I know this material better than you
Given that you are challenging a widely held theory without providing an iota of reason, I'd have to disagree.
... and am better qualified to access the quality of your Google AI results
You have not demonstrated such abilities here. You make large numbers of mistakes.
... most of it sucks and the results are based on your personal search habits for the past 12 months ... stupid
I was not logged in to Google. It had no idea who I was when I executed that search. Stupid.
... you just puke forth this horseshit like it tastes good or something ...
You just reject it SOLELY because
I put it out. You have no argument. You're just bitter because I've made you look foolish so many times.
You offer as fact what is conjecture ... that's profoundly ignorant
Milankovitch orbital forcing behind the glacial-interglacial cycle is a widely accepted theory, not conjecture.
... ding doesn't offer as fact what he knows is conjecture
Ding offers as fact contentions for which he has no evidence. And he misses the obvious reality about what he thinks himself to be an expert. The oceans are heavily involved in D-O and Heinrich events and, along with plate tectonics, with the actual ice ages the Earth has experienced. But not the glacial-interglacial cycle.
that's generally considered wisjgw ... umm ... wictabr ... er ... well, one hell of a lot smarter than you, though I don't think he'd appreciate the comparison ...
When one of you realizes that the consensus opinions of mainstream science are the most likely explanations for how the universe works, I might consider ceasing to insult your intelligence. Until then, you reap what you sow.
My conjecture is that convection is more efficient at higher temperatures
Efficient at what?
and this causes more average cloudiness ...
Right out of AR2-6.
which lowers temperatures ...
A great deal of research has been done on the effect of clouds on climate but I see you haven't kept up with it.
which reduces clouds allowing more solar energy to reach the surface, raising temperatures, more clouds, etc etc etc ... oscillating back and forth ... no, I have no proof
No one would ask you for proof. They would ask you for evidence. Got any? And if you don't why should anyone - including yourself - think this is the case?
but I know this is an active area of research
Clouds and climate? For decades now. But, as I said, you haven't been keeping up with it.
the reason for the interest is this also explains Arctic amplification ...
It's considered one of several factors.
Everybody has assholes ... everybody has opinions ...
"Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one"
everybody has their pet theory ...
But smart people choose theories with the strongest evidentiary support. You don't.
if you took calculus in college, then you know the OP is complete bullshit
I took Calculus I, Calculus II, Calculus III, Differential Equations, Mathematical Physics, Linear Algebra and Advanced Matrix Methods and I know the OP is absolutely correct.
... Kepler's Laws are a great example for the student, every textbook has sections on them ...
The perturbations of the Earth's orbit that cause Milankovitch Cycles is the gravitic attractions primarily of Jupiter and Saturn. Kepler's laws won't help you there.
Obliquity doesn't change irradiation
What you NEED to say here is that obliquity doesn't change the Earth's Total Solar Irradiance and I pointed that out before you did and I have repeated it several times. It DOES change insolation at higher latitudes and that is the means of its climatic effect. I've said that to you repeatedly but you keep ignoring the point.
... doesn't change surface temperature
It certainly does. It changes the contrast between the poles and the equatorial latitudes. You seem to have picked up a mistaken concept. It is not necessary to cool the entire planet to put the Earth into a glacial period; only the higher latitudes where ice will grow.
... doesn't change climate
Yes it does. Ask any scientist.
