Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013
- Thread starter tryingtogrow89
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm sure james lawrence powell does.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yes, the precession moves at a rate of One Day forward, per ~71 years.
at 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.
this effect was observed by ancient stargazers and has been a figure in astrology as well as astronomy for centuries, but only recently has the precession become important to Geology, Climatology, and Paleontology, based on the Precession's apparent influence on the Glacial Cycle.
ginja is being deliberately obtuse, pretending he has no idea what im talking about, while doer is feverishly looking for why his timeline of the precession is so far off from mine (admittedly simplified) wikipedia's (strangely close to mine, lol, imprecision on wikipedia??? NEVER I SAY, NEVER!) and Nasa's which you cited (who rounded up rather vigorously...)
again i say, the precession does not CAUSE glaciation, but it is caused by the things which ALSO cause glaciation, and thats the Milankovic cycle.
Ginja is attempting to erect a strawman whereby my assertion that Doer's 57 year timeline for the precession was in error somehow equates to the Precession of the Equinoxes being the crux of my assertion that we are in an Inter-Glalacial Period which is, by it's very nature, a WARMING TREND and will remain so for some time, getting warmer and warmer until eventually it will begin getting cooler and cooler over MILLENNIA!
Ginja pretends this idea is somehow Insane, and a figment of my own fevered imagination. however it is not insane, it is well understood, and the only thing left open to debate is:
How Much Longer Will It Stay Warm?
How Much Warmer Will It Get?
How Much Warming Is Human Action Causing?
even though i have stated this all before, he still winds up back in Never Never Land, where im insisting something else, which he just happens to have all the answers for, and he fully understands what im talking about, so i should just shut up already.
and then he makes it quite clear that he has NO CLUE what im talking about, he DOES NOT understand the principles at question, and none of his glib retorts in any way responds to my actual assertions.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
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[h=2][/h]
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
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!
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
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!
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)
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
oh sweet motherfucking mohammed on a skateboard.
the stellar year allows the precession to be observed in shorter timeframes than millenia.
your ignorance continues unabated. and yes, the dates of the sosltices and equinoxes ARE changing, just slowly, and in respect to perahelion and aphelion, which is what causes the glaciations in the first place.
when the summer solstice occurs at perahelion (the farthest point of the eliptic from the sun resulting in less solar radiation), the northern hemisphere has cooler summers, as a DIRECT RESULT, northern hemisphere winters are at Aphelion (the nearest point to the sun, thus MORE solar radiation) resulting in warmer winters.
as of right now, the northern hemisphere winter solstice is APPROACHING Aphelion, but has not yet reached it. as a result, the current trend in Interglacial warming should continue regardless of human involvement, until the precession reaches maximum, and begins the long slow climb back down into a new glacial age.
if climate wizards are so certain that your simplistic beliefs are correct, then why do some scientists argue the Holocene has a lot more warming to come according to these researcher's asertions:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/25/m...limate-change/
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5585/1287.summary
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/21/5/831.abstract
http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/i...nient-graphic/
and according to this here model:
http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwi...arthorbit.html
predicting warming for the future is a sure bet, just like This stunning new prediction...
"Over the next 6-7 months there will be a gradual cooling of the northern hemisphere, as well as an overall lengthening of the night, and shortening of the daylight hours."
if you ask 10 scientists they will say Yep, thats probably gonna happen.
this does not mean they agree with the second, Causal clause of my prediction:
"This evil will come upon us because the people have been neglecting the shrines of their ancestors, and i have not been receiving enough Blow jobs!"
but by dint of not mentioning the causal details of my prediction, i am free to imply consensus regarding my Causal Clause...
that "consensus" of scientists alll agreeing "global warming is real" do NOT all agree as to what is causing it, how much is caused by man or even how much longer the current warming trend will last.
shit you spent half this thread trying to argue that there IS no overall natural warming trend, and now youre trying to whitewash it by claiming im worshiping the "God of the gaps"
how many times have i said "How Much" ?
you have no answer because Skeptical Science hasnt provided you with one, leaving you all alone out here in the wilderness.
NOBODY KNOWS, so the assertion that "It's All Anthropogenic" is a flat out LIE, and thats what you have been selling.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
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
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
put your crayolas away.
you still clearly do not believe that glacial cycles exist, because THATS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN SELLING.
you spent some 30 pages demanding "proof" that the precession actually happend, and now you are trying to imply it is only a flaw in an obsolete calendar used mainly for astrological charts, when in fact is it clearly illustrated that the Precession occurs, even when our calendar does not recognize it.
you mumble claims of "Not Disbelieving" in the glacial cycle, and then spray blood and feces form every orifice when it is mentioned as a cause of at least SOME of the current warming, or anyone dares mention the warming trend which has been ongoing for some 11000 years.
you simply wish this man were made of straw, but you seem frustrated by your inability to knock it down.
perhaps you should call for Sancho to bring your lance and helmet. this windmill seems to be kicking your ass.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Just a butt troll. He makes conjectures of un-referenced stupidity, pretends 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 get the bs started.
Another Highlowputz.
Worthless. And just trying to get the bs started.
Another Highlowputz.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
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.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
I decided to start reading some of the 24 critical papers from Buck's cryptic link...
I noticed Baliunas' paper was in there... and it was kind of strange... 1991-1993 had a handful of papers... then they seem to disappear until 2003 with the bulk coming post-2005...
Anyway, the first paper that caught my eye was the one with the most citations (17)...
Scafetta, N. (2010), Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 72(13), 951-970
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610001495
It doesn't deny man's influence, but he introduces several extraterrestrial periodic forcings which dampen the weighting of AGW's effect...
But what I thought most useful, to the layman (and laidwoman), is the analogy he uses to describe how Jupiter can have tidal influences on the Sun which, in turn, has an influence on our climate's cycles.
[video=youtube;Aaxw4zbULMs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaxw4zbULMs[/video]
It may seem like an obvious phenomenon, but stoned people are stoned...
I noticed Baliunas' paper was in there... and it was kind of strange... 1991-1993 had a handful of papers... then they seem to disappear until 2003 with the bulk coming post-2005...
Anyway, the first paper that caught my eye was the one with the most citations (17)...
Scafetta, N. (2010), Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 72(13), 951-970
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610001495
It doesn't deny man's influence, but he introduces several extraterrestrial periodic forcings which dampen the weighting of AGW's effect...
But what I thought most useful, to the layman (and laidwoman), is the analogy he uses to describe how Jupiter can have tidal influences on the Sun which, in turn, has an influence on our climate's cycles.
[video=youtube;Aaxw4zbULMs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaxw4zbULMs[/video]
It may seem like an obvious phenomenon, but stoned people are stoned...
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
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.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
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...
despite new research that shows (as cited) that the Holocene Warm Period may continue for as much as 50,000 yeas more, unless CO2 and methane levels drop well below pre-industrial age norms.
you may enjoy this toy:
http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwi...arthorbit.html
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
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 claim
That you chose to try covering up your bullshit claim with page after page that did not support your bullshit claim is nothing to do with me or my knowledge of anything....
You were wrong. man the fuck up and stop blaming me for exposing it
Doer
Well-Known Member
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.
Hey rabbbit, a hint. We are talking about Sidereal Real Time, not calendar time, we made up.
And there are many instances of commercialization of FEAR.
I am stoned all day, everyday. This stuff must not work on some people.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Yes, every 57 years, we need new sky charts, also.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Cool story bro/ epic back peddling...
Need your posts dragging out from the last 30pages?