


Termination I (20,000–11,700 years ago) - High Northern Hemisphere summer insolation caused ice sheet retreat, CO2 rose, amplifying warming into the Holocene.

Termination II (130,000 years ago, Eemian) - Similar pattern: orbital-induced insolation increases triggered ice retreat, CO2 feedback amplified it.

Orbital forcing sets the timing, and CO2 acts as a feedback that strengthens or prolongs the warming. Ice core and ocean sediment data consistently show this repeating pattern across multiple glacial interglacial cycles.

 

[Anomalism]

That statement 100% contradicts what Milankovich says about Antarctica



This is GoogAI answering with McBullshit

Google Search

www.google.com

Antarctica has been positioned over the South Pole for roughly the last 70 to 100 million years,,




And this is EMH's refutation of that...

Thread 'The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago'

Aug 9, 2023

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure...

We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old dinosaur fossils, and clearly they did not live on top of 2+ mile thick ice at -60F...

• EMH
• Replies: 63
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

It doesn’t contradict Milankovitch at all, you’re just mixing two completely different things. Continental position and orbital forcing. Plate tectonics answers the question “where is the continent located on Earth’s surface?”

Milankovitch answers “how does Earth’s orbit and axial tilt change the distribution of sunlight over time?” Antarctica can sit near the South Pole for tens of millions of years and still experience huge climate swings driven by orbital cycles. Those are orthogonal mechanisms. One sets the long-term boundary conditions (why Antarctica is cold at all), the other modulates energy input on 20k–100k year timescales (why ice advances and retreats).

Saying Antarctica has been near the South Pole for ~70–100 million years is correct geology and doesn’t refute Milankovitch in the slightest. In fact it supports it: once Antarctica became isolated near the pole and cut off by ocean gateways (Drake Passage, Tasman Gateway), it became highly sensitive to orbital forcing because it was already cold enough for ice to persist.

Milankovitch never claimed continents move because of orbital cycles; he assumed their positions as fixed boundary conditions. So the alleged contradiction is just a category error. Confusing slow plate tectonics (millions of years) with orbital climate forcing (tens of thousands of years). Different clocks, different physics, same planet.

 

[ding]

It doesn’t contradict Milankovitch at all, you’re just mixing two completely different things. Continental position and orbital forcing. Plate tectonics answers the question “where is the continent located on Earth’s surface?”

Milankovitch answers “how does Earth’s orbit and axial tilt change the distribution of sunlight over time?” Antarctica can sit near the South Pole for tens of millions of years and still experience huge climate swings driven by orbital cycles. Those are orthogonal mechanisms. One sets the long-term boundary conditions (why Antarctica is cold at all), the other modulates energy input on 20k–100k year timescales (why ice advances and retreats).

Saying Antarctica has been near the South Pole for ~70–100 million years is correct geology and doesn’t refute Milankovitch in the slightest. In fact it supports it: once Antarctica became isolated near the pole and cut off by ocean gateways (Drake Passage, Tasman Gateway), it became highly sensitive to orbital forcing because it was already cold enough for ice to persist.

Milankovitch never claimed continents move because of orbital cycles; he assumed their positions as fixed boundary conditions. So the alleged contradiction is just a category error. Confusing slow plate tectonics (millions of years) with orbital climate forcing (tens of thousands of years). Different clocks, different physics, same planet.

I believe orbital forcing is a red herring. I believe glaciation and deglaciation are abrupt events. Orbital cycles occur over long, predictable periods: precession (~20,000 years), obliquity (~41,000 years), and eccentricity (~100,000 years). Abrupt climate events, by definition, occur over decades or centuries, making these slow cycles too sluggish to cause rapid shifts. The changes in solar insolation (sunlight) caused by orbital variations are too small (around 0.1 percent) to directly produce the 5-6°C mean global temperature swings observed in proxy records during glacial cycles. The dominant climate signal for the last million years is the 100,000-year ice age cycle, the calculated orbital forcing at this frequency is incredibly weak. Changes to ocean currents - which distribute heat - and the resulting feedback (albedo) are the primary drivers of these changes. Not orbital forcing.

