Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society
Dear Forum Members,
Over in the poker threads, they have members who blog about their poker experience. I've been wanting
The entire purpose of mentioning Milankovitch Cycles was to explain to laypersons the reasons that Earth has oscillated between ice ages and warm periods and explain the feedback loops in Earth systems which are activated during those oscillations.
Curiously, not a single person in here has commented on either of those things.
Those feedbacks which have been part of Earth's natural history for millions of years are the evidence which supports the new layer of feedback loops which have been initiated by way of man made forcing.
So ..... the primary point of the entire conversation is whether we humans are all going to hell together.
That's relevant to our life choices. That's relevant to our personal concepts of purpose.
The entire purpose of mentioning Milankovitch Cycles was to explain to laypersons the reasons that Earth has oscillated between ice ages and warm periods and explain the feedback loops in Earth systems which are activated during those oscillations. Curiously, not a single person in here has commented on either of those things.Those feedbacks which have been part of Earth's natu
That's not the problem.
This is:
Can you not see the difference between "causes differences in orbit over time" and "caused it to be elliptical"?
I should expand - That's not the problem with people telling you that you have something wrong.
Curiously, not a single person in here has commented on either of those things.
Because no one has an issue with those things. The issue is your understanding of orbital dynamics and the conclusions you draw from that. If your book is ever published, how do you expect anyone to take it seriously if there are easily correctable mistakes in the science. People here are actually trying to help you.
I plugged that NASA quote into my earlier chat with our collective brain and asked where the issue might be. Here's what the Big We thinks:
Here’s what’s likely happening psychologically and semantically:
1. He’s treating “departure” as any deviation from a perfect circle
In his mind:
“If Jupiter and Saturn cause any deviation from circularity, then they caused the departure.”
He’s not distinguishing between:
an intrinsic departure (the orbit’s fundamental ellipticity), and
an induced variation (the oscillation of that ellipticity over time).
So when you say “Earth never had a perfectly circular orbit,” he hears it as hair-splitting — because his brain is anchored to now it’s not circular; something must have made it that way.
2. He’s reading NASA’s “causes the shape to vary” as “causes it to be elliptical”
That wording is unfortunately ambiguous. “Vary from nearly circular to slightly elliptical” sounds like a single causal arc — as if Jupiter and Saturn pulled Earth out of a circle.
NASA is simplifying for a general audience, and he’s interpreting it literally.
3. His discipline shapes how he’s parsing cause
Biologists are used to functional causation — the “why” that explains a current state by reference to a process. So he’s thinking in terms of:
“If the orbit isn’t circular, what mechanism explains that fact?”
He’s not parsing the historical vs dynamical cause the way a physicist would.
Since I didn't mention to We anything about the overall context of the conversation, all things considered gotta lay at least 2:1 Nut Nut has (3) a biology background and the ambiguity in (2) is reinforcing it. Weird. ChatGPT has probably seen hundreds or more of these sort of conversations that are somewhat unique to us to get there. I don't know if that's the issue but (3) never occurred to me.
Aerosol termination shock in the N Pacific.
The green dotted line is an IPCC projection. The IPCC has clearly underestimated how much aerosol pollution had been buffering warming.
One very sad aspect of the present day experience of life in the USA is the comprehensively Machiavellian media.
It's sole function is to distract from the truth of abusive oligarchic privilege and distract people by teaching them to hate each other.
There is really no place for an American to go for a messenger which encourages people to transcend their differences and cooperate toward a common constructive purpose.
The concepts which I attempt to articulate here are forbidden to be considered and subject to an earnest debate based upon relative merits.
If we refuse to discuss the feedback loops which we are engaging and the potential for passing tipping points into a destitute future, how can we hope to avoid them ?
This is what is truly important to the survival of our species. Our ability to adapt to some natural limits which are imposed by a force bigger than ourselves.
Somehow we have arrived at a mass social understanding that serious discussion of this topic is forbidden.
I struggle to come to terms with the dark aspects of the human psyche which are somehow drawn toward the dynamic of a mass purging event.
It's like we are in a state of sickness from an excessive consumption orgy and we need to vomit out this version of humanity.
What would I say to the audience here ...... I feel your hostility to someone who wants to discuss the kraken we're unleashing. The "kill the messenger" energy is strong.
I understand the reluctance ..... when all of our energy is focused upon surviving today , its hard to come to grips that the sum total of everyone doing what they do to survive today results in the inability to survive the future.
We live in a world which largely doesn't offer you a survival path congruent with a sustainably habitable version of Earth. To come to grips with the fact that we are all complicit in our mutual destruction is obviously difficult for many to contemplate.
As far as I'm concerned, you're not here to enlighten anyone. You're here to obfuscate. You can go to hell.
