It's the Ocean not the Atmosphere, dummy!

[ding]

If orbital forcing were a red herring, we'd need an alternative explanation for why glacial-interglacial cycles follow the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle, why deglaciations align with northern hemisphere summer insolation peaks,

First of all correlation does not prove causation and they haven't always followed a 100,000 year cycle. For the last 1 million years it's been a 100,000-year cycle, but before that it was a 41,000-year cycle (i.e. 1 million years ago to 2.7 million years ago).

and why D-O events themselves are confined to glacial periods.

They aren't necessarily. The Eemian and Holsteinian interglacial periods were punctuated by sudden cooling events. The Purfleet period featured extreme climate instability, including rapid, severe cooling "Heinrich" events. The Arousa/La Bouchet/Aveley interglacial was a warm interglacial which was characterized by high climatic instability and rapid fluctuations rather than a prolonged, stable warm climate. And of course, you already pointed out Younger Dryas. All climate fluctuations over the past 3 million years are being driven by the same thing. Heat circulation from the Atlantic.

 

[ding]

What mechanism do you think drives the glacial-interglacial cycle if not orbital forcing?

I've told you already. Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic. Ocean currents.

 

[ding]

Calling them glaciation and deglaciation misses what they actually are. They're regional temperature oscillations, not ice age transitions. Greenland warms and cools rapidly, ice sheets don't fully collapse and regrow. That's the key distinction.

D-O events don't contradict orbital forcing because they're operating at completely different scales. Orbital forcing explains why Earth was in a glacial state for 100,000 years in the first place. That's the background condition that allowed D-O events to happen. The AMOC shifts that drive D-O events are internal climate system dynamics that occur within that orbital forced state.

D-O events happen during glacials, not interglacials. If AMOC shifts alone could drive glacial-interglacial cycles, we'd see D-O-style oscillations triggering ice ages during warm periods too. We don't. The current interglacial has been relatively stable for 11,000 years despite ongoing ocean circulation variability. Why? Because the orbital configuration doesn't support extensive northern hemisphere ice sheet growth right now.

You still haven't answered the question. If orbital forcing is a red herring, what mechanism explains the 100,000.year glacial-interglacial cycle? What explains why deglaciations consistently align with peaks in northern hemisphere summer insolation? D-O events can't explain that pattern because they're confined to glacial periods and operate on millennial timescales, not a 100,000 year cycle.

Also,.the graph you posted showing D-O events was created by the same climate scientists you're arguing are wrong about everything. Those ice core records, the isotope analysis, the dating methods, all done by researchers who accept that orbital forcing drives glacial cycles and that AGW is real. If you trust their data enough to use it as evidence, why reject their interpretation of what it means?

It's the same mechanism. At the end of the day it is driven by density differences; salinity and thermal. Both of which are temperature dependent. So if it is as you say orbital forcing is causing the planet to warm. Which according to the IPCC's graphics, isn't happening now so why would it in the past? According to me, it is the natural cycle of glaciation and deglaciation in the Arctic that is driving temperatures. As the northern hemisphere deglaciates the planet is returning to it's pre-glacial temperature. At some point density differences trigger a change in ocean currents and the cycle begins anew.

 

[ding]

And yet the ocean and atmosphere's increase in heat have tracked the GHG's rise. In fact, this has been the case throughout geological history;

Correlation does not prove causation which is especially true when the correlation is broken as it was after the industrial revolution. The data clearly shows the correlation is broken.

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a function of temperature. Temperature was not a function of CO2. The mechanism was CO2 solubility in water which is temperature dependent. Temperature changed so CO2 changed. CO2 didn't cause the temperature to change. Prior to the industrial revolution there was no mechanism for CO2 to change other than temperature.

 

[ding]

Orbital (Milankovitch) changes warm the planet by only a small direct amount—on the order of ~0.1–0.3 W/m² globally, which translates to well under 1 °C of direct global-average warming. Milankovitch cycles alter seasonal solar energy. Globally averaged, the change in total solar energy is tiny. Eccentricity changes Earth–Sun distance, but the annual global-mean solar input barely changes. Obliquity and precession redistribute sunlight between seasons and latitudes, not total energy.