Based on orbital cycles alone, the Earth should currently be in a very gradual, long-term cooling phase, heading towards another ice age, which is the opposite of the rapid warming observed over the last 400 years. Statistical analyses of climate records suggest that orbital forcing accounts for only about 20% of the variance in glacial cycles, suggesting that changes to ocean currents are the dominant driver.

High-resolution records from ice and marine cores show rapid, abrupt changes (e.g., Dansgaard-Oeschger events) that do not match the expected timing of Milankovitch cycles. Traditional orbital theory predicts that when the Northern Hemisphere gets colder, the Southern Hemisphere should get warmer (due to precession). However, recent research indicates that both hemispheres can experience rapid changes synchronously, suggesting that large-scale, rapid re-organizations of ocean currents are more likely drivers than slow orbital changes.

The consensus among scientists is that while Milankovitch cycles set the long-term, slow "metronome" for climate change, they cannot explain abrupt, or rapid climate transitions.

 

[Anomalism]

I believe orbital forcing is a red herring. I believe glaciation and deglaciation are abrupt events. Orbital cycles occur over long, predictable periods: precession (~20,000 years), obliquity (~41,000 years), and eccentricity (~100,000 years). Abrupt climate events, by definition, occur over decades or centuries, making these slow cycles too sluggish to cause rapid shifts. The changes in solar insolation (sunlight) caused by orbital variations are too small (around 0.1 percent) to directly produce the 5-6°C mean global temperature swings observed in proxy records during glacial cycles. The dominant climate signal for the last million years is the 100,000-year ice age cycle, the calculated orbital forcing at this frequency is incredibly weak. Changes to ocean currents - which distribute heat - and the resulting feedback (albedo) are the primary drivers of these changes. Not orbital forcing.

Based on orbital cycles alone, the Earth should currently be in a very gradual, long-term cooling phase, heading towards another ice age, which is the opposite of the rapid warming observed over the last 400 years. Statistical analyses of climate records suggest that orbital forcing accounts for only about 20% of the variance in glacial cycles, suggesting that changes to ocean currents are the dominant driver.

High-resolution records from ice and marine cores show rapid, abrupt changes (e.g., Dansgaard-Oeschger events) that do not match the expected timing of Milankovitch cycles. Traditional orbital theory predicts that when the Northern Hemisphere gets colder, the Southern Hemisphere should get warmer (due to precession). However, recent research indicates that both hemispheres can experience rapid changes synchronously, suggesting that large-scale, rapid re-organizations of ocean currents are more likely drivers than slow orbital changes.

The consensus among scientists is that while Milankovitch cycles set the long-term, slow "metronome" for climate change, they cannot explain abrupt, or rapid climate transitions.

You’re right that orbital cycles are slow and gradual, and they alone cannot account for the abrupt events like Dansgaard-Oeschger shifts that happen on decades to centuries timescales. Milankovitch cycles are not a mechanism for rapid change. They set the baseline pacing of glacial interglacial cycles over tens of thousands of years. They determine the long term insolation pattern in the Northern Hemisphere, which slowly primes ice sheets to grow or retreat. But once the system is primed, smaller, faster acting feedbacks, like changes in ocean circulation, ice albedo interactions, or regional ice sheet dynamics, can produce abrupt climate swings. That’s why you see rapid temperature shifts superimposed on the slow orbital signal. The orbital forcing isn’t driving the instant change; it’s providing the background conditions that make abrupt events possible.

In other words, orbital cycles and abrupt ocean driven changes operate on different timescales and interact. Orbital variations create the window of vulnerability for ice sheets, while sudden reorganizations of currents, density changes, or meltwater pulses trigger the fast events. Milankovitch theory doesn’t claim to explain every spike or drop; it sets the slow rhythm. Your observation that both hemispheres can change synchronously or that the amplitude of abrupt events exceeds the direct orbital forcing is entirely consistent with modern paleoclimate research. It highlights that rapid transitions are superimposed on the slower orbital driven cycles, not that orbital forcing is irrelevant.