If that's how you want to deal with people who have been trying to have a civil conversation with you ABOUT PHYSICS, then you can too.
And quit playing the persecution card. What this has evolved into has absolutely nothing to do with global warming or physics. And I can show you the exact post where that shift happened. After enduring a bunch of personal insults...
400 years ago it would have taken a scientist. A decent high school student could explain it to you now.
...someone challenged your self-perceived authority, lightly put you back in your place and you went full-blown monkey tilt to re-establish it.
Yours truly,
—Dunning-Kruger
It's so interesting. The social compact which dictates that we not discussion the transition of Earth into a version of itself with which humans have no acquaintaince is verboten.
It's incredible how an attempt at a conversation about a difficult subject is described as full blown monkey tilt.
The Kill The Messenger energy is strong here.
The energy which I am being presented with is entirely persecutorial, no ?
Is there anyone here interested in the substance of the discussion about how the planet is being transformed and what that means for the future of life on Earth ?
Seems like the only thing you all are interested in is a pivot to my personal identity.
I didn't come here to talk about me. I came here to talk about the experience of people who have this planetary transformation dropped in their laps as a result of older generations who squandered something priceless for a short term consumption orgy.
I trigger something in people.
Most people strive to have some sense of control of their destiny. They make a nest with a home, family, friends. They hope to have a job or a bank account which provides them with reasonable assurances that the necessities will be taken care of for the forseeable future.
The idea of a chaotic future with a shrinking social safety net is provocative. For many it's scary and anger flares up in an attempt to keep that emerging truth at bay.
But that fear is abundant .... you see it in Trumpism which wants a big daddy dictator who will take control of everything.
We can do whatever we like .... but we can't control nature's response to that.
Trump and Project 2025 would brand me a terrorist for my anti-capitalist advocacy. His NPSM-7 memo articulates this.
We're wandering into a world where debate is no longer allowed .... and look at how we have become the personal enforcers / censors of a dark age. Silencing anyone trying to break through the din of polarizing distraction and encourage cooperation for the benefit of all.
The energy which I am being presented with is entirely persecutorial, no ? Is there anyone here interested in the substance of the discussion about how the planet is being transformed and what that means for the future of life on Earth ? Seems like the only thing you all are interested in is a pivot to my personal identity. I didn't come here to talk about me. I came here to ta
Going back to the originating post:
Chapter 5: Milankovitch Cycles & Feedback Loops Between Greenhouse Gases & TemperatureIn this chapter, I'll explain WHY the recent version of Earth has gone back and forth between ice ages and interglacials.Sunlight which reaches the Earth's surface is either absorbed or reflected. The amount absorbed is related to the color of the surface where it comes into contact. A dark su
Pretty clear in its outline of ice-age feedbacks. And nobody even disagreed with the greenhouse feedback loop you described, ie the cornerstone of your argument. The only pushback was over a throwaway line about Earth’s orbit “departing” from a circle, an incidental detail that changes absolutely nothing about the climate feedbacks you were explaining.
But instead of “Ah yeah, fair point, the orbit was never perfectly circular to begin with,” you turned a footnote into a crusade and started attacking anyone who challenged you, especially d’adulte. So maybe if you want some respect for the things you do know, try giving it to others who know what they’re talking about.
I mean seriously, if instead of d’adulte making that comment, suppose Neil deGrasse Tyson chimed in and said, “Everything looks really good as a lay summary, except for just a slight correction: Earth’s orbit was never perfectly circular to begin with.” Would you have told him he’s an idiot too, chided him for dropping Newton, told him to go find a scientist to explain it to you, and said, “You’re not here to enlighten anyone. You’re here to obfuscate. You can go to hell”?
Going back to the originating post:Pretty clear in its outline of ice-age feedbacks. And nobody even disagreed with the greenhouse feedback loop you described, ie the cornerstone of your argument. The only pushback was over a throwaway line about Earth’s orbit “departing” from a circle, an incidental detail that changes absolutely nothing about the climate fee
I offered the layperson the reasons behind a departure from an elliptical orbit around as being the gravitational force of other bodies in the solar system. In truth, the overwhelming majority of that departure in the case of the Earth and Sun is indeed from the gravitational impact of other planets.
Is a tiny fraction of that departure in the case of the Earth and Sun likely due to other factors present at the formation of the solar system ? Yes. But that portion of departure is so miniscule that the people at NASA who issue public guidance as to the rationale for the Earth's eccentricity don't find it worthy to mention it.
It's an erudite technicality which is miniscule in impact and irrelevant to the entire point of the discussion. But I acknowledge that it's not zero.
Without those planetary gravitational forces, the Earth's orbit around the sun would be effectively (but not perfectly) circular.
