i'm sure james lawrence powell does.What 24 articles were they, Buck?
Do you have a list?
yes, the precession moves at a rate of One Day forward, per ~71 years.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.
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/q1795.html
that would be the sidereal you were saying the solstice would change, it won't as the calendar is tied to seasonsat a particular spot on the earth, on a particular day, a particular star appears right above a particular marker. Every ~71 years, that event happens one day later, thanks to the precession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_year[h=2][/h]The difference is caused by the precession of the equinoxes, and means that over long periods of time a calendar based on the sidereal year will drift out of sync with the seasons at the rate of about one day every 72 years.
that would be the sidereal you were saying the solstice would change, it won't as the calendar is tied to seasons
The rest of you post is ranting against nothing
I've never denied glaciation, pressecion, milanovich yet you seem set on writing essays as if I denied them
Doer started this over 30 pages ago all I asked for was confirmation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_year
Again you typed an essay
ONE MORE TIME!!!
the precession is NOT THE THING it is an illustration of the thing.
yes. our year is based on the time it takes the earth to move around the sun, with the days set to a close approximation of the number of revolutions of the earth in a single orbital cycle.
the apparent movement of celestial bodies within that single orbit is unrelated to the actual time it takes to orbit the sun, or for the earth to rotate.
however, the VARIATIONS in the orbit, the rotation, the wobble and the axis inclination of the earth creates the precession, which is JUST a representation of the forces at work to cause glacial ages.
again you pretend to know what im talking about, then insist im not talking about GLACIATIONS because that would mean accepting that your assumptions are based on a fallacy.
Just Like the 1979 fixation of your side, you picked a moment in history which was at the bottom of the trough in a short term global cold spell, declared that to be the new normal, and pretend that every bit of the ZOMG!! LESS THAN 1 DEGREE FAHRENHEIT of warming was caused by man.
you are desperately clinging to the theory that the temps in 1979 must be exactly the natural temperature of the earth, and every change in that temp is directly caused by some human influence.
this is NOT THE CASE. even if there were ZERO human emissions of CO2, the earth would still be warming as a result of an INTERGLACIAL PERIOD which persists, and will continue for some time, but must eventually switch back to a cooling trend and a new glacial period.
the earth is warming as a result of the Glacial Cycle, and CO2 may be increasing that warming but, as i have said again and again...
HOW MUCH?
thats the question you wont touch with a ten foot pole, because NOBODY KNOWS!
oh sweet motherfucking mohammed on a skateboard.Again you typed an essay
Natural variation, pressecion milanovich all these things are known by climate scientists
Repeatedly typing it out is not doing anyone an ounce of good
It's as simple as fuck for you to go see the what the current models say
But your stuck in some sort of God of the gaps quest for perfection where unless you have the a precise number you discount everything
But at least we have sorted out the sidereal part (which does not change the date of solstice)
Yet another bullshit essay based on your misunderstandingNOBODY KNOWS, so the assertion that "It's All Anthropogenic" is a flat out LIE, and thats what you have been selling.
The difference is caused by the precession of the equinoxes, and means that over long periods of time a calendar based on the sidereal year will drift out of sync with the seasons at the rate of about one day every 72 years.
put your crayolas away.Yet another bullshit essay based on your misunderstanding
Do you remember the part where I said
I've never denied glaciation, pressecion, milanovich yet you seem set on writing essays as if I denied them
Nobody apart from you is saying it's all anthropogenic
You been writing page after page of bullshit arguing against a straw man of your own making
Not one thing there was truesnipped page of bullshit
Butthurts such a good colour for you, you wear it wellJust a butt troll. He makes conjectures of un-reference stupidity, pretend to science and math. And when called on it, He say, Prove me wrong. No links he provides, but cherry picks from other submissions and makes stuff up. Now he will say I can't prove it.
Worthless. And just trying to the the bs started.
Another Highlowputz.
The date of the equinoxes doesn't change. This is not a calendar effect.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.
yeah, i know, the date on the calendar doesnt change but the celestial events do. thats the illustration of the cycle, but trying to explain that in detail results in TLDR; and "i know all that" just before he demonstrates that he doesnt know all that and insists it has all been accounted for...The date of the equinoxes doesn't change. This is not a calendar effect.
What does change is the location of the equinoctial points: where the ecliptic crosses the celestial equator. They regress a full phase (360 degrees) in the 26-kY cycle. Thus star maps are comprehensively updated every 50 years ... the celestial poles and equator move relative to the invariant ecliptic.
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.
Asking for evidence of that specific claim about the calender changing every 72.7 years speaks absolutely nothing other than asking you to back up your bullshit claimyeah, i know, the date on the calendar doesnt change but the celestial events do. thats the illustration of the cycle, but trying to explain that in detail results in TLDR; and
It is 57 years because the sum of the two wobbles is 21000 years to make a period. I posted the link. It is 71 for either wobble but since they sum to only 1 period, the period is 57.2 years. A normal life span. We see the climate change in a normal lifetime and all humans see it and all have. Also your calculation needs .98 day or some other tweek to get away from calendar day.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.
Yes, every 57 years, we need new sky charts, also.The date of the equinoxes doesn't change. This is not a calendar effect.
What does change is the location of the equinoctial points: where the ecliptic crosses the celestial equator. They regress a full phase (360 degrees) in the 26-kY cycle. Thus star maps are comprehensively updated every 50 years ... the celestial poles and equator move relative to the invariant ecliptic.
So it's a change in the sidereal year rather than calender year (tropical) and does not change solstice date on earth[/FONT][/COLOR]
and no, you are reading that wrong, the equinoxes (and the solstices which are linked to them) budge over one day every ~71 years.
Cool story bro/ epic back peddling...Hey rabbbit, a hint. We are talking about Sidereal Real Time, not calendar time, we made up.