Have a look at the suns surface activity on 11/13/2007.
No sun spots facing our way right now. Still waiting for the active phase of Solar Cycle 24 to begin.
Posted on 11/10/2007 4:33:13 PM PST by Reform Canada
No. All hypothetical, as is the contemporary explanation.
“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.”
Two years ago some Russian scientists came to the same conclusion. Their prediction is that global cooling will begin in 2012.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html
Have a look at the suns surface activity on 11/13/2007.
No sun spots facing our way right now. Still waiting for the active phase of Solar Cycle 24 to begin.
For the earth the fact that the CM of the Earth-Moon system is about 3/4 of the way from the center to the surface of the earth makes a huge difference in the tidal forces. The difference between the gravitational forces of the moon and the centripetal forces caused by this offset CM, and the fact they vary from the near side and far side is what gives us the two cycles per day (period of about 12.5 hours). Even if the effects are less than those of the earth moon system doesn't mean there is no significant effect. I haven't done any calculations but without analyzing the data it is foolish to dismiss the theory out of hand.
That would be true if the object was a point mass, but these celestial bodies have extent. Just a satellite in a low orbit (the space shuttle for example) revolves around the planet several times a day, ones in geosynchronous orbit go around once a day. The moon goes around about once a month. The center of the moon is in free fall, but on the near side of the moon the gravitational pull exceeds the centripetal force, on the far side, the centripetal force exceeds the gravitational force. This effect (on the earth it is caused by the earth rotating around the CM of the Earth-Moon system) along with the gravitational field gradient is what causes the tides.
If the moon were twice as far away and twice the diameter, hence eight times the mass, its tidal field ( that is the quadrapole term, as usually calculated ) on the earth would remain the same, but the Earth-Moon CM would be displaced well outside the earth. This should suffice to show that the placement of the CM has no quantitative connection to the tidal field.
I would agree. The article made a lot of sense...
Now, I would hate to think what things would be like if Juptier was on the opposite side the sun? I say let it be! I’m gettin old and don’t like the winters too much any more as it is now!!
These are not two different effects! The talk of centripetal force provides a heuristic understanding of the effect of the tidal field, which is accounted for entirely by the expansion of the gravitational field in moments.
... and you should say "... the earth REVOLVING about the CM ..." not "... the earth ROTATING about the CM ...". The rotation of the earth causes the earth's oblateness, a much larger affect than the tides, and independent of them.
"Trust me, I know what I'm doing."
In "Finger Prints of the Gods", Graham Hancock(sp?) talked of this 25,000 year cycle, and proposed major cataclysmic activity at the end/beginning of these cycles... You read any of this? Do you buy any of it... ...that is, major shifting of the earths polar caps due to their excessive weight and equatorial centrifugal force?? Something like that anyway...
The Global Warmers have been saying for a while that the effects of Global Warming are felt most in the Arctic and subarctic such as in Alaska. I have been here watching with thermometers inside and outside for quite a while and it sure looks like the past few winters have been cooler. The maximum warming was at least ten years ago, and a rapid appearance of new plants did occur, but that is over. The new plants are here still but they have ceased proliferating. It is 12 degrees right now, entirely typical for this time of year, which is roughly zero to 25 on a weekly basis.
This is the excellent foppery of the world, that when we are sick in fortune (often the surfeits of our own behaviour) we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars: as if we were villains on necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treacherous by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on. An admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition on the charge of a star!
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, King Lear
Venus in the east has reached it’s greatest western elongation and is now headed back into the sun. This coincides with the President’s finding his VETO stamp and also the beginning of the drawdown in Iraq. Coinkydink? Of course. We are not governed by the portents and signs. We are scientific.
Don’t go too far with the effect: gravitational force on the moon (which is a solid body) will always exceed centripetal acceleration (greatly exaggerating, this must be true or else the rocks would get thrown off the surface).
However, the local gravitation force (on a two-body SOLID system like the earth + moon) does vary depending on where each body is. Just not enough for us to notice, but plenty easy enough to measure.
On a rapidly rotating plasma (gaseous) body like the sun, the changing displacements between the centroid of the plasma body, the center of gravity of the system, and the centerline of rotation for the plasma, and the centerline of rotation for the magnetic fields around the sun become tremendously complex. They are even worse since the sun is itself reacting by fusion and so its shape is spun out away from the poles and towards the equator.
The projecting sun’s magnetic fields get distorted by every movement of the four axis as the precis and move around each other.
No.
A shift in the earth’s magnetic poles (the north mag pole is already moving from its 400-year-old point near Hudson’s Bay towards Siberia) is likely in the few hundred/thousand years.
Your comment has merit. It kept bugging me. How about this for a retort? Show me the science! Show me a concensus, and I'll show you a bunch of grant recipients.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
If our planet goes into a cooling period there are two ways it could work out. In one, a scant couple of years after stupid carbon restrictions go in to place, the earth, thru natural cycles and in no way because of the carbon restrictions, cools down a bit and the global warming nuts claim that they have saved the world. In the other, carbon restrictions are put into place, but the earth goes into a severe cooling trend (due entirely to natural causes) including glaciation and severe agricultural disruption, and after the terrible famines are over, Al Gore et al are all strung up.
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.