By contrast when the AMOC switches off the change in temperature in the Arctic is violent and ABRUPT.

To argue orbital forcing is driving AMOC switch off would mean that orbital forcing is warming the planet before but not now because it is temperature which causes the AMOC to switch off because it is temperature which alters the salinity/density of the thermohaline circulation which drives the AMOC.

 

[Anomalism]

It's the same mechanism. At the end of the day it is driven by density differences; salinity and thermal. Both of which are temperature dependent. So if it is as you say orbital forcing is causing the planet to warm. Which according to the IPCC's graphics, isn't happening now so why would it in the past? According to me, it is the natural cycle of glaciation and deglaciation in the Arctic that is driving temperatures. As the northern hemisphere deglaciates the planet is returning to it's pre-glacial temperature. At some point density differences trigger a change in ocean currents and the cycle begins anew.

Ocean circulation is a redistributive mechanism, not an external energy source. AMOC shifts can strongly change where heat goes, especially regionally, but they do not explain the pacing of glacial cycles by themselves.

You're saying the Atlantic drives it, but that just moves the question back one level. What drives the long-term state changes in the circulation system itself?

The reason orbital forcing remains central is because the timing problem still exists.

The transition from dominant 41,000-year cycles to ~100,000-year cycles matches changes in ice sheet dynamics and orbital modulation.

Deglaciations consistently occur near peaks in northern summer insolation.

Ice volume, CO2, sea level, and temperature evolve in phase relationships predicted by orbital pacing plus feedbacks.

Ocean circulation alone does not explain that astronomical synchronization.

And yes, abrupt variability also occurred in some interglacials. Nobody disputes that. But instability within interglacials is not the same thing as explaining the existence and pacing of the glacial-interglacial cycle itself.

Also, you said...

"temperature changes alter density differences, which alter circulation."

Fine. But what initiated the large-scale temperature changes repeatedly over hundreds of thousands of years with orbital periodicities matching Milankovitch cycles?

If the answer is "internal ocean variability," then you need a mechanism explaining why that variability repeatedly tracks orbital geometry over geological timescales instead of behaving quasi-randomly.

And there's another issue...

The current warming pattern is not just North Atlantic redistribution. The oceans globally are accumulating heat. Measured ocean heat content has risen substantially. Redistribution can cool one region and warm another, but it cannot explain a long-term increase in total system heat without a forcing imbalance.

The IPCC graphic point cuts against your argument. Orbital forcing today is slightly toward long-term cooling, not warming. Yet temperatures are rising anyway. That's one reason greenhouse forcing stands out so strongly in attribution studies.

 

[EMH]

"I don't understand these words so it must be an attempt to confuse me and lie."

LOL!!!!!


USMB Alert....


This CO2 FRAUD taxpayer funded liar has a new term for "global warming."


Anthropogenic Forcing.....



GoogAI

Anthropogenic forcing refers to human-caused changes in the climate system, primarily driving global warming through increased greenhouse gas emissions






Changing words for CO2 FRAUD is like rearranging deck chairs on Titanic.... YOU ARE STILL 100% WRONG!!!

 

[Anomalism]

LOL!!!!!


USMB Alert....


This CO2 FRAUD taxpayer funded liar has a new term for "global warming."


Anthropogenic Forcing.....



GoogAI

Anthropogenic forcing refers to human-caused changes in the climate system, primarily driving global warming through increased greenhouse gas emissions






Changing words for CO2 FRAUD is like rearranging deck chairs on Titanic.... YOU ARE STILL 100% WRONG!!!

Okay bud.

 

[EMH]

Okay bud.

Why the name change?

Why not call it Global Warming?

What motivated this verbose vocabulary expansion that actually is just a cover up of the fact that the public isn't buying the term "global warming" anymore????

 

[Anomalism]

Why the name change?

Why not call it Global Warming?

What motivated this verbose vocabulary expansion that actually is just a cover up of the fact that the public isn't buying the term "global warming" anymore????

