Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

[ginjawarrior]

axial precession cycles about once every ~26000 years, and a year is ~365 days, so 26000 / 365 = the precession advances by one "day" every ~71.2 years.
~ me.


is my math in error? if so, explain.

the axial precession was the issue at hand, via the milankovic cycles.

if you propose a different solution to the precession question, feel free to espouse it.

Simple it doesn't add days...

 

[ginjawarrior]

Think of a spinning top it spins at a constant speed yet the vertical axis shifts slightly (but doesn't effect speed of spin)

 

[Dr Kynes]

Simple it doesn't add days...

i did not make that claim.

teh fux?

the astronomical events which occur on sept 20 2013 will occur on sept 20 for about 71 years, and then those events will occur on sept 21 for about 71 years, and then on the 22nd...

the day doesnt change, the precession of the equinoxes (and solstices) simply ratchets forward "one day" every ~71 years, and after ~26000 years they come full circle.

this has nothing to do with the errors in calendars, leap years, or any other such event which is of concern ONLY to humans.

 

[ginjawarrior]

i did not make that claim.

teh fux?

the astronomical events which occur on sept 20 2013 will occur on sept 20 for about 71 years, and then those events will occur on sept 21 for about 71 years, and then on the 22nd...

the day doesnt change, the precession of the equinoxes (and solstices) simply ratchets forward "one day" every ~71 years, and after ~26000 years they come full circle.

this has nothing to do with the errors in calendars, leap years, or any other such event which is of concern ONLY to humans.

You did not make that claim then go on to make that claim?

It does not shift the date of the solstice it moves the position of the Sun on the horizon on the solstice...

 

[Dr Kynes]

Think of a spinning top it spins at a constant speed yet the vertical axis shifts slightly (but doesn't effect speed of spin)

who argued that the earth's rotation is being altered? (which it is, ever so slightly, Thanks Moon!!)

the moon's effect on the earth's rotations is miniscule, and has been going on for a VERY long time that has nothing to do with the glacial cycles, global warming (or cooling) it is not anthropogenic, and has no noticeable effect on anything except adding a tiny amount more error into calendar calculations every billion years or so.

 

[ginjawarrior]

who argued that the earth's rotation is being altered? (which it is, ever so slightly, Thanks Moon!!)

the moon's effect on the earth's rotations is miniscule, and has been going on for a VERY long time that has nothing to do with the glacial cycles, global warming (or cooling) it is not anthropogenic, and has no noticeable effect on anything except adding a tiny amount more error into calendar calculations every billion years or so.

The moon has a steadying effect on the earth without it pressecion would be much more pronounced

[YOUTUBE]cquvA_IpEsA[/YOUTUBE]


The circling of gyroscope doesn't effect the speed of rotation (which would be needed to add extra day)

I've already posted the earths rotational speed and its effect on calenders

 

[Dr Kynes]

You did not make that claim then go on to make that claim?

It does not shift the date of the solstice it moves the position of the Sun on the horizon on the solstice...

ohh my fucking god.

are you retarded?

the precesssion of the equinoxes causes the DATE OF THE EQUINOXES to change coming full circle every 26000 years. this is simply ONE of the effects of the milankovic cycles.
Polaris will eventually no longer be the North Star, and then 26000 years later, give or take, it will be again.

nobody is talking about adding days, any more than the turning of a gear in a clock adds TEETH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession

and at this point i suppose you will once again insist you are not denying that natural cycles exist, despite your OBVIOUS lack of understanding, and COMPLETE IGNORANCE of their workings.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Haha, you guys are fucking nuts!

 

[Dr Kynes]

Haha, you guys are fucking nuts!

how so wabbit?

just because ginja is incapable of understanding that the equinoxes and solstices are moving ever so slowly within the orbital year, and this is just one small part of the grand precession that drives glacial and interglacial ages, this does not mean i am crazy.

the consensus of the voices in my head confirms that i am as sane as you are...

