Posted on 11/10/2007 4:33:13 PM PST by Reform Canada
Climate change by Jupiter
Lawrence Solomon Financial Post
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The alignment of the planets, and especially that of Jupiter and Saturn, control the climate on Earth.
So explained Rhodes Fairbridge of Columbia University, a giant in science over much of the last century whose accomplishments are perhaps unsurpassed for their breadth, depth, and volume. This one man authored or co-authored 100 scientific books and more than 1,000 scientific papers, he edited the Benchmarks in Geology series (more than 90 volumes in print) and was general editor of the Encyclopaedias of the Earth Sciences. He edited eight major encyclopedias of specialized scientific papers in the atmospheric sciences and astrogeology; geomorphology; geochemistry and the earth sciences; geology, sedimentology, paleontology, oceanography and, not least, climatology.
Changes in sunspots and other solar activity, scientists have realized for more than two centuries, correlate closely with the climate of Earth, explaining the ice ages and periods of great warming. But what, Dr. Fairbridge wondered, causes these changes in our sun?
The answer, he discovered with the help of NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, lies largely in the solar system's centre of gravity. At times, the sun is at the solar system's centre of gravity. Most often, this is not the case-- the orbit of the planets will align planets to one side or another of the sun. Jupiter, the planet with by far the largest mass, most influences the solar system's centre of gravity. When Uranus, Neptune and especially Saturn -- the next largest planet -- join Jupiter on one side of the solar system, the solar system's centre of gravity shifts well beyond the sun.
The sun's own orbit, he found, has eight characteristic patterns, all determined by Jupiter's position relative to Saturn, with the other planets playing much lesser roles. Some of these eight have orderly orbits, smooth and near-circular. During such orbits, solar activity is high and Earth heats up. Some of the eight orbits are chaotic, taking a loop-the-loop path. These orbits correspond to quiet times for the sun, and cool periods on Earth. Every 179 years or so, the sun embarks on a new cycle of orbits. One of the cooler periods in recent centuries was the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when the Thames River in London froze over each winter. The next cool period, if the pattern holds, began in 1996, with the effects to be felt starting in 2010. Some predict three decades of severe cold.
Temperatures on Earth are but one consequence of these periodic and predictable celestial movements. Others, Dr. Fairbridge has shown, are seen everywhere on Earth: in the various and differing periodicities in rocks, glaciers, sand dunes and the circulation of the ocean; geomagnetic records; the records of the isotopes of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen in tree rings, ice cores, air and water. They are the periodicities of climate change.
Dr. Fairbridge's best-known periodicity, which he developed in the 1950s, hypothesized that sea levels had been rising for the last 16,000 years, during which there were periodic oscillations of rise and fall. The Fairbridge curve describing this period -- so named in derision because it offended the conventional wisdom - is now widely accepted. It demonstrates that, even within the past 1,000 years, sea levels have several times changed by up to two metres, and suddenly -- each of these large changes occurred in fewer than 40 years.
Dr. Fairbridge's broader climate change claims -- that celestial changes control Earth's temperatures -- remain controversial, but less so than they were decades ago, when his was a relatively lone voice. Solar scientists with increasing regularity are publishing data establishing celestial origins to climate change on Earth. Dr. Fairbridge saw his Fairbridgecurve theories vindicated, but he won't his celestial claims. This most remarkable individual died a year ago this week, at age 92. - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute. www.urban-renaissance.org
---
CV OF A DENIER
Rhodes Fairbridge, an early expert on climate change, was a professor of geology at Columbia. He received an undergraduate degree from Queen's University in Ontario and a master's degree from the University of Oxford. He was awarded a doctorate of science by the University of Western Australia in 1944 at the age of 30, bypassing the usual PhD prerequisite. During the Second World War, Dr. Fairbridge also served with the Royal Australian Air Force in U.S. General Douglas MacArthur's headquarters as deputy director of intelligence. © National Post 2007
Sounds a lot more logical than most claims!
Well, He does. 8<)
He just doesn’t interfere when hippies rule the err(or)waves and liberals guide the Congress.
Smart guy this Dr Fairbridge. If there is a strong correlation between sunspot cycles, relative to the Sun’s orbit about the Universes center mass, with Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars going along for that ride that would go a long way toward explaining the Vostok Ice Core data and todays concurrent warming on Mars.
Here’s an example of how to use the word:
Since Global Warming is responsible for all future weather, hot or cold, our doomage is complete.