I'm genuinely not interested in having conversations with mentally ill people. Feel free to do your victory dance and believe you won. Lol

 

[ding]

Ocean circulation is a redistributive mechanism, not an external energy source. AMOC shifts can strongly change where heat goes, especially regionally, but they do not explain the pacing of glacial cycles by themselves.

AMOC switch off is literally the mechanism of the idiotic orbital forcing theory. I'm describing the exact same mechanism that everyone else uses for why a glacial period begins. It's just that my explanation also explains how they end and I don't need a nebulous orbital effect which has a tiny change in global solar energy.

You're saying the Atlantic drives it, but that just moves the question back one level.

Everyone on the planet knows the heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic drives glaciation and deglaciation of the northern hemisphere. Even your orbital forcing argument hinges upon it. You just don't know it yet.

What drives the long-term state changes in the circulation system itself?

Temperature. It's called THERMO HALINE circulation for a reason. Temperature has an effect on density two ways; thermal expansion and changes in salinity due to meltwater which is fresh water which has a lower density than salt water.

The reason orbital forcing remains central is because the timing problem still exists.

No. The reason it exists is laziness, incompetence and bias (dishonesty). Orbital (Milankovitch) changes warm the planet by only a small direct amount—on the order of ~0.1–0.3 W/m² globally, which translates to well under 1 °C of direct global-average warming. Milankovitch cycles alter seasonal solar energy. Globally averaged, the change in total solar energy is tiny. Eccentricity changes Earth–Sun distance, but the annual global-mean solar input barely changes. Obliquity and precession redistribute sunlight between seasons and latitudes, not total energy.

The transition from dominant 41,000-year cycles to ~100,000-year cycles matches changes in ice sheet dynamics and orbital modulation.

You do realize the landmass distribution hasn't changed much in the last 3 million years, right? So pray tell, please tell me what led to these so called changes in ice sheet dynamics that led to them being driven by obliquity to being driven by eccentricity?

Deglaciations consistently occur near peaks in northern summer insolation.

Obviously not if the cycles changed from 41,000-year cycles to ~100,000 -year cycles. And you are 100% taking liberty using the word consistently even if the length of the cycles didn't change. If orbital forcing played a role, it was a minor role. Most likely affecting wind patterns instead of temperature changes.

Ice volume, CO2, sea level, and temperature evolve in phase relationships predicted by orbital pacing plus feedbacks.

So much to unpack here. The simplest way to respond to this is that for the last 3 million years the planet (oceans and atmosphere) warm when the northern hemisphere is deglaciating like it is today and cool when the northern hemisphere is glaciating. These are facts. If you want to believe that orbital forcing - which has a tiny effect on the total solar energy absorbed by the planet - is responsible for abrupt climate changes, be my guest. But you are going to have a difficult time explaining how they do it without arguing that orbital forcing is responsible for cooling and warming the ocean because ocean currents are driven by density difference (salinity and thermal).

Most of the heat the ocean absorbs occurs at the equator (tropical waters), not the polar regions. Your argument is a tail wagging a dog.

Ocean circulation alone does not explain that astronomical synchronization.

There is no synchronization. It's an imperfect correlation and 1 million years ago it changed from 41k to 100k years. But more importantly, heat circulation in the ocean is literally the feedback that orbital forcing is supposedly driving. The dumb part is that that belief is based upon northern latitude heating when the majority of heat in the ocean comes from the tropical latitudes.

And yes, abrupt variability also occurred in some interglacials. Nobody disputes that.

The geologic record - glacial and interglacial periods - are littered with climate fluctuations. Climate fluctuations became the norm as the planet transitioned from a greenhouse state to an icehouse state. That's why it is so odd that their models say the climate has no fluctuations today. More magic beans from Jack.

But instability within interglacials is not the same thing as explaining the existence and pacing of the glacial-interglacial cycle itself.

The mechanism is exactly the same. There are no scenarios that don't involve the ocean as being responsible for glaciating or deglaciating the northern hemisphere. Even your orbital forcing belief requires the disruption or restoration of the AMOC. What you are failing to understand is that that is dependent on only one thing.... temperature.