 

[Flaming Pie]

I have no idea what you guys are saying.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Lol 30 pages down the line and Keynes finally posted the link up till now I wasn't so sure, but that's why you ask for sources

[h=2]Effects[edit source | editbeta][/h]The precession of the Earth's axis has a number of observable effects. First, the positions of the south and north celestial poles appear to move in circles against the space-fixed backdrop of stars, completing one circuit in 25,772 Julian years (2000 rate). Thus, while today the star Polaris lies approximately at the north celestial pole, this will change over time, and other stars will become the "north star".[SUP][2][/SUP] In approximately 3200 years, the star Gamma Cephei in the Cepheus constellation will succeed Polaris for this position. The south celestial pole currently lacks a bright star to mark its position, but over time precession also will cause bright stars to becomesouth stars. As the celestial poles shift, there is a corresponding gradual shift in the apparent orientation of the whole star field, as viewed from a particular position on Earth.
Secondly, the position of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun at the solstices, equinoxes, or other time defined relative to the seasons, slowly changes.[SUP][2][/SUP] For example, suppose that the Earth's orbital position is marked at the summer solstice, when the Earth's axial tilt is pointing directly toward the Sun. One full orbit later, when the Sun has returned to the same apparent position relative to the background stars, the Earth's axial tilt is not now directly toward the Sun: because of the effects of precession, it is a little way "beyond" this. In other words, the solstice occurred a little earlier in the orbit. Thus, the tropical year, measuring the cycle of seasons (for example, the time from solstice to solstice, or equinox to equinox), is about 20 minutes shorter than the sidereal year, which is measured by the Sun's apparent position relative to the stars. Note that 20 minutes per year is approximately equivalent to one year per 25,772 years, so after one full cycle of 25,772 years the positions of the seasons relative to the orbit are "back where they started". (Other effects also slowly change the shape and orientation of the Earth's orbit, and these, in combination with precession, create various cycles of differing periods; see also Milankovitch cycles. The magnitude of the Earth's tilt, as opposed to merely its orientation, also changes slowly over time, but this effect is not attributed directly to precession.)
For identical reasons, the apparent position of the Sun relative to the backdrop of the stars at some seasonally fixed time, say the vernal equinox, slowly regresses a full 360° through all twelve traditional constellations of the zodiac, at the rate of about 50.3 seconds of arcper year (approximately 360 degrees divided by 25,772), or 1 degree every 71.6 years. This is described as "the age of (a zodiac sign or house)" and historical records became associated with that position of the Sun, and mythology related to the zodiac signs

So it's a change in the sidereal year rather than calender year (tropical) and does not change solstice date on earth

 

[Dr Kynes]

Lol 30 pages down the line and Keynes finally posted the link up till now I wasn't so sure, but that's why you ask for sources



So it's a change in the sidereal year rather than calender year (tropical) and does not change solstice date on earth[/FONT][/COLOR]

that selfsame link was deposited, as well as many others dealing with the precession PREVIOUSLY.

you were too busy copy/pasting the entirety of the "Skeptical Science" blog over and over to notice.

and no, you are reading that wrong, the equinoxes (and the solstices which are linked to them) budge over one day every ~71 years.

but i suppose this means im claiming that a new calendar day is ADDED ever ~71 years, until eventually of course, a year will be 100000 days long. cuz that wouldnt be ridiculous at all.

 

[ginjawarrior]

that selfsame link was deposited, as well as many others dealing with the precession PREVIOUSLY.

you were too busy copy/pasting the entirety of the "Skeptical Science" blog over and over to notice.

and no, you are reading that wrong, the equinoxes (and the solstices which are linked to them) budge over one day every ~71 years.

but i suppose this means im claiming that a new calendar day is ADDED ever ~71 years, until eventually of course, a year will be 100000 days long. cuz that wouldnt be ridiculous at all.

Care to show where it was previously linked? Don't forget the 57.2 years that was given by doer

they budge on sidereal years not on calender years (solstice is always the same)

 

[Dr Kynes]

Care to show where it was previously linked? Don't forget the 57.2 years that was given by doer

they budge on sidereal years not on calender years (solstice is always the same)

the information above is all found within these links in this post but i decided NOT to include the wikipedia entry as wikipedia is NOT a good source, (still better then Skeptical Science though...) but now i see i should have. clearly onoy non-scholarly works are authoritative enough for your approval.

