Thanks for the moon

[lee_merrill]

"not common"

Go back and compare that to your OP

I'm not sure what you mean, we had this discussion in this thread, and it does appear that a moon like ours is unusual.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

And another reason to be thankful for the moon stabilizing the earth's tilt:

Source: phys.org

Small tilts or extreme seasonality on planets with Uranus-like tilts may limit the proliferation of life, but modest tilt of a planet on its axis may increase the likelihood that it develops oxygenated atmospheres that could serve as beacons of microbial life and fuel the metabolisms of large organisms. The bottom line is that worlds that are modestly tilted on their axes may be more likely to evolve complex life.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

And another reason to be thankful for the moon stabilizing the earth's tilt:

Source: phys.org

Small tilts or extreme seasonality on planets with Uranus-like tilts may limit the proliferation of life, but modest tilt of a planet on its axis may increase the likelihood that it develops oxygenated atmospheres that could serve as beacons of microbial life and fuel the metabolisms of large organisms. The bottom line is that worlds that are modestly tilted on their axes may be more likely to evolve complex life.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

What do you suppose stabilized Mars' tilt? It is very close to that of Earth's (see the gif I provided earlier), but doesn't have much of any moons, much less one in similar proportions to what we have. That very fact demonstrates that terrestrial planets don't require a large moon to do so.

[tabibito]

Certainly the average can stay the same, but the variation increasing makes for a wild climate, and can make things increasingly difficult for many forms of life.

Blessings,
Lee

I don't know the science, but that seems a reasonable supposition. However, most living organisms don't need green houses or shade houses before they can thrive, tardigrades being a good example.

[lee_merrill]

What do you suppose stabilized Mars' tilt?

But Mars' tilt is not stabilized:

Source: NASA

Modern-day Mars experiences cyclical changes in climate and, consequently, ice distribution. Unlike Earth, the obliquity (or tilt) of Mars changes substantially on timescales of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

However, most living organisms don't need green houses or shade houses before they can thrive, tardigrades being a good example.

Though I think the climate changes being envisioned would be dramatic, more than some greenhouse warming or minor cooling.

Source: phys.org

... extreme seasonality on planets with Uranus-like tilts may limit the proliferation of life...

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Though I think the climate changes being envisioned would be dramatic, more than some greenhouse warming or minor cooling.

Source: phys.org

... extreme seasonality on planets with Uranus-like tilts may limit the proliferation of life...

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

You do realize that Uranus' axis of rotation is tilted to be in roughly the same plane as its orbit? And therefore completely irrelevant to situations like Earth and Mars?

You have nothing. Five pages of arguments, and you've still had absolutely zero to support the claim that anything would "induce climate changes severe enough to wipe out nearly all forms of life." Yet here you are, still making mistake after mistake simply because you refuse to accept that a source you like has lied to you.

It's pathetic.

[lee_merrill]

You do realize that Uranus' axis of rotation is tilted to be in roughly the same plane as its orbit? And therefore completely irrelevant to situations like Earth and Mars?

The point is that the more tilt, the more climate disturbances there are, as illustrated by various planets.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

The point is that the more tilt, the more climate disturbances there are, as illustrated by various planets.

You've presented absolutely zero evidence of anything but alterations in seasonal change. Which is not the same as climate change.

Seasonal change on Earth means winters are typically colder. Climate change on Earth means that winters are growing warmer over time. There is a difference.

In addition, you've presented no evidence that any of these would happen on a scale that would be "severe enough to wipe out nearly all forms of life."

All you're doing is waving your hands and hope people forget what you're actually trying to defend.

[lee_merrill]

You've presented absolutely zero evidence of anything but alterations in seasonal change. Which is not the same as climate change.

Seasonal change on Earth means winters are typically colder. Climate change on Earth means that winters are growing warmer over time. There is a difference.

Are you saying the earth's tilt has no effect on climate?

Source: Berkeley

Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit affect the amount of solar energy received by any particular region of the globe, depending on latitude, time of day, and time of year. Small changes in the angle of Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit around the Sun cause changes in climate over a span of 10,000 to 100,000 years, and are not causing climate change today.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

In addition, you've presented no evidence that any of these would happen on a scale that would be "severe enough to wipe out nearly all forms of life."

To repeat:

Source: space.com

The moon has long been recognized as a significant stabilizer of Earth's orbital axis. Without it, astronomers have predicted that Earth's tilt could vary as much as 85 degrees. In such a scenario, the sun would swing from being directly over the equator to directly over the poles over the course of a few million years, a change which could result in dramatic climatic shifts.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Are you saying the earth's tilt has no effect on climate?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or a memory problem? Because it's only been a page since I discussed precisely that.

As I said then, the direct impact of the change in the distribution of sunlight is minor, and it requires amplifying factors to induce significant climate change.

To argue that a larger wobble has a larger impact on the climate, you'd have to show one of two things. 1) it makes a very large difference in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth, rather than simply its distribution; or 2) the factors that amplify things amplify them far more.

You have done neither. All you've done is tried to distract everyone from your lack of evidence.

To repeat:

You can repeat all you want. It doesn't change the issues immediately above. In fact, it's just another attempt at distracting people from them.

In addition, absolutely none of this indicates that the climate change would be both significant enough and rapid enough to wipe out most life on earth. But let's focus on the first hurdle you've failed to clear for now.

[lee_merrill]

To argue that a larger wobble has a larger impact on the climate, you'd have to show one of two things. 1) it makes a very large difference in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth, rather than simply its distribution; or 2) the factors that amplify things amplify them far more.

You have done neither. All you've done is tried to distract everyone from your lack of evidence.

I've quoted various sources such as space.com as evidence, so I'll leave it at that, and let you have any last word.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

I've quoted various sources such as space.com as evidence, so I'll leave it at that, and let you have any last word.

No, you've quoted them, but not as evidence for your arguments, because they did not actually address the key points mentioned above.

Put differently, you presented evidence that the Earth could have a larger wobble without the moon, and tried to claim that as evidence of a more dramatic climate change, while admitting that no additional heat would be added to the system. Given that admission, why would the climate change? You don't say, nor do any of the things you've claimed as evidence.

And that's because there is no reason to expect that the global (ie, not local) climate would change.

I don't know if think you have evidence because you don't know how to process logic, or just because you want so much to believe there's evidence that you convince yourself you have it.

In any case, even dramatic climate change wouldn't wipe out most life on Earth, given that life survived multiple global glaciations during the snowball earth periods. So, even if you could manage to develop evidence for your climate change, it would still leave the overall contention false.