 

[EMH]

Milankovitch answers “how does Earth’s orbit and axial tilt change the distribution of sunlight over time?”

You are implying that Earth's orbit has changed, and changes frequently. You have ZERO evidence to support that claim.


When asked for evidence if this, you ignore the request and keep parroting lies you cannot substantiate.


65 million years ago a big rock hit Earth and likely did alter day and orbit a tenth of a second and a few millimeters. Yawn. You have to go back 4.5 billion years to argue orbital change for Earth.

 

[Anomalism]

You are implying that Earth's orbit has changed, and changes frequently. You have ZERO evidence to support that claim.


When asked for evidence if this, you ignore the request and keep parroting lies you cannot substantiate.


65 million years ago a big rock hit Earth and likely did alter day and orbit a tenth of a second and a few millimeters. Yawn. You have to go back 4.5 billion years to argue orbital change for Earth.

This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of what orbital change means in celestial mechanics. Nobody is claiming Earth randomly jumps to a new orbit or that its mean distance from the Sun changes dramatically. Milankovitch cycles are small, continuous, and precisely measurable variations in three parameters: eccentricity (how circular the orbit is), obliquity (axial tilt), and precession (wobble of the axis). These are not speculative; they fall straight out of Newtonian gravity and are directly observed in every multi body gravitational system. The same physics explains why Jupiter perturbs asteroids, why the Moon’s orbit evolves, and why Earth’s axial tilt is not constant.

More importantly, this isn’t inferred from climate and then assumed. It’s independently calculated from astronomy and then confirmed by climate proxies. The periods (19–23k, 41k, 100k years) show up in ice cores, sediment layers, and oxygen isotope records like a barcode. That’s the opposite of zero evidence. It’s one of the cleanest examples in science of a prediction from first principles matching an entirely separate dataset (geology). Denying orbital variation is basically denying that gravity in a multi body system produces long term perturbations, which puts you not in disagreement with climate science, but with classical mechanics itself.

 

[ding]

But once the system is primed, smaller, faster acting feedbacks, like changes in ocean circulation, ice albedo interactions, or regional ice sheet dynamics, can produce abrupt climate swings.

Albedo is the feedback that amplifies the climate shift of changing ocean currents which either disrupt or resume heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic; an important location because of its unique configuration and glaciation threshold. So ocean currents are the driver of abrupt climate changes in the northern hemisphere which in turn affects global climate.

 

[EMH]

This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of what orbital change means in celestial mechanics. Nobody is claiming Earth randomly jumps to a new orbit or that its mean distance from the Sun changes dramatically. Milankovitch cycles are small, continuous, and precisely measurable variations in three parameters: eccentricity (how circular the orbit is), obliquity (axial tilt), and precession (wobble of the axis). These are not speculative; they fall straight out of Newtonian gravity and are directly observed in every multi body gravitational system. The same physics explains why Jupiter perturbs asteroids, why the Moon’s orbit evolves, and why Earth’s axial tilt is not constant.

More importantly, this isn’t inferred from climate and then assumed. It’s independently calculated from astronomy and then confirmed by climate proxies. The periods (19–23k, 41k, 100k years) show up in ice cores, sediment layers, and oxygen isotope records like a barcode. That’s the opposite of zero evidence. It’s one of the cleanest examples in science of a prediction from first principles matching an entirely separate dataset (geology). Denying orbital variation is basically denying that gravity in a multi body system produces long term perturbations, which puts you not in disagreement with climate science, but with classical mechanics itself.

In other words, your side has absolutely NO EVIDENCE of

Earth's orbit changing
Earth's tilt changing
Earth's day changing


but you can endlessly babble about it.



Can you even answer the most basic climate questions

Thread 'Any honest media person with the courage to actually ask climate questions?'

Feb 12, 2024

Apparently not.

Not on Faux

Not on RAV or OANN


What questions will the media never ask?


1. Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?
2. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?
3. If the oceans are "warming" why is the record decade for canes still the 1940s?
4. If the oceans are "rising" why can't we see one single photo of land sinking?
5. How did Co2 thaw North America and freeze Greenland at the same time?



The Co2 Fraud is bilking America out of $200 billion per...

• EMH
• Replies: 92
• Forum: Media

• 
• 
• 

 

[Anomalism]

Albedo is the feedback that amplifies the climate shift of changing ocean currents which either disrupt or resume heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic; an important location because of its unique configuration and glaciation threshold. So ocean currents are the driver of abrupt climate changes in the northern hemisphere which in turn affects global climate.

Yes, but you're oversimplifying things. Orbital cycles set the slow background rhythm, creating conditions where ice sheets are susceptible, while abrupt reorganizations of ocean currents trigger the fast climate shifts. Albedo feedback amplifies those changes by reinforcing warming or cooling once a perturbation occurs. So yes, ocean currents act as the proximate trigger for abrupt northern hemisphere events, but they operate on top of the longer term orbital forcing and regional ice dynamics. Nothing here contradicts the paleoclimate evidence; it’s all layers interacting on different timescales.

 

[Anomalism]

In other words, your side has absolutely NO EVIDENCE of

Earth's orbit changing
Earth's tilt changing
Earth's day changing


but you can endlessly babble about it.



Can you even answer the most basic climate questions

Thread 'Any honest media person with the courage to actually ask climate questions?'

Feb 12, 2024

Apparently not.

Not on Faux

Not on RAV or OANN


What questions will the media never ask?


1. Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?
2. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?
3. If the oceans are "warming" why is the record decade for canes still the 1940s?
4. If the oceans are "rising" why can't we see one single photo of land sinking?
5. How did Co2 thaw North America and freeze Greenland at the same time?



The Co2 Fraud is bilking America out of $200 billion per...

• EMH
• Replies: 92
• Forum: Media

• 
• 
• 

You’re confusing small, predictable variations with some kind of wild, instantaneous jump. Milankovitch cycles don’t require the Earth to hop to a new orbit or tilt, and they don’t change the day noticeably on human timescales. What they are is fully calculable from celestial mechanics. Eccentricity oscillates on ~100k year cycles, obliquity on ~41k, and precession on ~19–23k. These are measurable, predicted by Newtonian gravity, and confirmed in the geological record. That is direct, independent evidence. Denying it is not a disagreement with climate science; it’s a denial of classical mechanics itself.

If your bar for evidence is “Earth must leap to a completely new orbit overnight” then yes, by that standard nothing counts, but that’s not how science works. Evidence doesn’t need to be sensational to be real; it needs to be observable, repeatable, and consistent with physical laws. Milankovitch cycles meet all three criteria. And yes, I can answer basic climate questions, but only if we start from reality rather than insist that centuries of physics and geology are babble.

 

[ding]

Yes, but you're oversimplifying things. Orbital cycles set the slow background rhythm, creating conditions where ice sheets are susceptible, while abrupt reorganizations of ocean currents trigger the fast climate shifts. Albedo feedback amplifies those changes by reinforcing warming or cooling once a perturbation occurs. So yes, ocean currents act as the proximate trigger for abrupt northern hemisphere events, but they operate on top of the longer term orbital forcing and regional ice dynamics. Nothing here contradicts the paleoclimate evidence; it’s all layers interacting on different timescales.

Orbital cycles can't cause abrupt climate changes. Changing ocean currents can though. It's amazing how little study this gets from the climate community. But when heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic switches off it will. It's going to be hilarious when they try to argue that phenomenon is due to an increase in CO2 instead of density changes LIKE IT HAS 30 OTHER TIMES IN THE PAST 3 MILLION YEARS.

 

[Anomalism]

Orbital cycles can't cause abrupt climate changes. Changing ocean currents can though. It's amazing how little study this gets from the climate community. But when heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic switches off it will. It's going to be hilarious when they try to argue that phenomenon is due to an increase in CO2 instead of density changes LIKE IT HAS 30 OTHER TIMES IN THE PAST 3 MILLION YEARS.