When I offered the NASA explanation of departure from circularity, I was explaining the overwhelming majority of the departure and the other user corrected me saying "that's not how orbital dynamics work" ..... in truth, I was explaining the overwhelming reason for the departure from circularity without including the miniscule erudite contributing factor that the other user was alluding to.
I concede that my original explanation (like NASA's website) excluded that miniscule erudite contributing factor.
Now ..... if we can return to the entire reason for explaining what has occurred regularly in historical Milankovitch Cycle oscillations is a feedback loop system in which warming and GHG releases feed off of each other and temperatures vary by ~ 5C while GHG levels repeatedly double and halve.
If a doubling of GHG levels means the difference between an ice age and a warm period. What does another doubling (or more) on top of that entail ?
That gets us from a warm age to a hot age. And a hot age isn't just a matter of being resolved via air conditioning. It changes almost everything. Ocean circulation, wind circulation, hydrological cycles of evaporation and precipitation. Fresh water availability. Microbial life and insects, including those which are disease inducing. Plankton. Ocean chemistry. Sea level. It's a version of planet Earth with which we are not acquainted and almost certainly not evolved for.
We are driven by a formerly useful ideology which has mutated into something malignant. The idea that the best society is the one with the maximum trade between people that is derived from the extraction and transformation of Earth's natural resources into goods and services that humans desire for their immediate gratification and sense of security. There is no check and balance or master control in place to prevent that ideology from killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
That ideology is authoritarian at this moment in time. It's not a single person. It's a disease we teach in MBA programs and in undergrad finance courses when we introduce the time value of money and brainwash our business zombies with the notion that today is more important than tomorrow.
I offered the layperson the reasons behind a departure from an elliptical orbit around as being the gravitational force of other bodies in the solar system. In truth, the overwhelming majority of that departure in the case of the Earth and Sun is indeed from the gravitational impact of other planets. Is a tiny fraction of that departure in the case of the Earth and Sun likely d
Incredible way of rewriting history.
You truly are the champion of bad faith's posting.
I offered the layperson the reasons behind a departure from an elliptical orbit around as being the gravitational force of other bodies in the solar system. In truth, the overwhelming majority of that departure in the case of the Earth and Sun is indeed from the gravitational impact of other planets. Is a tiny fraction of that departure in the case of the Earth and Sun likely d
That’s still wrong. But as I said, this is basically an irrelevant footnote. So you still end up right, just for the wrong reason.
Think of it like this: if Earth’s baseline eccentricity were hypothetically about 0.10, the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn would make it oscillate between roughly 0.08 and 0.12. Those small cyclic changes are what matter for the Milankovitch cycles and ice ages. In other words, if there were no other planets, then Earth’s eccentricity would remain at 0.10 and we wouldn’t have ice ages. But with the other planets in play, that eccentricity varies by about ±20%, and those variations are what drive the ice age cycles.
If that's true, do you see why “The primary reason for Earth’s departure from a circular orbit was the gravitational impact of other planets” is false?
There is a large class of people who demonstrate their insecurity when there only contribution is to nitpick and try and find fault with others.
They never take risks, reveal themselves in a manner to expose themselves to criticism.
That’s still wrong. But as I said, this is basically an irrelevant footnote. So you still end up right, just for the wrong reason.Think of it like this: if Earth’s baseline eccentricity were hypothetically about 0.10, the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn would make it oscillate between roughly 0.08 and 0.12. Those small cyclic changes are what matter for the
Hey dumb **** ...... you don't need hypothetical values ..... there are actual values.
A perfect circle would be eccentricity = 0. The minimum eccentricity of 0.0034 suggests that the baseline eccentricity is damn close to a circle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ec...
Earth's orbital eccentricity varies between 0.0034 and 0.058.
So, using your math with the actual values, eccentricity varies by ~ 1700% as a result of gravitational processes, not 20% as your misrepresentational fictional example tries to represent.
That’s still wrong. But as I said, this is basically an irrelevant footnote. So you still end up right, just for the wrong reason.Think of it like this: if Earth’s baseline eccentricity were hypothetically about 0.10, the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn would make it oscillate between roughly 0.08 and 0.12. Those small cyclic changes are what matter for the Milankovitc
If that's true ???
It's not true. It's false.
Now that you understand that it's false, do you why “The primary reason for Earth’s departure from a circular orbit was the gravitational impact of other planets” is true?
If that's true ???
It's not true. It's false.
Now that you understand that it's false, do you why “The primary reason for Earth’s departure from a circular orbit was the gravitational impact of other planets” is true?
The numbers were hypothetical (as I noted) but the disproportional ratio between them isn't. You are wrong.
