 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Posted on 08/17/2009 2:07:16 PM PDT by dila813
Is it possible that all the global warming theories based on observed land temperatures could be caused by orbital planet positions?
This idea/theory occurred to me because: 1. Satellite Data doesn't agree with Land Temperature Readings. 2. Most of these measurements are in the Northern Hemisphere 3. During this program, discussed was the fact that the planets can cause the sun to orbit itself typically 30 feet. This orbit is affected by the orbit of the large planets. 4. There are theories that the Sun's output/cycle is also affected by the planets
Using SimSolar (software download) to do a simulation, it appears that the areas of increase in temperature appear to match up where Jupiter and Saturn would be perturbing the Sun's Orbit closer to the Earth during the Winter Time. and for the Northern Hemisphere.
I would love to see the temperature data synced up to the planet simulation. I am just eyeballing it.
If there is anything to this, the temps would start to pick up around 2023
Do you really think that a 30-foot movement of an object 800,000 miles across will really have any effect on something 93 million miles away?
But damn...you don’t work for the New York Times or the UN — how can it be possible that you have a worthy original thought about something as important as the planet saving tasks of the Gore-acle?
The sun does wobble but it wobbles far more than 30 feet and its pretty complex.
The planets and sun orbit a common center of gravity (a spot in empty space) Then the planets all have eliptical orbits which also wobble due to the gravitational pull of their moons. There are probably thousands or millions of other factors at play.
I’d hate to even try to make any predictions and be held to them.
Articles by Fairbridge are the ones to read. The idea is that the Sun and the planets all revolve a common center of gravity. When the center of gravity is outside the Sun the Sun’s activity is influenced. While this is not really an accepted theory yet, it is a very interesting concept. I also would like to see a program which would show me where all the planets are and the location of the center of gravity of the solar system.
(I was shocked that the barycenter was that far from the center of the sun).
I think it is great that you are looking at this and trying to come up with a rational explanation for the discrepancies between satellite data and ground based data. However the much simpler and more likely explanation is that much of the data from ground based stations suffers from inaccuracies due to poor site design, placement of instruments and just plain bad locations.
We have “professionals” with a vested interest in promoting anthropogenic global warming collecting and releasing much of this data. It is surprising to me that we have any reliable data coming from these types of sources. Their data becomes even more questionable when they refuse to release the raw numbers. Fortunately there are still some uncorrupted persons working for some agencies who do provide good raw data. I sincerely hope that in the current political climate that these brave souls are able to hold onto their positions.
Just the absence of sunspots.
Just the absence of sunspots.
One thing I think for sure is that “space weather” long term is something the global warmongers are seriously underestimating the impact of on earth. Still a lot of unknowns.
I just looked this up, and you’re correct. I, too, am quite surprised that the barycenter of the Sun-Jupiter system is NOT located somewhere within the sun.
There is geological evidence that the sunspot cycle has maintained about the same duration for many millions of years, so the mechanism controlling or forcing it must be of great antiquity and continuity. The gravitational effect of planetary motions, esp that of Jupiter (more massive than all the other planets put together), would be a good suspect.
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
There is geological evidence that the sunspot cycle has maintained about the same duration for many millions of yearsWow, what geological evidence would that be, tell me, I must know. :')
There’s also a pulse of the solar surface, which is (if memory serves, sometimes it does) much more than 30 feet, and cycles about every 45 minutes.
Some sedimentary rocks contain layers which are believed to be annual (they’re called varves). Some varve sequences contain thickness variations which have a periodicity about the same as the modern sunspot cycle (i.e. roughly 11 years). Some of the variations are so regular anyone could spot them with the naked eye, like the ones I saw in some rocks very roughly 400 million years old (I’ve kicked myself ever since for not getting pictures). As someone else posted, Rhodes Fairbridge was a great expert and enthusiast for varves and other cyclic deposits.
http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10.1306/D4267857-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D
Here's another web page discussing the varves and cycles which Bradley discovered:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/varve.ev.pdf
yes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.