re: Biden tapping Bill Nye the 'not really a' science guy

quote:

---

You probably remember "the pause" since your argument probably shifted from "it's not warming" to "the temperature record is not accurate" around about the time "the pause" ended.

---

quote:

---

You can't explain how even *one* thing I said was inaccurate though, can you? That's ... interesting.

---

Yes I can...

You made the statement that 'orbital cycles' are causing climate change.

Even those with knowledge of the Milankovitch cycles say that there has been no effect from the wobbling variations of the earth's spin and the variation in its solar orbit FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 10,000 YEARS... This is what engineering analysts refer to as infinitesimally negligible.

Doesn't meet the needs of your fellow communists or the Bill Nye issue... gotta shut down schidt FAR earlier for your 'reset' totalitarian agenda. [you do know that is why they make people like yourself stupid, no?]

The climate and earths temperature range DOES depend on the amount of solar radiation that reaches earth.

Your orbital suggestion is moot in this event, this process - and even at its extremes remains moot until the orbit goes terminal for the whole planet billions of years from now.

In the meantime, we have to realize that the sun's biggest radiation input, its only considerable input ever until solar doomsday, is the VARIATIONS of SOLAR RADIATION from the star itself.. Sun spots, pockets of nuclear fusion with its variations, flares, solar corona expulsion events, potential events about which we don't currently know about. Not earth orbit.

If you want to go with orbital cycling, you are going to have a few hundred thousand years or so minimum for even a flutter of increase or decrease [of which BOTH you likely already give no chance anyway since your politics only allows one of those choices until Bill Nye says otherwise on his Saturday morning TV show].

and you call others obtuse

I was responding to the entirety of what you had been posting. Your middle school level response in noted.

Again, you know NOTHING about which you post.

Seriously, you are being seen as a charlatan, or developmentally challenged.. You may want to tell whoever is running your alter to back off because it is THEM who is being seen in the same way.

quote:

---

I was responding to the entirety of what you had been posting

---

The "entirety"? Would that mean, like all of it, the whole thing? Because I'm not seeing where you addressed anything I said in the post you were responding to. Maybe we just have different definitions of the word "entirety"?

quote:

---

Seriously, you are being seen as a charlatan, or developmentally challenged

---

OK. Were you gonna say anything meaningful?

quote:

---

Even those with knowledge of the Milankovitch cycles say that there has been no effect from the wobbling variations of the earth's spin and the variation in its solar orbit FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 10,000 YEARS...

---

10,000 years? The shortest Milankovich cycle is around 20,000 years.


I think you meant to say 100,000 years.


Your welcome.

quote:

---

10,000 years? The shortest Milankovich cycle is around 20,000 years.


I think you meant to say 100,000 years.

---

like this:

quote:

---

If you want to go with orbital cycling, you are going to have a few hundred thousand years or so minimum for even a flutter

---

already said it

quote:

---

and even at its extremes remains moot until the orbit goes terminal for the whole planet billions of years from now.

---

I'm sorry, that's just a dumb thing to say

quote:

---

In the meantime, we have to realize that the sun's biggest radiation input, its only considerable input ever until solar doomsday, is the VARIATIONS of SOLAR RADIATION from the star itself.. Sun spots, pockets of nuclear fusion with its variations, flares, solar corona expulsion events, potential events about which we don't currently know about. Not earth orbit.

---

Ok. Sunspots cycle every 11 years, so thats out as far as explaining things that happen over 100000 years. The Suns brightness has increased 30% over the Earth's entire 4.5 billion year history, so in other words, not much over the last 100000. There must be some solar process that has a cycle of order of magnitude within 100000 years, if you're right, wouldn't there be? Can you explain the mechanism for that cycle ?

quote:

---

Shut up dork

---

Drink less.

quote:

---

Right. And if the Neanderthal had telescopes and written language, we might have those observations in hand.

---

Ummm, ok. So you admit there is absolutely no theoretical basis to suppose the Sun has 100,000 year cycles, but you're sure Neanderthals would have observed such a thing, because....then you'd be right ?!?


Sounds legit. Hey I got a good name for these cycles. Let's call them "God".

quote:

---

We do know stellar evolution occurs.

---

The nuclear timescale is of the Sun 10^10 years, The Kelvin Helmholtz timescale is around 3*10^7 years, the magnetosphere has timescales of 11 years and a few hundred, and the dynamical timescale is around 1600 seconds. ***If there is a 100,000 year cycle, what physics could possibly cause it?***

quote:

---

We do know pre-quaternary terrestrial temperatures were far higher than at present, and do not have an obvious relationship with Milankovitch cycles.

---

So you just assume it must be the Sun? What about the gravitational energy converted to heat in the Earth's interior? What about the chemistry of the atmosphere?

quote:

---

When is the last time your man bitch slapped you?

---

Go back to playing with your crayons and glue the grown ups are talking.