You’re presenting a strawman. No one is saying orbital cycles flip currents overnight. They set the boundary conditions that make abrupt events like AMOC slowdowns possible. Abrupt changes happen on top of that background; they don’t happen in a vacuum. Modern warming is different. The oceans are responding to an external energy input, anthropogenic greenhouse gases, not just internal reorganization. Claiming CO2 can’t be implicated ignores the falsifiable evidence.

 

[ding]

You’re presenting a strawman. No one is saying orbital cycles flip currents overnight. They set the boundary conditions that make abrupt events like AMOC slowdowns possible. Abrupt changes happen on top of that background; they don’t happen in a vacuum. Modern warming is different. The oceans are responding to an external energy input, anthropogenic greenhouse gases, not just internal reorganization. Claiming CO2 can’t be implicated ignores the falsifiable evidence.

The AMOC is driven by density differences which are a function of temperature (thermal density changes and salinity which are compositional changes). Nothing else. Te role the sun plays (orbital and output) affects wind patterns which affects surface currents, not thermohaline currents.

Your problem is that you are completely ignoring the dominant climate feature of the planet which is glaciation and deglaciation of the northern hemisphere. You can't see the forest for the trees. The planet is still naturally warming like it always does after a glacial period has ended. You are trying to attribute that natural warming to CO2 using climate sensitivity which is garbage.

 

[Anomalism]

The AMOC is driven by density differences which are a function of temperature (thermal density changes and salinity which are compositional changes).

Your problem is that you are completely ignoring the dominant climate feature of the planet which is glaciation and deglaciation of the norther hemisphere. You can't see the forest for the trees. The planet is still naturally warming like it always does after a glacial period has ended. You are trying to attribute that natural warming to CO2 using climate sensitivity which is garbage.

You’re conflating trigger and driver, again. Yes, AMOC responds to density changes and yes, glacial interglacial cycles set the long term rhythm, but that’s the slow background, not the current spike. Modern warming isn’t paced by orbital cycles or post glacial residuals; it’s orders of magnitude faster and globally uniform in ways natural recovery cannot produce. Detection and attribution studies explicitly remove glacial and oceanic signals. Without anthropogenic CO2 forcing, the observed 20th–21st century trend disappears. Denying this is hand waving, not science.

 

[Hafar1014]

You’re conflating trigger and driver, again. Yes, AMOC responds to density changes and yes, glacial interglacial cycles set the long term rhythm, but that’s the slow background, not the current spike. Modern warming isn’t paced by orbital cycles or post glacial residuals; it’s orders of magnitude faster and globally uniform in ways natural recovery cannot produce. Detection and attribution studies explicitly remove glacial and oceanic signals. Without anthropogenic CO2 forcing, the observed 20th–21st century trend disappears. Denying this is hand waving, not science.

As of early February 2026, the Great Lakes have seen a massive freeze, with Lake Erie nearly 95% ice-covered—the highest in a decade and close to a full freeze—while total basin ice exceeds 50%, The Detroit News. Driven by Arctic cold, this brings rare, near-total ice, particularly on Erie, the shallowest lake, notes MLive.com and Bridge Michigan.

 

[Anomalism]

As of early February 2026, the Great Lakes have seen a massive freeze, with Lake Erie nearly 95% ice-covered—the highest in a decade and close to a full freeze—while total basin ice exceeds 50%, The Detroit News. Driven by Arctic cold, this brings rare, near-total ice, particularly on Erie, the shallowest lake, notes MLive.com and Bridge Michigan.

Extreme winter events, or heavy ice coverage on the Great Lakes, are regional and short term. They don’t contradict global warming, which is measured as a sustained increase in average planetary energy over decades. Local weather fluctuations are superimposed on the long term trend; they’re the noise, not the signal. Modern warming is about the system wide energy imbalance driven by greenhouse gases, not individual winter storms.