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
You have taken a much too simplistic view of this theory. It is the combination of the orbits and the time that they spend together in system imbalance that causes the predicted phenomenon. When the orbits do coincide they remain on the same side of the solar system for several passes until their proximity lengthens again. You must think beyond just the time frame of one orbit.
There’s a lot we don’t know. We don’t know what we know and we don’t even know what we don’t know. What we think we know will probably blindside us one fine day.
Maybe it’s a slow-motion catastrophe. 1979 was the year that the Shah fell (thanks to Carter’s ineptitude), and we could witness a nuclear holocaust a few years down the road as a result of what followed the fall of the Shah.
If all the planets were aligned on the same side of the sun, the barycenter would be 500,000 km above the sun's surface ... 1.719 solar radii from the center of the sun. If all of the other planets were located on the opposite side of the sun from Jupiter, the barycenter would lie within the sun at about 0.417 solar radii.
The movement of the barycenter would most definitely alter the tidal forces affecting the sun.
I have no idea if this affects the Earth's climate.
I don't think Dave Barry is currently writing columns...otherwise I'd say someone needs to tell him about barycenters...
Why would you say this? The tidal forces are due to the variation in the planets' gravitational forces in the body of the sun, compared to their average forces on the sun. The total tidal force is simply the sum of the tidal forces due to each planet.
The motion of the sun about the CM is its response to the average, or net, force, and is a free fall motion. The tidal forces are what's "left over", and can in no sense be understood as being altered or affected by this free fall motion.
Perhaps the only way one could visualize what is happening here is too take a big step back. One has to look at the solar system as a single unit first and quantify how it warps space time as it travels through space time. You could basically imagine a wide Einstein gravity hole of funnel with its center at the center of gravity for the solar system. That wide funnels center point does not move for this illustrations purposes. Now within that wide funnel there are other funnels that rotate around which represent the individual planets and suns gravity holes, funnels or space distortions. Obviously the suns center gravity funnel has by far the greatest magnitude when compared to the planets. Now as the sun moves around the solar system gravity well or funnel, its space time will be distorted due to its sometimes erratic orbit. The orbit of the planets are much further out and the movement of the solar systems center of gravity is less significant. Any erratic behavior in the planets orbits should also be less significant due to their distance from the center. What we are debating here is the magnitude of that distortion on the sun and if that distortion could affect the Plasma Belt Currents near the surface of the sun, which NASA states will affect the future activity rates on the surface of the sun. Someone will have to do the math on that one. Not gonna be easy. If the sun was a solid or a black hole, the affects would probably not be significant. Something however has to be causing or inducing the suns fairly consistent intervals of activity. This is perhaps one possibility.
But having said that, I believe that all our current Laws of Physics, etc and this new revelation will hopefully and finally dispell all this Globull Warming Cr@p.
Yes, but a swing in the opposite direction, much colder, might be just as bad. But it would be welcome since it would appear to be a cyclical occurrence, not caused by man. The man's planetary theory where mass and alignment of larger planets might affect the solar system center of gravity seems to beg for a closer look.
For the record, I too believe this global warming is preposterous.
I should add, for the record, I too believe this global warming (caused specifically by man) is preposterous.
Evil = Bad = Energy production = Coal & oil burning = more CO2 = global warming = catastrophes = must stop burning oil & coal immediately ....
Being a skeptic REQUIRES that you be able to show that mankind (and his energy production) is NOT the cause of whatever the extremists can point to as a symptom.
Thus, a skeptic must be able to explain WHY the sun is changing (and thus explain every change that is happening on earth). If we can’t find the original reason for the changes in the sun, the AGW extremists will beat us in the propaganda game - which,in politics, is all that matters.
If gravity (Jupiter & Saturn's positions) can explain periodic disruptions in the sun's surface - and thus the sun's rotating magnetic fields and solar flares and UV/IR intensities) - and IF those disruptions match the changes we have seen in the earth's past, then a skeptic's case can be justified. But "justification" for or against AGW CANNOT be based simply by claiming "changes in the sun" - THAT level of explanation cannot stand by itself any more. Now, maybe it "should" be able to stand on its own but in today's world of bitter, unethical, socialist AGW extremists, that explanation will not stand on its own.
The sun itself carries only a small fraction of the angular momentum of the solar system. This might be important. Also the magnetic fields of the planets are not well explained by the dynamo effect. Not even close. The gravity effects would not be involved with the magnetic effects, but the angular momentum could be. Just some things to ponder.
INFADEL!
The word belongs to me.
Then Doom On You!
So you are stating that the planets orbit and resulting angular momentum has a significant affect with respect to the solar magnetic dimension. And we are assuming here that the Suns orbit about the solar systems center of gravity has a significant affect with respect to the solar gravitational dimension. Now that creates some wild mental visuals.
I agree with your points, however lets assume the theory in this threads article and the NASA prediction for a historically weak Solar Cycle 25 and now weak prediction for Solar Cycle 24 ring true. The AGW extremists are eventually going to look ridiculous and clown-like running around telling the world that we have to lower the mean temperature of the Earth while everyone is freezing during winter time. Its possible that the Thames could freeze again sometime in 2017-2020. We are already seeing the cooling beginning in the Southern Hemisphere. It should start this winter in the Northern Hemisphere. This winter could be cold, late and lead to a cool spring and mild summer followed by a very cold 2008-2009 winter in the Northern Hemisphere. The 2008 winter in the Southern Hemisphere could be very cold. Now Solar Cycle 24 should begin soon and if it has at least an almost average activity rate it could cause 2010-2013 to stay mild, but 2016-2020 looks to be deadly cold. That is if these solar activity predictions ring true.
Good point - Let them hoist their own petard.
Note:
1971 - 1998 (27 years) showed a steadily rising temperature of about .5 degree C - from the AGW’s chosen “zero” at the half-century’s low point. (High’s at 1935-1940, low’s at 1900 and 1971-75, high’s again at 1995-1998.)
1998 (an El Nino year) was extremely high, but temp’s have been basically stable since then = a nine year period of statistically stable (non-rising) flat temperatures.
CO2 is continuously rising the entire 72 years (1935 - 2007), but temperatures have increased ONLY for 27 years of the past 72: Not by itself a very good indication of any relationship. Yet nobody mentions this.
Actually, he is currently a hyperactive blogger. I'll bet you could get the word to him there.
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.