Also, you said...

"temperature changes alter density differences, which alter circulation."

It's not me saying this. Google themohaline circulation.

Fine. But what initiated the large-scale temperature changes repeatedly over hundreds of thousands of years with orbital periodicities matching Milankovitch cycles?

If the answer is "internal ocean variability," then you need a mechanism explaining why that variability repeatedly tracks orbital geometry over geological timescales instead of behaving quasi-randomly.

The planet naturally warming back up to its pre-glacial temperature. They don't understand the time lag. How else do you explain it happening over and over again for the past 3 million years? And before you argue orbital forcing, let me remind you that according to you orbital forcing is no longer warming the planet, so if orbital forcing really is the cause, why hasn't the AMOC already collapsed?

And there's another issue...

The current warming pattern is not just North Atlantic redistribution. The oceans globally are accumulating heat. Measured ocean heat content has risen substantially. Redistribution can cool one region and warm another, but it cannot explain a long-term increase in total system heat without a forcing imbalance.

The IPCC graphic point cuts against your argument. Orbital forcing today is slightly toward long-term cooling, not warming. Yet temperatures are rising anyway. That's one reason greenhouse forcing stands out so strongly in attribution studies.

Simple. The data clearly shows that when the northern hemisphere is deglaciating the oceans and atmosphere warm. And when the Northern hemisphere is glaciating the oceans and atmosphere cool.

 

[Anomalism]

AMOC switch off is literally the mechanism of the idiotic orbital forcing theory. I'm describing the exact same mechanism that everyone else uses for why a glacial period begins. It's just that my explanation also explains how they end and I don't need a nebulous orbital effect which has a tiny change in global solar energy.

Everyone on the planet knows the heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic drives glaciation and deglaciation of the northern hemisphere. Even your orbital forcing argument hinges upon it. You just don't know it yet.

Temperature. It's called THERMO HALINE circulation for a reason. Temperature has an effect on density two ways; thermal expansion and changes in salinity due to meltwater which is fresh water which has a lower density than salt water.

No. The reason it exists is laziness, incompetence and bias (dishonesty). Orbital (Milankovitch) changes warm the planet by only a small direct amount—on the order of ~0.1–0.3 W/m² globally, which translates to well under 1 °C of direct global-average warming. Milankovitch cycles alter seasonal solar energy. Globally averaged, the change in total solar energy is tiny. Eccentricity changes Earth–Sun distance, but the annual global-mean solar input barely changes. Obliquity and precession redistribute sunlight between seasons and latitudes, not total energy.

You do realize the landmass distribution hasn't changed much in the last 3 million years, right? So pray tell, please tell me what led to these so called changes in ice sheet dynamics that led to them being driven by obliquity to being driven by eccentricity?

Obviously not if the cycles changed from 41,000-year cycles to ~100,000 -year cycles. And you are 100% taking liberty using the word consistently even if the length of the cycles didn't change. If orbital forcing played a role, it was a minor role. Most likely affecting wind patterns instead of temperature changes.

So much to unpack here. The simplest way to respond to this is that for the last 3 million years the planet (oceans and atmosphere) warm when the northern hemisphere is deglaciating like it is today and cool when the northern hemisphere is glaciating. These are facts. If you want to believe that orbital forcing - which has a tiny effect on the total solar energy absorbed by the planet - is responsible for abrupt climate changes, be my guest. But you are going to have a difficult time explaining how they do it without arguing that orbital forcing is responsible for cooling and warming the ocean because ocean currents are driven by density difference (salinity and thermal).

Most of the heat the ocean absorbs occurs at the equator (tropical waters), not the polar regions. Your argument is a tail wagging a dog.

There is no synchronization. It's an imperfect correlation and 1 million years ago it changed from 41k to 100k years. But more importantly, heat circulation in the ocean is literally the feedback that orbital forcing is supposedly driving. The dumb part is that that belief is based upon northern latitude heating when the majority of heat in the ocean comes from the tropical latitudes.

