The Glacial-Interglacial Cycle is Driven by Orbital Forcing

The explanation "you're just making stupid crap up again" is always the correct response to any BS-liar question that you put forth.


Documented...



Comparison of the interannual variation in sea level and air pressure at sea level, and the 5-year moving average for the period 1963–2005.


Comparison of the interannual variation in sea level and air pressure at sea level, and the 5-year moving average for the period 1963–2005.​




If all the "ice is melting" bullshit your side puts out was true, SAP would be rising rapidly towards the levels it had during Jurassic.
 
that's a record from one single spot on the planet.


Actually the planet is spherical and SAP is pretty darn constant at sea level around the globe...

Unless the Co2 FRAUD is trying to "Johnny Depp" the atmosphere like it has with trying to explain no ocean rise...
 
Observably false. The earth hasn't had any significant deglaciating for thousands of years, yet the global warming is strong. Hence, your theory is disproved.

Remember, it doesn't matter how fanatical your religious faith in your denier religion is. It doesn't matter how often and how loud your scream your observably wrong theory. The hard evidence says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong.

That's why you're presenting your kook theory in a right-wing crank SafeSpace, instead of presenting it to the world of science.
The northern hemisphere is either glaciating or deglaciating. Maybe look at some data, dum dum.

When the northern hemisphere is glaciating the planet cools; oceans and atmosphere.

When the northern hemisphere is deglaciating the planet warms; oceans and atmosphere.

1724596015407.png
 
Apparently this taxpayer funded "top climate scientist" hasn't yet noticed that Earth actually has two polar circles, and the southern one has 90% of Earth's ice, and that matters.
You are a moron. I don't argue with morons.
 
The northern hemisphere is either glaciating or deglaciating


Completely discredited and disproven by the indisputable truth that


GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED

for the past

10k
20k
50k
1 million

years, take your pick...


 
Completely discredited and disproven by the indisputable truth that


GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED

for the past

10k
20k
50k
1 million

years, take your pick...


What is it that you think that proves, dummy?
 
You should be sorry for the OP ... what a stinker ...
Still waiting here Reiny. What is wrong with the OP? Have YOU found any valid source stating that something OTHER than orbital forcing is responsible for triggering the glacial-interglacial cycle?
 
Still waiting here Reiny. What is wrong with the OP? Have YOU found any valid source stating that something OTHER than orbital forcing is responsible for triggering the glacial-interglacial cycle?
You mean besides there is no explanation for how slow orbital changes that don't the affect net annual solar output can cause abrupt glacial events and abrupt interglacial events?
 
You mean besides there is no explanation for how slow orbital changes that don't the affect net annual solar output can cause abrupt glacial events and abrupt interglacial events?

Obliquity and axial precession doesn't change distance ... slow or fast ... and only distance changes radiant heat ... still waiting for stupid to show us his math on how much distance is involved with eccentricity ...

Is "fast" considered 1ºC per 100 years? ... because I see that much change here in an hour every morning, so slow as to be imperceivable ... climate change is 8.7 million times slower ... we're better off watching Galaxy M87's jet than waiting for the climate to do anything but the same thing ... "A HURRICANE HIT FLORIDA, MUST BE AGW !!!" ... children shore do enjoy Fruit Loops, now don't they ? ...

Fast is 50 microseconds for a photon from Earth's surface to reach outer space ...
 
Last edited:
Obliquity and axial precession doesn't change distance ... slow or fast ... and only distance changes radiant heat ... still waiting for stupid to show us his math on how much distance is involved with eccentricity ...

Is "fast" considered 1ºC per 100 years? ... because I see that much change here in an hour every morning, so slow as to be imperceivable ... climate change is 8.7 million times slower ...

Fast is 50 microseconds for a photon from Earth's surface to reach outer space ...
Are you insisting that you cannot change the temperature anywhere on the planet without changing the orbital distance from the sun?
 
Are you insisting that you cannot change the temperature anywhere on the planet without changing the orbital distance from the sun?
He shouldn't have to be insisting insinuating anything. It's YOUR OP. You should be explaining in great detail how orbital changes cause abrupt climate changes.
 
Are you insisting that you cannot change the temperature anywhere on the planet without changing the orbital distance from the sun?

No ... stupid ... I'm saying obliquity doesn't change surface temperature ... we can change temperature by facing away from the Sun, same distance just it's nighttime ... duh ...

Aren't you getting seasick moving the goalposts around? ... have you read the OP yet? ... how does obliquity change temperature? ... just explain why both hemisphere get more energy at the same time ... because my geometry maintains what one hemisphere gains/loses, the other hemisphere loses/gains ... the net value is the same for these few degrees-of-arc we're dealing with ...
 
No ... stupid ... I'm saying obliquity doesn't change surface temperature ... we can change temperature by facing away from the Sun, same distance just it's nighttime ... duh ...

Aren't you getting seasick moving the goalposts around? ... have you read the OP yet? ... how does obliquity change temperature? ... just explain why both hemisphere get more energy at the same time ... because my geometry maintains what one hemisphere gains/loses, the other hemisphere loses/gains ... the net value is the same for these few degrees-of-arc we're dealing with ...
He doesn't understand how climate works. He doesn't understand how the planet can cool and how the planet can warm even though the sun is shining just the same in both scenarios.
 
No ... stupid ... I'm saying obliquity doesn't change surface temperature ... we can change temperature by facing away from the Sun, same distance just it's nighttime ... duh ...
What do you mean here by "surface temperature"?
Aren't you getting seasick moving the goalposts around?
I haven't moved anything.
... have you read the OP yet? ...
I wrote the OP
how does obliquity change temperature? ...
Obliquity causes and ends glaciation of the polar regions by the alteration of the inclination of the Earth's rotational axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
just explain why both hemisphere get more energy at the same time ...
Obliquity does not affect the hemisphere's equally.
because my geometry maintains what one hemisphere gains/loses, the other hemisphere loses/gains ...
Yes.
the net value is the same for these few degrees-of-arc we're dealing with ...
No one ever said changes in obliquity would change the Earth's TSI. I've been quite clear that it will not. I said a few weeks back that ellipticity was the only Milankovitch cycle that affected global TSI.
 
What do you mean here by "surface temperature"?

I haven't moved anything.

I wrote the OP

Obliquity causes and ends glaciation of the polar regions by the alteration of the inclination of the Earth's rotational axis to the plane of the ecliptic.

Obliquity does not affect the hemisphere's equally.

Yes.

No one ever said changes in obliquity would change the Earth's TSI. I've been quite clear that it will not. I said a few weeks back that ellipticity was the only Milankovitch cycle that affected global TSI.
It's your argument to prove how orbital changes cause the planet to abruptly cool and abruptly warm. It's your OP. It's your claim.
 

Forum List

Back
Top