Y U H8 Science so much?

and as promised i am back with a few citations showing that our current climate is the result of a Interglacial period chracterized by a GLOBAL WARMING from the historic norm of the earth being as cold as a witch's tit in a brass brasiere.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5585/1287.summary
Interglaciations are real, and we are IN ONE? amazing

http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/
evidence of a general trend of warming for some time as we depart a persistent and extended period of Glaciers reaching almost to mexico, through a period of 100% Non-Anthropgenic Glomal Climate Change in a Decidedly Upward Direction

http://hol.sagepub.com/content/21/5/831.abstract
uhh ohh, looks like the Holocene warm period may not be done yet.. it could last a LOT longer, and get CONSIDERABLY warmer even if you assume Co2 production by man ceases...


http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/climate/earthorbit.html
a fun model which demonstrates the Milankovic cycle correlating to past glaciations, and indicating MORE WARMING TO COME until the cycle once again moves in the other direction and a general cooling trend begins which will be followed by another warming cycle and a new interglacial...

this source:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/25/milankovic-cycles-and-climate-change/
argues that in fact the Holocene Era is over, and a new glaciation has already begun (some 6000 years ago he asserts, but i disagree)
but thats cool, im not angry because he disagrees.

so yeah the funny little lines on the graph show we are approaching (or may be past) the peak of an interglacial which has been uncharacteristically mild and stable by the standards of the previous several episodes, but eventually the glaciers WILL come back.

http://www.am.ub.edu/~jmiralda/fsgw/lect5.html

it's not just pretty pictures. the Low points are Glacial Maximums (more ice), the high points are Glacial Minimums (less ice).
using your brain always works better than borrowing somebody else's.

a post which you snidely dismissed, cast imprecations at, and pretended you knew what you were talking about (much less what I was talking about)
with this little gem:

And your point is?

Do I need to go back and QUOTE where I repeated said no one was arguing natural variation didn't happen?

Apart from the fact it's a denialist blog

What part shows this evidence you claim?

hang on you were saying we were heading into ice age...


Will not work on this device



You really should let climatologists know about that graph..


of course no point deferring to people who have trained and studied this I should use my brain and ignore the experts advice

Need urgent surgery? No need to goto hospital to see doctor use your brain!!!

Important law case? Don't get a lawyer just use your brain?

Need a new computer? Don't buy one at the store, use your brain build if

Or you could just goto Roy Spencer or watts up and use their brains....

a response so fraught with fallacies, so laden with ad hoiminems and so DEVOID of any coherent thought i very nearly put you on my ignore list.

also, when the equinoxes move, the solstices move with them

 

[ginjawarrior]

the information above is all found within these links in this post but i decided NOT to include the wikipedia entry as wikipedia is NOT a good source, (still better then Skeptical Science though...) but now i see i should have. clearly onoy non-scholarly works are authoritative enough for your approval.

Y U H8 Science so much?

yeah first link says nothing about the 57.2 or 72.7 years you and doer were talking about

I love science I just don't like liars

a post which you snidely dismissed, cast imprecations at, and pretended you knew what you were talking about (much less what I was talking about)
with this little gem:

Scorn where scorn is due is my motto

a response so fraught with fallacies, so laden with ad hoiminems and so DEVOID of any coherent thought i very nearly put you on my ignore list.

also, when the equinoxes move, the solstices move with them

As according to the sidereal calender

Our calender is tuned to the seasons/equinoxes/solstice's

 

[Dr Kynes]

yeah first link says nothing about the 57.2 or 72.7 years you and doer were talking about

yep. the first link (the only one which counts naturally) has NOTHING to do with the precession, milankovic cycles (of which precession is one small part) and the overall theme of glaciations and interglacials being the result of astronomical cycles...


yep. nothin at all. and you can tell the from the gloss.

the rest of your comments were summarily ignored, and you may now carry on with your Vigorously Defended Ignorance, which i shall call "Vignorance".

an excerpt from the article in the first link which you insist has nothing to do with the precession...

