Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society

Nut Nut also has a bachelors degree in biochemistry and was raised in a household with a prominent physicist. As a CFO .... he worked with a lot of Silicon Valley engineers.

Please don't try to pigeon hole people with labels.

Empty criticism from someone who doesn't offer any substantive argument.

An eccentricity value of 0 is perfectly circular. An eccentricity value greater than 1 is not orbital.

Earth's eccentricity oscillates between 0.0034 and 0.058. A range which NASA attributes to gravitational influences of other planets.

In my opinion, an eccentricity value of 0.0034 is nearly circular. Unless NASA is providing incorrect guidance, that's the maximum value which is unrelated to planetary gravitational forces.

You can disagree with whether an eccentricity value of 0.0034 is nearly circular. That's a NASA characterization I adopted but the term "nearly" is subjective.

0.0034 is obviously a lot closer to zero (circular) than to 1. I believe that's why NASA characterizes it as "nearly" circular.

I'm not trying to make an issue of my career. But reading comprehension is an important attribute for a CFO who is responsible for the legal, contractual and financial reporting affairs of a corporation.

You don't become a CFO unless you are consistently able to demonstrate the ability to competently manage these functions.

One of the things any competent manager has to do is come to terms with their areas of competence and when they need to access the opinions of experts.

In the matter of Earth's orbital variations, NASA is an expert agency.

NASA can teach us the definition of orbital variance and provide mathematical values called eccentricity which quantify the degree of departure from perfect circularity. And I consider NASA's explanation of the causes of departure from near circularity to elliptical to be authoritative in this instance.

I am simply regurgitating what NASA has to share. If you have a different interpretation of what NASA is saying, you are welcome to share it.

This is what NASA says. The values in parens here are from other reputable sources. You are welcome to offer your interpretations of what you are reading.

"Eccentricity – Earth’s annual pilgrimage around the Sun isn’t perfectly circular, (eccentricity value =0) but it’s pretty close. Over time, the pull of gravity from our solar system’s two largest gas giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn, causes the shape of Earth’s orbit to vary from nearly circular (eccentricity value = 0.0034) to slightly elliptical (eccentricity value = 0.058) ."

Might be a bad day when you start talking about yourself at the third person, and also suddenly feel the need to drop credentials while thoroughsly avoiding to say anything about these until these last 2 days.

I suppose some people just get their kicks from gaslighting. It's difficult to imagine people being so stupid that they can't decipher a simple sentence from NASA.

I don't consider myself particularly relevant to the conversation. It's not been my objective to make any of this about me. I don't see credentials as being more important than the scientific method.

I didn't study Milankovitch Cycles in college or do any advanced research on them.

I am just a curious person who wanted to better understand Earth systems. I am interested in history of all kinds, including environmental and evolutionary.

The Earth has been oscillating between ice ages and warm periods throughout human existence. So .... I wanted to know why.

Milankovitch Cycles explain the triggers (solar radiation variability) to the transitions between ice ages and warm periods. The thing which they trigger are feedback loops between GHG's and temperature which continue until we arrive at a new trigger and the cycle goes in reverse.

The dynamics of the feedback loops are intricate but can easily be summarized ..... warming releases carbon from earth and ocean reservoirs into the atmopshere which perpetuates further warming and carbon release. Cooling results in carbon storage.

Any competent high school student can grasp this. It's not more complicated than the exam required to get a drivers license. It doesn't take years of institutional academic credentialing to get it.

Everything I am sharing is pretty simple and straightforward.

None of you are commenting on the simple and straightforward points I am making.

You are all engaging in character assassination which completely avoids the substance which is being submitted.

I'm immune to gaslighting.

I have faith in the scientific method.

The important question for our species is what future consequences have we initiated as a result of doubling greenhouse forcing in the last century or so.

The person who resides behind the screen name of Nut Nut is not important. I'm just passing through the universe on a short-term journey.