The geologic record - glacial and interglacial periods - are littered with climate fluctuations. Climate fluctuations became the norm as the planet transitioned from a greenhouse state to an icehouse state. That's why it is so odd that their models say the climate has no fluctuations today. More magic beans from Jack.

The mechanism is exactly the same. There are no scenarios that don't involve the ocean as being responsible for glaciating or deglaciating the northern hemisphere. Even your orbital forcing belief requires the disruption or restoration of the AMOC. What you are failing to understand is that that is dependent on only one thing.... temperature.

It's not me saying this. Google themohaline circulation.

The planet naturally warming back up to its pre-glacial temperature. They don't understand the time lag. How else do you explain it happening over and over again for the past 3 million years? And before you argue orbital forcing, let me remind you that according to you orbital forcing is no longer warming the planet, so if orbital forcing really is the cause, why hasn't the AMOC already collapsed?

Simple. The data clearly shows that when the northern hemisphere is deglaciating the oceans and atmosphere warm. And when the Northern hemisphere is glaciating the oceans and atmosphere cool.
View attachment 1253957
View attachment 1253958

You're conflating mechanism with forcing.

Nobody disputes that AMOC changes are physically important. The disagreement is over whether AMOC variability is the root driver of glacial pacing or a feedback/internal response within a larger orbital framework.

Saying temperature affects thermohaline circulation does not answer what systematically initiates the long-term temperature shifts with orbital periodicities. It just describes one coupling inside the climate system.

And your "the planet naturally warms back to its pre-glacial temperature" explanation is incomplete because it lacks an energy imbalance mechanism. A system does not keep warming for tens of thousands of years simply because it was previously cold. There must be a sustained forcing or feedback maintaining disequilibrium.

Also, the tiny forcing objection is overstated because glaciation sensitivity is not controlled by global annual mean energy alone. Ice sheets respond strongly to persistent summer insolation at high northern latitudes. Small orbital changes integrated over millennia can determine whether snow survives melt season. Once ice sheets expand, albedo feedbacks amplify the effect substantially.

You're treating orbital forcing as though scientists claim it directly dumps massive new heat into the system. That's not the argument. The argument is that orbital geometry changes redistribute solar energy in ways that destabilize or stabilize ice sheets over long timescales.

And your own argument implicitly requires thresholds and feedbacks too.

ocean circulation changes

freshwater pulses

salinity shifts

ice extent

thermal gradients

delayed equilibration

Those are nonlinear feedback dynamics.

On the 41k-to-100k transition...

Nobody claims eccentricity alone directly supplies the warming energy. The current understanding is that ice-sheet dynamics, regolith removal, nonlinear feedbacks, and internal climate responses altered how the system responded to orbital forcing after the Mid-Pleistocene Transition. That's an active research area.

You say there is no synchronization, but the pacing relationship is far stronger than random coincidence. Deglaciations repeatedly align with northern summer insolation maxima in ways difficult to explain with purely internal stochastic ocean variability.

Your present-day argument still has a major unresolved problem...

Current orbital forcing trends are weakly toward cooling while greenhouse forcing trends strongly positive. Yet global ocean heat content continues increasing. If this is merely delayed deglacial recovery, why did the warming accelerate sharply alongside industrial CO2 rise instead of following a smoother multi-millennial trajectory?

Your model does not adequately explain the timing, direction, and modern acceleration of the global energy increase.

 

[ding]

You're conflating mechanism with forcing.

Seriously? Call it whatever you want as long as you admit that when the northern hemisphere is glaciating the oceans and atmosphere cool. And that when the northern hemisphere is deglaciating the oceans and atmosphere warm. And that the reason the northern hemisphere glaciates or deglaciates is because heat is either being circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic or it isn't.

It would be really nice if you either acknowledged these facts or explained why you disagreed with these facts. But please do feel free to label them anyway you want because that is irrelevant. Here's the data though.

 

[ding]

Nobody disputes that AMOC changes are physically important. The disagreement is over whether AMOC variability is the root driver of glacial pacing or a feedback/internal response within a larger orbital framework.

