Leif, are you referring to Milankovich cycles here, or
some other orbital changes?
Not exact matches
That phase difference from one side of the tip to the
other makes the current running through the tip sensitive to
changes in the phase of the
orbital of the molecule below, too.
Holman says the
changes in the transit times of these planets were enhanced by the fact that one of the planets orbits the star in almost exactly half of the time that it takes the
other, as such «
orbital resonances» increase their gravitational interaction.
This may help explain some of the
changes that are not explained by the
orbital curves in the
other thread, especially the initiation of warming and cooling since the GCR effects can be much more powerful (partly forcing as postulated in the paper, but also amplification of the weaker
orbital forcing).
Starting from the Earth's
orbital speed of 30 kilometers per second (km / s), the
change in velocity (delta - v) the spacecraft must make to enter into a Hohmann transfer orbit that passes near Mercury is large compared to
other planetary missions.
[25] Furthermore,
other small
changes also occur with the binary star's
orbital elements.
In
other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to
other influences such as solar irradiance,
orbital changes, and volcanic emissions.
Some
other forcings have a very small global radiative forcing and yet lead to large impacts (
orbital changes for instance) through components of the climate that aren't included in the default set - up.
They are not tuned to trends, events (such as Pinatubo), paleo - climates (6kyr BP, LGM, 8.2 kyr event, D / O events, the PETM, the Maunder Minimum or the Eocene),
other forcings (solar,
orbital etc.)-- thus every match to those climate
changes is «out of sample» in the sense you mean.
[Response: Just to be very clear, «
orbital factors» aren't going to
change on anything
other than, well...
orbital timescales.
Increasing CO2 does increase the greenhouse effect, but there are
other factors which determine climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, albedo,
orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents,
changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts.
In the past,
orbital forcing's, solar
changes and
other things have been the big drivers.
We note that there are many reasons why the climate
changes — the sun, clouds, oceans, the
orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad of
other inputs.
Carbon dioxide may in fact have very little effect as a control variable in pushing climate to shift state — a small
change lost amidst multiple
other factors of which clouds, ice, UV and
orbital irregularities are the obvious candidates.
The conditions of this
orbital climate forcing are similar to those of today's interglacial period1, 2, and they rendered the climate susceptible to
other forcing — for example, to
changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
This is true despite the fact that causality can also operate in the opposite direction when the temperature
changes first in response to some
other influence such as
orbital forcing.
The current understanding of those cycles is that
changes in
orbital parameters (the Milankovich and
other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere.
The
other source is the nonlinear planetary response to
changing solar and
orbital factors.
We know how the planets behave in relation to the sun and to each
other today, but venturing millions or billions of years into the past, it can be tricky to figure out what
orbital changes may have impacted the Earth's climate.
This may help explain some of the
changes that are not explained by the
orbital curves in the
other thread, especially the initiation of warming and cooling since the GCR effects can be much more powerful (partly forcing as postulated in the paper, but also amplification of the weaker
orbital forcing).