- #1
Mammo
- 208
- 0
I was slightly exasperated with this http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5486/1897 report:
"It is difficult to explain this predominant cycle in terms of orbital eccentricity because the 100,000-year radiation cycle (arising from eccentricity variations) is much too small in amplitude and too late in phase to produce the corresponding climatic cycle by direct forcing"
Why isn't the tidal cycle due to eccentricity variations given due consideration? The http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/1800yrTidalCycleForcingAbruptClimateChange.pdf give the tidal explanation much credibility. I further propose that the tidal variation could be amplified due to the effect of gravitational entropy (this is a subtle proposal which links the Earth science mysteries with those of modern physics). All of the major components of the system discussed are affected by tidal forces i.e. deep-sea temperature, the CO2 cycle, and the Dole effect. So why it is so blatantly ignored?
"It is difficult to explain this predominant cycle in terms of orbital eccentricity because the 100,000-year radiation cycle (arising from eccentricity variations) is much too small in amplitude and too late in phase to produce the corresponding climatic cycle by direct forcing"
Why isn't the tidal cycle due to eccentricity variations given due consideration? The http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/1800yrTidalCycleForcingAbruptClimateChange.pdf give the tidal explanation much credibility. I further propose that the tidal variation could be amplified due to the effect of gravitational entropy (this is a subtle proposal which links the Earth science mysteries with those of modern physics). All of the major components of the system discussed are affected by tidal forces i.e. deep-sea temperature, the CO2 cycle, and the Dole effect. So why it is so blatantly ignored?
Last edited by a moderator: