The rest of mainstream science believes that orbital cycles are responsible for ocean currents? Really?
To some extent, but the primary point, as you well know, is that mainstream science is quite convinced that Milankovitch Cycle forcings are responsible for the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 2.58 million years. Did it ever occur to you that you'd have had more luck if you'd used your landmass configuration argument but over a large enough time span that it might actually work? I kept waiting for you to make that connection but it never came.
Why do I need qualifications to post technical papers explaining ocean currents and their impact to climate?
Because you are attempting to claim that changing ocean currents are responsible for our glacial-interglacial cycles and nothing you have posted or linked provides a shred of support for that claim.
In both of those studies, you've gotten the cart before the horse. Both discuss how climate changes altered ocean currents.
In other words, changing ocean currents are responsible for warming trends and cooling trends up to and including triggering glacial and interglacial periods.
Feel free, as I have invited you twice before, to provide quotations from these or other works actually supporting your contentions, because I have yet to see a shred of it.
Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty increased after the ice age (bipolar glaciation) began 3 million years ago and it is due to the planet's unique landmass distribution and changing ocean currents which is driven by uneven heating of the oceans.
Allow me to repeat what I said up above. Perhaps you should be thinking about landmass configuration as a large factor in the progress of ice ages, vice glacial-interglacial cycles. Go look up the factors that started the Quaternary and see what you find.
 
To some extent, but the primary point, as you well know, is that mainstream science is quite convinced that Milankovitch Cycle forcings are responsible for the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 2.58 million years. Did it ever occur to you that you'd have had more luck if you'd used your landmass configuration argument but over a large enough time span that it might actually work? I kept waiting for you to make that connection but it never came.

Because you are attempting to claim that changing ocean currents are responsible for our glacial-interglacial cycles and nothing you have posted or linked provides a shred of support for that claim.

In both of those studies, you've gotten the cart before the horse. Both discuss how climate changes altered ocean currents.

Feel free, as I have invited you twice before, to provide quotations from these or other works actually supporting your contentions, because I have yet to see a shred of it.

Allow me to repeat what I said up above. Perhaps you should be thinking about landmass configuration as a large factor in the progress of ice ages, vice glacial-interglacial cycles. Go look up the factors that started the Quaternary and see what you find.
Mainstream science should show their math or at least explain the mechanism for how orbital cycles trigger glacial and interglacial periods. Because it's quite obvious the planet's climate is being driven by ocean currents as that's where the heat is stored.

1722017535281.png
 
Mainstream science should show their math or at least explain the mechanism for how orbital cycles trigger glacial and interglacial periods. Because it's quite obvious the planet's climate is being driven by ocean currents as that's where the heat is stored.
Do you actually think they don't?
 
Why, if the oceans are "warming," is the record decade for canes still the 1940s???
 

Forum List

Back
Top