Posted on 01/27/2017 1:15:36 AM PST by zeestephen
Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch identified three different recurring changes in Earth’s orbital pattern. Each of these Milankovitch Cycles can influence the amount of sunlight the planet receives...this new study shows the mechanism through which the 100,000-year cycle and the 21,000-year cycle work together to drive Earth’s glacial cycle.
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
As they taught in elementary school 50 years ago, the most important cycle is that of the sun spots.
The 41,000 year cycle deals with the tilt of the Earth’s axis.
It swings between 22 degrees and 25 degrees.
It is currently at 23 degrees.
But the author fails to tell us if it is increasing or decreasing.
The sun affects temperature on Earth? That’s crazy anti-science talk.
WIKIPEDIA:
Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 11,800 CE ; the last maximum was reached in 8,700 BCE. This trend in forcing, by itself, tends to make winters warmer and summers colder (i.e. milder seasons), as well as cause an overall cooling trend. . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
But for glacial and inter-glacial periods, the Earth's tilt and elliptical solar orbit appear to be the decisive factors.
Exactly, what are the prediction dates? When should the next ice age happen according to this theory?
Don’t buy any green bananas. Just sayin’.
Good post.
I like this article and have been stating this and other sentiments as well.
You see I believe the internally created heat (in the earth) has never been adequately addressed.
A simple point is ‘core temp unknown’. The predications have been made, for the most part increased over time, with the most recent being around 2013 when the core temp estimates were roughly increased from 5,000c to 6,000c (rnd).(keeping in mind accepted est. around no more then 50 yrs olds)
I get the ‘feeling’ normal decay is inadequate alone to explain heat.
Now if our ability to estimate the core temperature over time has been somewhat accurate then; a change of over 1,000 degrees C upwards, over about the last 25 yrs, would probably indicate a problem substantially larger then the hypothetical and delusional concepts of
‘AGW/ACC/Awhatever’ climate change.
And guess what, if the tectonic plates start moving just a little bit faster, then we can talk about some real climate changes and not a damn thing we can do about.
Earthquakes and Volcanoes; just had an idea for new video game.
If you read the IPCC reports they mention volcanoes and the sun...and then quickly go back to CO2. And they call us “anti-science”.
You’re ONLY COMPUTER MODELS effect the earth’s temperature!
I can tell you.
We’re due to enter a new glaciation period some time in the next 100 years. We’re technically overdue.
Also: the earth has been in an ice age for millions of years - ever since Antarctica moved to the south pole. We are just between glaciation periods right now.
That is not important. The important thing is that you send money to ALgore's Church of Global Warming as soon as possible.
Collections have been down since November.
I agree. I don't even think all the possible things affecting the internal temp. have been elucidated. I know of 1) residual heat of formation, 2) radioisotope decay, and 3) gravitational. But I suspect that there are also electrodynamic effects caused by interactions of the sun's magnetic field and the solar wind with the earths molten core (the earth is a conductor moving in the sun's magnetic field).
bmfl
Unfortunately, the author does not explain at what point in each cycle the Earth is currently in.
...
That’s because he had to include a CO2 scare in order to secure more funding and keep his job.
Other than that the theory seems like a very good one, and makes me wonder why somebody didn’t see it sooner.
There's the rub. What would it take to move it? (LOL)
Or, would just blowing up the part above sea level, or at least cutting large channels through it, fix the problem? The dinosaurs didn't have to freeze their nutz off.
Yes. Sometimes finding that one piece of evidence that provides absolute proof of a theorem, is like trying to find a specific needle in a ‘haystack’ of needles. Such as humanity’s impact on the global system in it’s entirety. A worthless and futile search, right now.
On a side note: I believe our focus should be bigger and the goal is to be free of the planet, I mean would it not be ironic to achieve environmental harmony, just to be wiped out by a comet or something.
I found this one modelers work on water vapor, among other things, and you will never see it in public. I was able to copy parts of it, still long and I do not have author’s name so I do not know who to give credit to. But I will send if asked.
The ‘climate change bogeymen’ picked CO2 because of a tenuous connection to the supposed wealthy. Ok, an over-simplification. But you get it.
And yes recent geologic events suggest that something more is going on, then this mythological AGW/ACC etc crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.