"On a geological time scale, climate cycles are believed to be driven by changes in insolation (solar radiation received at the top of the atmosphere) as a result of variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over the next 100,000 years, the amplitude of insolation variations will be small (see the figure), much smaller than during the Eemian. For example, at 65°N in June, insolation will vary by less than 25 Wm[SUP]−2[/SUP] over the next 25,000 years, compared with 110 Wm[SUP]−2[/SUP] between 125,000 and 115,000 years ago. From the standpoint of insolation, the Eemian can hardly be taken as an analog for the next millennia, as is often assumed.

The small amplitude of future insolation variations is exceptional. One of the few past analogs (13) occurred at about 400,000 years before the present, overlapping part of MIS-11. Then and now, very low eccentricity values coincided with the minima of the 400,000-year eccentricity cycle. Eccentricity will reach almost zero within the next 25,000 years, damping the variations of precession considerably.

Simulations with a two-dimensional climate model (14), forced with insolation and CO[SUB]2[/SUB] variations over the next 100,000 years, provide an insight into the possible consequences of this rare phenomenon. Most CO[SUB]2[/SUB] scenarios (15) led to an exceptionally long interglacial from 5000 years before the present to 50,000 years from now (see the bottom panel of the figure), with the next glacial maximum in 100,000 years. Only for CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentrations less than 220 ppmv was an early entrance into glaciation simulated (15). "
~http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5585/1287.full

yep... nothing at all to do with the precession or the milankovic cycles...

but by all means, you keep calling me a liar.

perhaps Skeptical Scince has an unflattering profile on me which you can copy/paste as if it were evidence.

 

[ginjawarrior]

yep. the first link (the only one which counts naturally) has NOTHING to do with the precession, milankovic cycles (of which precession is one small part) and the overall theme of glaciations and interglacials being the result of astronomical cycles...


yep. nothin at all. and you can tell the from the gloss.

the rest of your comments were summarily ignored, and you may now carry on with your Vigorously Defended Ignorance, which i shall call "Vignorance".

an excerpt from the article in the first link which you insist has nothing to do with the precession...



yep... nothing at all to do with the precession or the milankovic cycles...

but by all means, you keep calling me a liar.

perhaps Skeptical Scince has an unflattering profile on me which you can copy/paste as if it were evidence.

it has nothing to say about the 57.2 or 72.7 years that you and doer were talking about

As such it does not back up the 72.7 or 57.2 years that you said

I asked over 30 pages ago for evidence of that

Again I have not denied pressecion or milankovich cycles just the part about 72.7 or 57.2 years Changing the calendar cycle

Show me the sentence where it's says 72.7 or 57.2 or admit your lying when you claim it proves the specific part I have been asking doer for evidence for over 30 pages

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Doc, where are you getting this "days" thing? Every ~72 years the earth's axial tilt moves ~1 degree. It takes ~26,000 years for a full axial rotation. So depending on the tilt, two things happen: the stars appear at different parts of the sky and it also causes the seasons to slowly change their severity ever so slightly every so many thousand years.

I hope this stops all the bitching.

Will the equinoxes and solstices switch places in 13,000 years because of the precession of the Earth's rotation axis?
No, there will be no swapping of the seasons and the months of the year.

The precession of the equinoxes of the Earth is a motion that causes the axis of the Earth's rotation to remain FIXED at an angle of 23.5 degrees, however, it rotates along a great circle with a period of 26,000 years. The result is that the two points where the equator of the Earth intersect the ecliptic plane, the vernal and autumnal equinoxes, precess westward along the ecliptic by 360 degrees per 25,800 years or 50.26 seconds of arc per year. This is also equal to 0.125 seconds of arc per day or 0.008 seconds of time, so that each day the synchronization between sidereal and solar time slips a bit. Currently, the vernal equinox which heralds the beginning of spring occurs in the constellation of Pisces, but it is slowly moving towards the constellation of Aquarius and will arrive there in a few hundred years or so.