The root driver for AMOC switch off is temperature. That should be a given. Our disagreement is on what is driving the warming. According to you, you don't believe orbital forcing is responsible for rising temperatures. And since the AMOC hasn't switched off, it's going to be hard for you to argue that previous glacial periods were due to AMOC switch off caused by orbital forcing because it didn't do it now. So how do you explain orbital forcing triggering an abrupt glacial event? Can you walk me through those feedbacks?

 

[EMH]

I'm genuinely not interested in having conversations with mentally ill people. Feel free to do your victory dance and believe you won. Lol

It is "mental illness" to question why you have changed your term from

Global Warming

to Anthropogenic Forcing


??????


LOL!!!!


Were we supposed to believe that those are not the same thing?


LOL!!!

 

[Anomalism]

Seriously? Call it whatever you want as long as you admit that when the northern hemisphere is glaciating the oceans and atmosphere cool. And that when the northern hemisphere is deglaciating the oceans and atmosphere warm. And that the reason the northern hemisphere glaciates or deglaciates is because heat is either being circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic or it isn't.

It would be really nice if you either acknowledged these facts or explained why you disagreed with these facts. But please do feel free to label them anyway you want because that is irrelevant. Here's the data though.
View attachment 1253974
View attachment 1253975

I already acknowledged that ocean circulation and AMOC state are critically important to glaciation dynamics. That's not the disagreement.

The disagreement is that you are elevating a major internal climate mechanism into the sole root cause while dismissing the forcing framework that appears to pace it over geological timescales.

The facts you mentioned alone do not establish that ocean circulation is the primary independent driver of glacial pacing.

You're stating the mechanism of heat transport while skipping the pacing question. Why do these large-scale transitions repeatedly align with orbital configurations over hundreds of thousands of years?

Saying "the ocean naturally cycles" is not a full explanatory model.

If the AMOC strengthens, the North Atlantic can warm dramatically through redistribution while other regions cool or lose heat. That is different from increasing total planetary heat content.

The modern climate signal includes a substantial increase in total ocean heat content globally, not merely North Atlantic redistribution. That's a major reason greenhouse forcing remains central in current attribution studies.

So the issue is not whether ocean circulation matters. It obviously does.

The issue is whether it alone adequately explains the pacing of glacial cycles, the phase relationships in paleoclimate data, and the modern global energy imbalance.

Right now your argument explains an important part of the system, but it does not fully close those gaps.

 

[ding]

Saying temperature affects thermohaline circulation does not answer what systematically initiates the long-term temperature shifts with orbital periodicities. It just describes one coupling inside the climate system.

Let's just call it temperature dependent for now. I think we can agree on that. I've walked you through how I see it happening. I asked you in the last post for you to walk me through how you believe orbital forcing causes abrupt climate changes from an interglacial period to a glacial period. Without of course using AMOC switch off.

 

[ding]

And your "the planet naturally warms back to its pre-glacial temperature" explanation is incomplete because it lacks an energy imbalance mechanism. A system does not keep warming for tens of thousands of years simply because it was previously cold. There must be a sustained forcing or feedback maintaining disequilibrium.

It's based on the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record. Which is where every good analysis should begin.

We know for a fact that the planet's unique configuration makes the northern hemisphere a critical region for impacting planet wide climate. Or at least you should know that. And we know why that is. Or at least you should know that.

Do you understand this? Or do I need to explain this in more detail?

 

[ding]

Also, the tiny forcing objection is overstated because glaciation sensitivity is not controlled by global annual mean energy alone. Ice sheets respond strongly to persistent summer insolation at high northern latitudes. Small orbital changes integrated over millennia can determine whether snow survives melt season. Once ice sheets expand, albedo feedbacks amplify the effect substantially.

We shall soon find out as you walk me through the science and your evidence for how orbital cycles trigger abrupt climate changes like glacial and interglacial periods.

 

[ding]

You're treating orbital forcing as though scientists claim it directly dumps massive new heat into the system. That's not the argument. The argument is that orbital geometry changes redistribute solar energy in ways that destabilize or stabilize ice sheets over long timescales.

As near as I can tell, they've figured out that they need the ocean as a feedback. Which makes me feel very smug and proud. They are halfway there.