For those who are interested, Jupiter has a major affect on Earth's Ice Age climates. Also precession and angle, but Jupiter dominates. For those who are link challenged:
The gravitational force exerted by Jupiter causes the Earth's orbit to vary from nearly circular with an eccentricity of 0.005 to quite elliptical with an eccentricity of 0.06. Currently, we enjoy an eccentricity of 0.0174, nearly its minimum. There is only a 3% difference in the distance to the sun at perihelion and aphelion.
When eccentricity is maximized, there is almost a 12% difference. Eccentricity has two periods, one of 100,000 years that corresponds with the twenty glacial-interglacial cycles seen in Pleistocene sediments, and one of 400,000 years.
When the Earth's orbit is highly elliptical, either the northern or southern hemisphere basks in very hot summers and freezes in very cold winters while the opposite hemisphere experiences cool summers and warm winters. Since the sun emits radiation in all directions, Lowrie (1997) explains that "At a distance r [the sun] floods a sphere with surface area of 4(pi)r2. Thus, solar insolation decreases as the inverse square of the distance." Because of this, there can be up to a 30% difference in the amount of solar radiation the Earth receives between perihelion and aphelion.
formatting link
If Milankovic was right, we should be able to see a pattern of past glaciations followed by deglaciation. Looking at sediment cores for the Pleistocene epoch, we find that the temperature cools by four to ten degrees every 40,000 to 100,000 years and then warms back up again.
This is good news for Milankovic, but there are two problems.
hemisphere, they're not favorable for one in the southern hemisphere. How could the Milankovitch Cycles cause a global change in climate then?
of 1 to 2. How is it possible then that sediment records show temperature differences of 7 to 10?
Currently, scientists believe that once an ice age has been triggered, oceanic circulation currents can change and the mixing of the oceans cools the southern hemisphere. As glaciers begin to accumulate in the northern hemisphere, solar heat is reflected off the snow which leads to further cooling.
Another theory is that the 100,000 year periodicity we see is the addition of the precession and obliquity cycles and not the eccentricity cycle at all.
Schroedinger's Denialist: the Earth's climate is chaotic and wildly unpredictable, we can't even predict what the weather will be in two weeks, how could we possibly know what the climate will be like in 50 years?
However supposing there were to be any kind of changes with negative consequences it could all be neatly explained via a 3% deviation in the Earth's eccentricity due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter which occurs with clockwork regularity.
This actually supports some of my claims in the AGW debates. However, they offhandedly shrugged off the Milankovic cycles as insignificant. They are w ell trained.
In your post they state that those cycles can only result in 1 or 2 degrees change, but that is inadvertently rebutted by the AGW hawks when they clai m that warming is mostly AGW. I think they do have a point here, if whoever said 1 to 2 degrees only counts the radiation received directly from the s un. But this does affect CO2 levels which is a sort of positive feedback.
Mind you that I am not an AGW denier, I argue the severity of the effect an d the degree to which it is actually anthropogeniic. I also argue that ther e is currently nothing we can do about it without totally destroying the ec onomy. Look at carbon credits, all they did was to create a new marketplace . They are traded like pork belies. The government can tax all it wants but if people want the product they will just pay it and the government will h ave more money to play with, and this includes mobilization of the war mach ine which is more deleterious in effect to the environment than any other f actor. As they push for you and I to pay $ 70,000 we don't have for EVs and reduce, reuse and whatever, do they even think of using their jets a bit l ess ? Of calling in some of the Men we have all over the world for no good reason but to keep up the appearance of strength for governments they prop up ? For war games ? And are they going to tell us that underground nuclear testing didn't have a significant effect ? Doing that created giant subwoo fers which MUST have some effect on weather and probably climate. Though I can't attest to the scope and severity of this effect, I can assert that it definitely exists. You would have to go alot farther than to be an AGW den ier who claims we can burn all this shit and not warm the place up, to deny the effects of shaking the air in such a way. My subwoofer will shake tool s and utensils right off a table and it is only fed with less than 100 watt s RMS. So a nuclear blast moving such a large area of ground ? Look at the science of a subwoofer, a 15" is capable of moving approximately twice the air of a 12" at the same cone excursion. Now multiply that by ???
For example I am not a holocaust denier, but I do have a problem with the n umber of 6 million. There is quite a bit of evidence that indicates that th e number is unrealistic. Mind you that does not make it alright, if it was "only" 2 million that would be OK ? Nope. But mind you those figures were m ostly supplied by the Soviets who were oh so trustworthy and caught in othe r lies.
In the same light, all these predictions about AGW and what will happen are just that - predictions. And they don't agree. So which ones are wrong and which one is right ? There is no way possible that they can guarantee that every significant factor has been included and given the proper weight in their calculations. It is like trying to design an amp without knowing at l east one of the major variables in Ohm's law. It is practically impossible. How many amps flow through one ohm with one volt applied ? Well it could b e 0.7, or 1.1 or 2 or .55 or... see what I mean ?