My dad worked in aerospace, they had a special toast at these Boeing functions. “To Uranus and beyond”
Is it true that some scientists, tired of all the juvenile jokes, have lobbied to have the planet renamed “Urectum?”
The flood and neap tides are due of course to the tidal fields of the sun and the moon being in alignment, or cross-alignment, respectively.
The article makes no mention of the tidal field of Jupiter et al acting on the sun, but refers instead to the orbit of the sun about the CM of the solar system. This orbit has no dynamic significance for the sun in the way that tidal fields do.
Tidal fields vary as the INVERSE CUBE of the distance, whereas the magnitude of the orbit of a “central body” such as the sun about the CM varies LINEARLY with the distance of a less massive orbiting body. This is a simple “leverage” concept.
You can work it out on “the back of an envelope” that the tidal fields of bodies of the same density vary as the apparent angular diameter. Since the sun and moon have the same apparent angular diameter from the earth, the lesser tidal effect of the sun can be understood as due to its lower density.
Also, the small apparent angular diameter of Jupiter from the sun ( and the earth ) show that it has a small tidal effect, notwithstanding its effect on the CM of the solar system and the “orbit” of the sun.
I should have said that they vary as the CUBE of the apparent angular diameter. This is because the mass ( in the numerator ) is proportional to the density times the cube of the diameter of the body, so its ratio to the cube of the distance in the denominator is simply the cube of the apparent angular diameter.
According to this article, at times, when the most massive planets are all on one side of the sun, the common center of gravity can actually be shifted outside the sun.
Sounds like there is some speculation about weather this can affect the sun spot cycle, and this affect the energy output of the sun, and ultimately the climate of the earth.
Very interesting theory IMO.
You would think the moving center of gravity would have physical affects on the sun. Especially if that center is moving within the actual inside diameter of the sun. And of course outside that diameter. Could be simple spatial deformation. Definitely could affect plasma belt flow rates.
Is The Fairbridge curve crackpottery? Is the idea that there is periodicity in climate patterns crackpottery? Tell me how the AGW crowd would explain climate and sea level changes larger than what is predicted by their flummery before there were white guys driving SUVs?
“Sounds a lot more logical than most claims!”
Ditto. As I think about the mass of the planets all tugging at the sun from the same side verses the planets distributed around the sun more evenly, it’s logical.
Well, if you would think that, you would be wrong. Suppose to stars of equal mass are revolving about a common center of mass, in which case the CM might be displaced many millions of miles from the stellar centers. What violence might this cause? ... None whatsoever!
Orbiting bodies are in free fall, and their displacement from the center of mass of any orbital system is not significant to their internal dynamics. The proper consideration is the tidal effect of nearby bodies, and this does not involve anything concerning the orbit about the center of mass.
I had a sneaking suspicion that the solar system’s own center of gravity was the center of this guy’s 8 orbits or whatever- where is the FReeper with the picture of “Aw geez, not this sh!t again”? Sandrat maybe? Anyway, this seems to be a do-over or modification of that book back in the 70’s (coincidentally along with The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius”) by Playfair and Hill- I can’t remember the name of the book- I believe that their “Grand Alignment” was scheduled for 1979, and we all survived with no cosmic catastrophes noticible.
I don’t know anything about the Fairbridge curve. I am speaking to the suggestion that the Sun’s “orbit about the center of mass” has an effect on the internal dynamics of the sun, and I aver that this is nonsense, on elementary considerations.
I rechecked and I was confused- Playfair and Hill wrote “The Cycles of Heaven”, and the book I was thinking about was “The Jupiter Effect” by Plagemann and Griffin to occur in 1982.
As the French might say.....Quelle Doomage!"
That example does not apply here. We are referencing a center of mass or a center of gravity for a celestial system that is moving within a large object (not between large objects). Gravity distorts space time. Therefore, the space time (spatial dimension) that the sun exists within, is being distorted. Picture one of those fancy Einstein space/time gravity holes or funnels that is centered on the solar systems center of gravity or mass. The sun is not staying in one spot in that funnel. It is moving up and down and around. Its space time is being distorted. If its spatial space is being distorted, it is being distorted. From your point of view however, it may be difficult to determine. Just my 2 cents.
BUSH’S fault?
No wonder al Goreon wants real scientists to shut up and believe in his Gorebull warming bs.
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.