(fyi - the term Nut Nut is a poker reference. In Omaha hi / lo, it refers to a situation where the player simultaneously has the best possible high and low hand)

The best analogy I can summon for this group interaction is something akin to an immune response.

I'm here attempting to engage in a conversation about a topic which is obviously socially taboo. So, you all are treating me like a foreign substance and mindlessly attacking me in the same manner that our bodies immune systems operate.

You don't have anything whatsoever to say about the actual (and quite simple) substance of what I'm offering.

It's just a steady diet of "kill the messenger".

The degree of intolerance is indicative of fascism.

This is exactly what I'm saying and what NASA is saying. What's your beef ?

You completely fail to understand the difference between causing the "variance in eccentricity" and causing "non-zero eccentricity."

You assert the latter while citing NASA to prove the former.

If you had read through the historical conversation ..... I acknowledged that I was incorrect to imply that gravity accounted for 100% of eccentricity.

I am not now asserting that gravity is responsible for ALL of Earth's eccentricity.

Gravity is responsible for the vast majority of Earth's eccentricity. The portion of Earth's eccentricity which is responsible for the regular dramatic transition between ice ages and warm periods. The portion which is relevant to the understanding of climate change fundamentals.

I have conceded that there are other forces which influence Earth's eccentricity. In the case of the Earth, those influences on eccentricity are very small relative to gravitational forces.

Considering all the flack he’s been taking and now learning he does have a STEM background, I’m just going to assume he’s probably been scouring the internet for something to support his position and came up empty. But what do I know. I just publish books. “Hey NutNut, meet your tech editor, d’adulte.”

That said, credit where it’s due. He did get me thinking about this issue again and I’ll probably find a way to contribute something toward public awareness but for a different demo. His book is for the science crowd rather than lay readers. Jonathan Livingston Seagull seems like the right model to build on for lay readers. The right launch angle to hit your target audience and those sort of books stay in orbit forever. Facts tell; stories sell.

I have a question for the audience.

Trump is effectively signaling that he sees anti-capitalist advocates like myself as terrorists.

Is there any portion of you (an inner voice) which has a response to my writing here that includes an idea that my being imprisoned for my ideas would be an appopriate societal response to them ?

Yes, but the Earth's orbit going from 3 to 2 is also due to gravitational interactions with other planets. NASA could have also said "the pull of gravity from our solar system’s two largest gas giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn, causes the shape of Earth’s orbit to vary from slightly elliptical to nearly circular. " It necessarily goes both ways....that;s why it's a cycle.

That's absolutely correct. The entire oscillation between 2 and 3 and back again is due to gravitational interactions with other planets.

No argument.

What an exercise in parsing words !!!!

But in summary, I hope we can agree on the underlying truth

1) The Earth has regular oscillated between ice ages and warm periods for millions of years as a result of regular oscillations in Earth's orbital relationship with the sun. The scientist who discovered these regular oscillations was named Milankovitch and the oscillatory cycles were named after him.

2) The cause of those regular oscillations in Earth's orbit which caused major changes on Earth are the gravitational impacts of other planets like Jupiter and Saturn.

3) There are other forces which cause Earth's orbit to not be perfectly circular. They are not related to ice ages or Milankovitch Cycles and have a very small impact on Earth's orbital shape in comparison to planetary gravitational forces. Those forces are important to a complete theoretical understanding of orbital dynamics. But as they pertain to any discernible influence on Earth's climate, they are not known to be of a magnitude to create a material influence on Earth's climate.

I think you miss something in reading comprehension.

When NASA writes "causes the shape of Earth’s orbit to vary from nearly circular to slightly elliptical."

There is nothing in that statement which implies that it varies in only one direction. It speaks of a range of variance with a min and a max.

That was exactly my point.....not sure how you didn't get it. But now that you agree that planets are responsible only for changes in Earth's orbital eccentricity and not the reason Earth has non zero eccentricity, you should be able to answer your own question now

What is the answer?

I got it immediately. I understand that Milankovitch Cycles are cycles. I understand the meaning of the word cycle.