Trump is right. I don't care the reason, he may deny AGW and probably does because he just ain't that smart. But he is right not to further cripple th e economy with international regulations that other countries will most lik ely break anyway and will require the deployment of a new agency like the I AEC to assure compliance. What's more that the US is the richest country in the world is a myth.
They cite GDP per person. Well first of all much of that figure is paper mo ney. Second of all most of that per person is concentrated in the hands of a few persons. The rest of us do not spend $ 70,000 on a car. The rest of u s also don't jump in a jet on a whim. Look more at the median income and in come discrepancy to see how really false that myth is. The fact is we simpl y can't afford this bullshit.
And no matter the GDP, not having the means of production in country makes us vulnerable. We have to buy rockets from Russia because we can't make the m here. This, the one country to put a Man on the moon. And don't deny it, back then there were many telescopes, so many in fact that it would have co st more to fake it than to actually do it. But the fact is that we just can 't survive without imports. There were always imports but never have we bee n so dependent upon them for so many things. Even military weapons parts, a nd I am not talking about a few Molex connectors here.
At any rate, when my Grandfather taught someone how to drive he said "When in doubt, stop". Well apply that here, if you don't know what the f*ck you' re doing, don't do it. Go ahead and spend all the money on inadequate techn ology to cleanup the environment and abate these problems, and then when mo re able technology becomes available we won't be able to afford it. And mor e credit is no good, we are just about maxed out. The US' credit rating has already been downgraded, and debt service is becoming significant. Look it up. If we were more self sufficient this would not be so serious, but it i t is because we aren't.
The world seems to always look for an easy way out but it is obviously we d o not know enough to apply an effective, viable solution at this time.
On 04/03/2018 06:10 PM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
his actually supports some of my claims in the AGW deb ates. However, they offhandedly shrugged off the Milan kovic cycles as insignificant. They are well trained.
nly result in 1 or 2 degrees change, but that is inadv ertently rebutted by the AGW hawks when they claim tha t warming is mostly AGW. I think they do have a point here, if whoever said 1 to 2 degrees only counts the r adiation received directly from the sun. But this does affect CO2 levels which is a sort of positive feedbac k.
e the severity of the effect and the degree to which i t is actually anthropogeniic. I also argue that there is currently nothing we can do about it without totall y destroying the economy. Look at carbon credits, all they did was to create a new marketplace. They are tra ded like pork belies. The government can tax all it wa nts but if people want the product they will just pay it and the government will have more money to play wit h, and this includes mobilization of the war machine w hich is more deleterious in effect to the environment than any other factor. As they push for you and I to p ay $ 70,000 we don't have for EVs and reduce, reuse an d whatever, do they even think of using their jets a b it less ? Of calling in some of the Men we have all ov er the world for no good reason but to keep up the app earance of strength for governments they prop up ? For war games ? And are they going to tell us that underg round nuclear testing didn't have a significant effect ? Doing that created giant subwoofers which MUST have some effect on weather and probably climate. Though I can't attest to the scope and severity of this effect , I can assert that it definitely exists. You would ha ve to go alot farther than to be an AGW denier who cla ims we can burn all this shit and not warm the place u p, to deny the effects of shaking the air in such a wa y. My subwoofer will shake tools and utensils right of f a table and it is only fed with less than 100 watts RMS. So a nuclear blast moving such a large area of gr ound ? Look at the science of a subwoofer, a 15" is ca pable of moving approximately twice the air of a 12" a t the same cone excursion. Now multiply that by ???
have a problem with the number of 6 million. There is quite a bit of evidence that indicates that the numbe r is unrealistic. Mind you that does not make it alrig ht, if it was "only" 2 million that would be OK ? Nope . But mind you those figures were mostly supplied by t he Soviets who were oh so trustworthy and caught in ot her lies.
ons about AGW and what will happen are just that - pre dictions. And they don't agree. So which ones are wron g and which one is right ? There is no way possible th at they can guarantee that every significant factor ha s been included and given the proper weight in their c alculations. It is like trying to design an amp withou t knowing at least one of the major variables in Ohm's law. It is practically impossible. How many amps flow through one ohm with one volt applied ? Well it could be 0.7, or 1.1 or 2 or .55 or... see what I mean ?
eny AGW and probably does because he just ain't that s mart. But he is right not to further cripple the econo my with international regulations that other countries will most likely break anyway and will require the de ployment of a new agency like the IAEC to assure compl iance. What's more that the US is the richest country in the world is a myth.
n. Well first of all much of that figure is paper mone y. Second of all most of that per person is concentrat ed in the hands of a few persons. The rest of us do no t spend $ 70,000 on a car. The rest of us also don't j ump in a jet on a whim. Look more at the median income and income discrepancy to see how really false that m yth is. The fact is we simply can't afford this bullsh it.
of production in country makes us vulnerable. We have to buy rockets from Russia because we can't make them here. This, the one country to put a Man on the moon. And don't deny it, back then there were many telescop es, so many in fact that it would have cost more to fa ke it than to actually do it. But the fact is that we just can't survive without imports. There were always imports but never have we been so dependent upon them for so many things. Even military weapons parts, and I am not talking about a few Molex connectors here.
w to drive he said "When in doubt, stop". Well apply t hat here, if you don't know what the f*ck you're doing , don't do it. Go ahead and spend all the money on ina dequate technology to cleanup the environment and abat e these problems, and then when more able technology b ecomes available we won't be able to afford it. And mo re credit is no good, we are just about maxed out. The US' credit rating has already been downgraded, and de bt service is becoming significant. Look it up. If we were more self sufficient this would not be so serious , but it it is because we aren't.
ms to always look for an easy way out but it is obviou sly we do not know enough to apply an effective, viabl e solution at this time.
rush in...
Electric vehicles and nuclear power are a reasonable compromise for me. I think that co mbination can win on economic arguments alone, it cost s me 50 cents worth of electricity to "fill" my tank overnight and get two full days worth of driving.
One must compromise somewhere, and solar and wind po wer just aren't there yet. Fair enough. I'd prefer t hey keep Pilgrim Nuclear open but it seems it's goin g to be shut down. I think that's a bad call, just don 't hire drunks to run the place. If the Trump admini stration wanted to nationalize some of the more poor ly run active plants as resources vital to national security I wouldn't complain.
I have heard that the normal operating costs are now within reason, in fact favorable. The remaining issues are initial cost and the cost and environmental impact of replacing the batteries.
There's a button on the center console that switches between operating modes. "Normal" mode the Volt drives like a somewhat peppier Prius.
"Sport" mode remaps the pedal and rejiggers some things in the software that makes it a rocket; on pure battery power pedal to the floor the digital power gauge on the dash pretty much instantly jumps to 105 kW, with something like 350 foot-lbs of torque at a dead stop. On the stock tires if the pavement is even slightly wet, with the traction control off the wheels will spin out from under you if you do that, around and around going nowhere, like an RC car. Skreeeeeerrrrp!
It's not a pure electric though and the battery isn't huge, around 14 kW/hr, so a charge won't last long if you blast off the line at every light!
The redesign for generation 2 made it look a little more pedestrian like a Kia Forte; if I were a younger man it would be hilarious to smoke the hoodlums who sit next to you at the stop light in their Honda with the tinted windows and wing on the back acting like they're hot shit. Ha, destroyed by a electric greenie family hatchback!
I don't do that sort of thing, though. Okay only a couple times.
So just as some of us warned, it's all a *massive* scam to f*ck us over with sky-high taxes!
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Sadly for Cursitor Doom's hopes, all Steve Wilson was doing was telling us about the well-known Milankovitch Effect, which explains the timing of ice ages, but isn't anywhere big enough - on it's own - to explain the difference between glacials (atmospheric CO2 levels about 180 ppm) and interglacials (like the one going on at the moment) where the atmospheric CO2 level is typically 270 ppm.
The difference in CO2 level explains almost half the difference, and reduced sunlight absorbtion by the ice sheets covering the northern parts of the northern hemisphere during ice ages explains most of the rest.
Pushing CO2 levels up to 407 ppm does add even more warming, and melting the Greenland ice sheet would do even more.
Taxing carbon being burnt as fuel would discourage pushing the atmospheric CO2 level up even further, which does make sense to people with more sense than Cursitor Doom (a large majority). Politicians may well try to exploit it to scam the rest of the population, but we can vote them out when we catch them at it.
It is mainly the Jupiter & Saturn giant planet pair. A semi analytic solution due to Laplace-Lagrange perturbation theory which is good for a million years either way from present is online at Texas University:
formatting link
Outside that range the chaotic components of solar system stability require a full numerical treatment to avoid errors accumulating. VSOP87 is the result of fitting elements to one such numerical integration.
Although true this is a very misleading way of describing it. What matters is the average annual total insolation and where it lands on the planet. If it snows hard in the northern hemisphere ice slowly builds up on the solid land and reflects sunlight. If it snows hard in the southern hemisphere most of it lands in the oceans and quickly melts.
It may be 30% more sunlight at perihelion but it is also moving faster and spends a correspondingly long time further away getting less light at aphelion. The annual average doesn't change by anything like as much but the places which see the strongest sunshine do.
Indiana University has a better page on the core components of the Milankovitch cycles and note the yellow highlighter pen:
formatting link
The climate system has some gain in it when faced with an external forcing despite what the AGW deniers would have you believe.
So long as the system gain is less than 4 it is unconditionally stable.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.