Replies

“Climate change, climate change, we’re all going to die!”

Not a single word in the article about the Earth’s precession or about continental drift. The continents today are in different positions on the surface of the Earth then they were then. The Earth was at a different angle with respect to the sun, so the combination of the land masses in question being higher up towards the equator and the Earth being tilted so that it received more sunlight there are not even alluded to. Also, the Earth tends to move in its orbit and may have been closer to the sun at that time. In addition to that, the ocean’s currents have a huge effect on the climate. (The Earth is technically in an ice age right now. What’s keeping Europe warm is the Gulf Stream. A time may come when we are all ordered to drive diesel cars and we’ll all be burning coal to get more CO2 in the air because the “HOW DARE YOU!” jerk girl in Sweden is freezing her a$$ off.)

Yet another article with no context, only an agenda.

Yep, they never ever address the big yellow elephant in the room much less earth’s relative position to that big yellow elephant.

That would leave them with too many inconvenient truths and unanswered questions.

The last interglacial period was warmer than the current one according to oxygen isotope ratio studies done on air trapped in ice cores. In fact, the Greenland ice cap mostly melted.

The continents have drifted in the last 125K years, but I doubt to the extent it would have much of an influence on climate.

Some say the gravitational influence on earth's orbit by Jupiter and Saturn have caused the ice ages, as the 100,000 year cycle caused by this effect is similar to the ice age cycle. However, there are issues with this theory. Another theory is resonant solar diffusion waves, but I haven't seen any more mention of it other than the original paper.

The current interglacial period has last longer than those previous, but I'm not certain why we are technically in an ice age. What defines the transition?

The Earth was at a different angle with respect to the sun, so the combination of the land masses in question being higher up towards the equator and the Earth being tilted so that it received more sunlight there are not even alluded to.

Your observations are incorrect and/or misleading for several reasons.

NOTE: The article is about the Arctic (i.e., everything above latitude 66.5° N.), which is not entirely without land. (Another poster mistakenly lamented that the Arctic was nothing but open sea.)

The article is about the Arctic climate as it may have been 125,000 years ago - continental drift plays no role over such short periods of time.

The Earth was not at a different angle. 125,000 years ago, it was tilted at 23.5°, just like today. The precession of the axis (which completes one cycle in 26,000 years) does not alter the value of this tilt - only the direction, as a consequence of which the equinox shifts, i.e., seasons (summer/winter/etc.) are shifted in time. No effect on the Earth's climate per se.

Your remarks about Earth's orbit not being constant are not incorrect.

Regards,