The Glacial-Interglacial Cycle is Driven by Orbital Forcing

[Frankeneinstein]

No. I asked you four simple, yes-or-no questions based on your prior statements. You have spent more time and effort avoiding addressing them than it would have taken to answer them.

As it was an example to make clear what it was you did, how could it have turned out any differently? in fact it has had the intended effect on you, seems the hardest part of that will be getting you to admit it.

 

[ReinyDays]

So, do you reject the science behind manmade global warming?

So, do you reject the mathematics behind the Milankovitch Cycles? ...

How does obliquity change irradiation, and thus surface temperature? ... my claim is that it doesn't, obliquity doesn't change distance ...

 

[Crick]

So, do you reject the mathematics behind the Milankovitch Cycles? ...

How does obliquity change irradiation, and thus surface temperature? ... my claim is that it doesn't, obliquity doesn't change distance ...

Asked and answered. And, btw, I was the first person here to state that obliquity and precession do NOT alter TSI. Obliquity changes where that energy falls and precession alters the contrast of the seasons. Now if you want to keep asking a question for which we all already know the answer, feel free. But it is you that will be made to look "weird" by it all.

 

[ding]

Changes in eccentricity are small and so this factor has a small, but non-zero, effect on the Earth's climate.

So slow, gradual and small. How does that cause glacial periods to begin and end?

 

[ding]

This tends to moderate northern hemisphere (NH) winter and increase the intensity of southern hemisphere (SH) summers. When the angle has rotated 180 degrees, these effects will be reversed.

So slow, gradual, seasonal and no net change to total annual irradiation?

How would this trigger a glacial period and end a glacial period?

 

[ding]

Larger obliquity angles lead to deglaciation. The

How?

 

[ReinyDays]

Asked and answered. And, btw, I was the first person here to state that obliquity and precession do NOT alter TSI. Obliquity changes where that energy falls and precession alters the contrast of the seasons. Now if you want to keep asking a question for which we all already know the answer, feel free. But it is you that will be made to look "weird" by it all.

So then you agree the OP is easily falsified ... and never should have been posted to begin with ...

Yet here you still argue your false assumptions ... and no, you never answered my post #69 ...

"Every one of these, at some points, specifically states or explicitly assumes that the glacial-interglacial cycle is triggered by Milankovitch's orbital forcing and, though the system and its responses are complex, I have yet to find ANY other triggering mechanisms even suggested."

Gee, I wonder who could have posted that? ...

 

[Crick]

So then you agree the OP is easily falsified ... and never should have been posted to begin with ...

The OP has never been falsified and its contention is widely accepted. Do a search in Google, Google Scholar or any other search engine for the cause of the glacial-interglacial cycle. Of course, if you think you're smarter than the scientists who write those papers and that you can easily falsify their conclusions, I will be eager to see your work.

Yet here you still argue your false assumptions ... and no, you never answered my post #69 ...

Your comments in post #69 were answered by my text and in several of the articles to which I linked. Changes in obliquity change insolation at high latitudes. That changes climate. You do not need to change global TSI to alter climate. Plate tectonics, in the long run, certainly changes the Earth's climate without doing a damned thing to global TSI.

"Every one of these, at some points, specifically states or explicitly assumes that the glacial-interglacial cycle is triggered by Milankovitch's orbital forcing and, though the system and its responses are complex, I have yet to find ANY other triggering mechanisms even suggested."
Gee, I wonder who could have posted that? ...

I did and I stand by it completely.

 

[ding]

The OP has never been falsified and its contention is widely accepted. Do a search in Google, Google Scholar or any other search engine for the cause of the glacial-interglacial cycle. Of course, if you think you're smarter than the scientists who write those papers and that you can easily falsify their conclusions, I will be eager to see your work.

Your comments in post #69 were answered by my text and in several of the articles to which I linked. Changes in obliquity change insolation at high latitudes. That changes climate. You do not need to change global TSI to alter climate. Plate tectonics, in the long run, certainly changes the Earth's climate without doing a damned thing to global TSI.

I did and I stand by it completely.

I've been asking you questions concerning the OP and you keep dodging them.

 

[EMH]

So, do you reject the mathematics behind the Milankovitch Cycles?

They are LAUGHABLY destroyed on both poles...

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[EMH]

So slow, gradual and small. How does that cause glacial periods to begin and end?

The ice cores say the "glacial/interglacials" are COMPLETE BULLSHIT

 

[ding]

The ice cores say the "glacial/interglacials" are COMPLETE BULLSHIT

 

[EMH]

You said that there was an interglacial 20k years ago.

During that frame, the ice cores on Greenland and AA both document THE ICE GREW STRAIGHT THROUGH THE BULLSHIT "interglacial"

Greenland has 130k ice cores, AA has 800k... and that's not even halfway down.

 

[ding]

You said that there was an interglacial 20k years ago.

During that frame, the ice cores on Greenland and AA both document THE ICE GREW STRAIGHT THROUGH THE BULLSHIT "interglacial"

Greenland has 130k ice cores, AA has 800k... and that's not even halfway down.

 

[ReinyDays]

Changes in obliquity change insolation at high latitudes.

No it doesn't ... average annual insolation is equal no matter the obliquity ... no change in temperature, no change in climate Goldilocks ...

It's your thread ... now back up your claim little girl ... don't run pussy and say "talk to real scientists" ... your post, you answer ... your citations are not backing up your claims ...

... or you'd post the math ...

 

[ReinyDays]

The ice cores say the "glacial/interglacials" are COMPLETE BULLSHIT

Awwwww ..."someone" hasn't had their nappies today ... what cute lil' spoiled boy ...

 

[ding]

No it doesn't ... average annual insolation is equal no matter the obliquity ... no change in temperature, no change in climate Goldilocks ...

It's your thread ... now back up your claim little girl ... don't run pussy and say "talk to real scientists" ... your post, you answer ... your citations are not backing up your claims ...

... or you'd post the math ...

He can't. He's a political propagandist.

 

[ding]

I've asked the OP about key points in his OP - repeatedly - and he won't address them. He's a fraud.

 

[Crick]

No it doesn't ... average annual insolation is equal no matter the obliquity ... no change in temperature, no change in climate Goldilocks ...

It's your thread ... now back up your claim little girl ... don't run pussy and say "talk to real scientists" ... your post, you answer ... your citations are not backing up your claims ...

... or you'd post the math ...

Insolation does not mean the same thing as total solar irradiance

Definitions from Oxford Languages
INSOLATION:
noun
technical

1. exposure to the sun's rays.
   • the amount of solar radiation reaching a given area.

Back your own ass up, little girl.

 

[dudmuck]

No it doesn't ... average annual insolation is equal no matter the obliquity ... no change in temperature, no change in climate Goldilocks ...

It's your thread ... now back up your claim little girl ... don't run pussy and say "talk to real scientists" ... your post, you answer ... your citations are not backing up your claims ...

... or you'd post the math ...

It says here "Variations in tilt angle modulate seasonality, especially in high latitudes", but not impact on the global average isolation.