The seasons of the year are produced by the tilt of the axis of the Earth, and this tilt is not disturbed by the precession, but remains exactly the same with respect to the ecliptic plane. Currently in the northern hemisphere, the Earth is tilted TOWARDS the Sun by 23.5 degrees when the Earth is at its farthest from the Sun ( aphelion ) in June, and we experience summer. In the winter it is tilted AWAY from the Sun today. Because our calendar year and its seasons are tied to when the equinoxes occur, it automatically keeps up with the precession, so that in 13,000 years we will have the following situation: The axis of the Earth will be tilted TOWARDS the Sun by 23.5 degrees when the Earth is closest to the Sun ( perihelion) in the northern hemisphere in JUNE, and tilted AWAY from the Sun when it is closest to the Sun in December. Each day, our calendar is gradually 'precessing' in time by 0.008 seconds to keep up with the new locations of the equinoxes and solstices so no matter where we are in the precession cycle ,winter will always happen in December, and Summer in June. BUT because in the northern hemisphere in 13,000 years we will be closer to the Sun for our summer, and farther for our winter, the severity of these seasons will be slightly greater.

What will also change is the constellation that the summer solstice will be in. In 13,000 years the summer solstice will travel 1/2 of a full cycle around the zodiac. Will we still celebrate winter in December and summer in June in the northern hemisphere? Yes, and we will also see Orion as a summer constellation in 13,000 years. Precession affects the background constellations against which the Earth-Sun motion plays itself out. It does not affect the months during which the seasons occur, because these are constantly being updated to keep the vernal equinox in March etc.

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/q1795.html

 

[Dr Kynes]

it has nothing to say about the 57.2 or 72.7 years that you and doer were talking about

As such it does not back up the 72.7 or 57.2 years that you said

I asked over 30 pages ago for evidence of that

Again I have not denied pressecion or milankovich cycles just the part about 72.7 or 57.2 years Changing the calendar cycle

Show me the sentence where it's says 72.7 or 57.2 or admit your lying when you claim it proves the specific part I have been asking doer for evidence for over 30 pages

first of all, it is not 57 years. i dunno where he got that number but it has NOTHING to do with my clearly explained already sourced ~71 year advancement of the precession

the ~71 year advancement of the precession by ONE DAY (actually according to my simplified math it's like 71.62 years, and thats the number cited in the wikiarticle you quoted yourself! where you now get 72.7 years is beyond me.) is NOT a clockwork mechanism. gravitational variances from the other planets, the moon and whatnot constantly throw their influence into the mix, resulting in VERY complex math that is frankly, beyond my capabilities.

The article cited previously was proposing that the current Holocene Interglacial Epoch my continue with it's warming trend for considerably longer than the usual interglacial period, even without added CO2 from human activity.

the oft stated ~71 year advancement of the precession by one day has nothing to do with the inaccuracies in the current calendar, it has nothing to do with speeding or slowing the earth's rotation, it has NOTHING to do with any of the rickety strawmen you keep trying to erect.

the ~71 year advancement of the precession by one day is ENTIRELY an artifact of the earth's wobble, spin, and orbit and the variations in their periods due to external and internal forces.

early celestial calendar like the Sun Temple at machu pichu, stonehenge, and several others marked the position of a single point of reference (a star, the sun rising in a particular position, etc...) on a particular day, and each time that day comes round again, the point of reference is slightly farther along in it's track, until every ~71 years, it happens about 24 hours later than it did ~71 years earlier. THAT is the precession.

this effect does not CAUSE glaciations, but the CAUSE of this observable effect is ALSO the cause of the glacial cycles.

example: the Moon does not actually cause seashore erosion, but the Moon does cause tides, which in turn causes regular predictable seashore erosion. to argue that anyone who suggests the moon causes the tides is instead proposing the Moon causes erosion directly is a STRAWMAN.
to demand somebody Prove the Moon exists, and then insisting that an article in a journal describing the moon's orbit, mass, gravitational effect, the tides and the lunar cycle DIDNT SAY "The Moon Is Real And It Exists!" so you win, is a fallacy so bizarre, so new and so exciting i think you may have just invented it.

good for you.
you did NOT read the article cited, or you read it and didnt understand it, or you read it, understood it, and then decided to pretend you have NO IDEA what it means

either way youre a twat.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

either way youre a twat.

You're just now figuring that one out?