Planetary memory…or something.
That’s exactly how it works. We have many times more arable land today than we did 50 years ago primarily due to irrigation and the increased growing seasons in the far northern and southern hemispheres.
The Canadian growing season today is nearly three weeks longer than it was a hundred years ago and the can grow food crops there that could not be grown before as a result as well as allowing for double cropping of grains.
No, something which you are incapable of understanding. Physics.
Of course we can by simply observing the system which has repeatedly returned to equalibrium.
If it hadn’t the planets would all have either been pulled into the sun, flown out of the system, or collided and been destroyed.
In spite of the variations due to the Milankovich cycle, the system remains in equilibrium.
What locking into orbit? Let’s take it to extremes. If I physically move the planet out 1AU from its 1 AU orbit (to a 2 AU orbit), do you think it would return to its 1 AU orbit after I stop moving it?
I presume you would agree it is not returning to its 1 AU orbit. Now, why not?
Now make that delta AU smaller and the exact same Physics hold true.
Why would I play your stupid game?
If you move a planet far enough away from the bodies exerting any significant gravitational force on them to a point at which they no longer exert enough force to overcome the change in trajectory it will be thrown out of the system.
We’re discussing small variations in the earth’s orbit, nothing more.
This is where his bungee cord theory comes into play.
Now you’re walking back what you said.
You said ‘‘Try shortening the growing season world wide by a few weeks and see how that equation works out.’’
It doesn’t happen on a world wide scale that quickly. If it did, something else much more devastating would be occurring. And it wouldn’t be 2 weeks uniformly worldwide.
How exactly would they have been pulled into the sun or flown out of the system?
It doesn’t have to happen quickly. We can’t make more arable land near the equators to make up for a loss during an ice age.
Whether it happens over weeks, months, years, centuries, or decades the result is the same.
As it is we can barely produce enough food to feed most of the world’s population, any reduction in that ability is going to cause famine and death and as people try to move away from the advancing ice it would result in full scale wars killing people by the millions while they fight over the ever shrinking arable land that is left.
Gravity and acceleration.
You understand how an orbit works, don’t you? An object in orbit doesn’t just get sucked into the object its orbiting.
We produce enough food to feed all of the world’s population.
Without the gravity of the other planets yes, eventually that would be the result. The remaining planets would at least be pulled in so close as to become much like venus and mercury.
If that were true there would never be famine.
Explain where this occurs. I’m not aware of this discontinuity in the orbital equations.
I can’t believe you actually posted this.
That would depend on the objects in question and a great many factors.
The bungee cord theory is exactly opposite the theory of gravity.
A bungee cord sees higher tensile force the more it is stretched.
Gravitational forces a decrease as the distance increases.
It’s a piss-poor analogy.
Wait…What…now we’re having an Ice Age. I thought even if you didn’t believe in climate change the earth was still warming.
You want us to prepare for the next Ice Age in oh…20 or 30,000 years?