Just read the article and I had to point out the failure to take into account total areal extent of ice. The author argues that a 10% anomaly in the antarctic is more important than a 10% anomaly in the arctic, but this fails to take into account the fact that total areal extent is much greater in the arctic and a 10% anomaly represents a much larger area of ice.

Thanks for any thoughts.

The changes are with respect to the center, not to the bodies. But first can you and no-brain agree as to what you talking out? e.g. about the distance between the Sun and the Earth.

We will see who has the “brain” at your upcoming “Great Debate”. I suspect you might be under pressure if I manage to get my latest work to the conference.

Freudian slip? I’m sure you mean “accepted” fact…

Was rather poor wasnt it. It would be more correct to say “past experimental results, papers and observation support Milankovitch’s theory”.

This is where people get mixed up….its nothing to do with the distance from the Sun, that particular planetary influence is covered nicely by Milankovitch and is pretty well an excepted fact.

Freudian slip? I’m sure you mean “accepted” fact…

But if the distance between us does not change no matter where the barycenter goes, it should be excluded as a possible influence on our climates and temperature patterns.

This is where people get mixed up….its nothing to do with the distance from the Sun, that particular planetary influence is covered nicely by Milankovitch and is pretty well an excepted fact. I am arguing that the Jovian planets control angular momentum which has a direct link to the output of the sun, I am not interested in barycenter talk….I am in the middle of some convincing work that will tie this whole thing up, keep your minds open and above all study the information that is coming out….dont think there is nothing new out there to discover in this area.

I would love a seat at the great debate…perhaps I can get some proxy help.

http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58

It might be more appropriate to have such a debate after “The Great Debate”:
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/sessionprogramme/GB

I have tentatively accepted to participate, as per the following email exchanges:

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Silvia duhau silvia.duhau@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Dr. Leif Svalgaard:
This is to invite you to act as a member of the opponent panel in the debate Planetary dynamics and solar activity have a role in climate change and geodynamics?
- A debate dedicated to the memory of Rhodes W Fairbridge
We have invited already to Cornelis de Jager, Ivanka Charvatova and Dirk Callebaut that has honored us by accepting our invitation
There will be It will be a great honor for us, if you accept to participate as a member of one of the panels: either the proponent or the opponent
(that is : to sustain the refutation of the hypothesis that solar
dynamo-orbital motions interaction as a cause neither of solar activity variations nor climate variations).

Dear Silvia,
The debate is supposed to discuss:
1) To what extent does the sun regulate the Earth’s climate? What is the evidence? What are the processes?
2) Does solar system dynamics significantly affect solar and planetary dynamos? If it did, could this affect the Earth’s climate dynamics?
3) Does solar activity result in geomagnetic field variations? Does it change the Earth’s rate of rotation? Do variations in the Earth’s
geomagnetic field and/or variations in the Earth’s rate of rotation
affect the planet’s climate dynamics.

I think that point (1) is much too broad. A whole week’s worth of
debate on this point alone would not do justice to the problem, so I think that point (1) should simply be dropped, as it would otherwise dilute the issue of real concern to Fairbridge, namely if there are any planetary influence on solar activity, and thereby on climate. Clearly, if there were no solar effect, there would presumably not be any climate effect either. So, I propose to debate only (2) and (3) while relegating (1) to a few remarks at the end. If you can agree to this, I would be glad to accept, otherwise, I would have to pass on this.

Dear Leif:
I am very grateful for your positive answer and for your advice.
In fact, I was thinking in erasing one of the questions, more if the
debate have only 1hr 30′.
Moreover, you are absolute right, as the debate is in the memory of Fairbridge, question 1 is out of place.
Please, I would like to have from you any suggestion for changes in questions 2 and 3. since we have time to change them in the EGU web page.
Regards
Silvia

——

So, perhaps, enough for now. My only concern is that no matter the outcome, it will have no effect on the position of the two sides, in which case the exercise is a waste of time, but at least it doesn’t hurt to recognize Fairbridge.

REPLY: Nicely said, Anthony

REPLY: I’ll consider it, though I don’t give barycentric theory much credence. I think it is mostly a case of visualization of coincidental cycles. – Anthony

REPLY: This thread is about polar sea ice – enough with the barycentric babble. – Anthony

I’m holding the ball I spin as I release it. It is horizontally balanced and is spinning horizontally. The force downward due to gravity accelerates it to a point where the friction with the atmosphere limits the downward force and a maximum speed is achieved. However there is a very slight increase in gravity’s pull as well (as we know the further away from the earth the less the pull of gravity.) this would cause a slight acceleration. Within the realms of the spin (perfectly horizontal) capable by the pitcher the spin would stop because the spin put on the ball is not continually applied and the force against the spin is (the atmosphere increasing slightly as we near the ground too) eventually if we could keep it horizontal and build a tower high enough the spin would stop. The downward pull of gravity is definitely against the HORIZONTAL spin in this example because of the atmosphere.
Leif, you seem to be saying that there is no friction like that in space.

Leif, for this to be correct
Take a look at http://www.leif.org/research/Barycenters.pdf
What would happen if your centre of mass moved. Your a structure now, move yours (what moves it) how do you react. The planets react too, they are connected, they are a structure moving.

Ed