FOREWORD: I don’t agree with many of the claims made in this paper, particularly the retrograde tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle claims. This is not a peer reviewed paper. That said, I’m willing to allow discussion of it, so be skeptical of these claims and force the authors to defend the work. As the author writes:
All open-minded readers are invited to discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of this theory or to falsify it.
There’s a summary PDF here. – Anthony
Guest post by Joachim Seifert, www.climateprediction.eu
In our new study (PDF), which we introduce here for discussion, we identify five macro-climatic mechanisms that govern a long time span of 20,000 years. In order to “govern”, they have to comply with two basic requisites: (1) clear visibility in paleo-climate proxy records and (2) continuous presence or multiple recurrence in a longer than one millennium time frame.
The state of the art in climate-forcing mechanism analysis is that presently available General Circulation Models (GCMs) underperform substantially in terms of predictive power, showing significant mismatches and model deficiencies in model-data comparisons. This may not surprise when macro-forcing mechanisms were substituted by coupled micro- and nano-forcings and feedbacks. It is evaluated in the literature that all GCMs perform well for the first 500 years backwards from the present, but then lack skill for the previous 9,500 Holocene years. This is critical for climate models, as they have also to show their validity on time frames of more than 1,000 years.
Our study proceeds with the selection of 10,000 years of the entire Holocene interglacial and, for comparison, of another 10,000 years of a purely glacial time span (37,000-27,000 BP). For the purpose of identifying macro-forcing mechanisms, we use the GISP2 record due to its high time and temperature resolution and its visibility of macro- and micro-temperature swings.
The presented climate-forcing study considers the effects of Milankovitch cycles, atmospheric CO2-concentrations, Solar Inertial Motions (SIM), the retrograde tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle, and of two major mechanisms, the Earth Orbit Oscillation (EOO) and the Cosmic Impact Oscillation (CIO).
After detrending the GISP2 data according to SIM and Milankovitch cycles, the EOO and CIO remain as dominant climate drivers. Both the two EOO and CIO cycles act as solar amplifiers: They do not act by increasing overall solar output, but they vary Earth-Sun distances, thus increasing or decreasing energy input received on Earth.
Detailed mechanisms for both oscillations are provided; their calculation methods are pointed out. The Holocene proves to be highly CIO disturbed over 8,000 years, whereas the 37-27k years BP time period remains CIO-calm with just one CIO-event to be noted.
As shown in the picture presented (above), the climate of the 37-27k period is overwhelmingly governed by the Earth Orbit Oscillation. We permit remaining small to medium deviations of the EOO from the GISP2 curve to undergo GCM-analysis for identifying and attributing micro- and nano-drivers in coupled systems. The EOO oscillation cycle is a continuously occurring mechanism. By knowledge of its dynamics, we are able to reconstruct the EOO cycle line from 37-27 ka BP, as displayed in the graphics. Comparison of the reconstruction line to GISP2 data yields an accurate curve match. Only one minor CIO impact event occurred at 31,000 BP. By knowing impact date and energy, we were able to reconstruct the missing EOO oscillation peak.
Concerning the most interesting time span of 10,000 years Holocene: We were able to identify 13 CIO events out of 24, which, according to impact mechanism dynamics, must send Holocene temperatures steeply down after each impact event. As the Earth orbital line oscillates, temperature recoveries follow after each cold temperature peak. The striking feature of this recovery pattern consists of a higher solar energy yield and higher GISP2 temperatures compared to the temperature level given for the date of any impact. We demonstrate this important feature in detail, because it remains left out in present GCMs, another modeling deficiency and obvious cause for GCM model-data mismatches.
The 37-27 ka BP period, as presented in the graphic, can easily be reconstructed based on the calculated EOO cycle combined with one minor CIO impact. The same applies to the Holocene, which can easily be reconstructed based on the course of the EOO cycle, and then enhanced with the superimposition of given 13 random CIO events.
Concluding the study, we zoom in onto EOO and CIO forcing of the past 3,000 years (1,000 BC to present) and provide an outlook onto forcing mechanisms, which are expected to act within the future 500 years. The GISP2 proxy temperature curve and macro-forcing mechanisms are compared to the Hockey Stick temperature evolution pattern.
Details of demonstrated astro-climatic relations are as of today, 2012, new and original climate change knowledge. The IPCC has not been able to provide supplementary data on cycle mechanics. The identification of 5 macro-climatic drivers, missing in current GCMs, unmistakably proves that climate science is not settled yet. One missing driver may be excused, but not five. The notion of “The science is settled”, upheld since the days of Galileo, is a spiritual relict of the past.
The paper is available here. Again, this is new knowledge, a new view on what drives climate in the long run. All open-minded readers are invited to discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of this theory or to falsify it. Productive criticism, in other words.
E.M.Smith says:
October 13, 2012 at 4:55 am
E.M. your comments (as well as your blog) are always interesting, well thought out and to my mind fun I would be hard pressed to say whom I have learned the most from, you, Willis, or Anthony. Since it was Anthony that ultimately by way of WUWT introduced me to both you and Willis I would say that the title goes to him..
Reply to Philipp Bradly: The problem always is that some people want to shoot first,
think they killed the brown dude but the ammunition was worthless. Go to Wikipedia
concerning Storegga: In order to produce a megatsunami, the impacts have to be
in the North Sea, clearly demonstrated WITH A MAP. Many impacts desintegrate due
to the immense heat during the ultimate miles of flight and produce a straighforward
line of impacts (all explained in the paper…..). The impacts can be veryfied by
mineralogical studies…please see the whole cosmic impact discussion…such as
Clovis event etc)…an impact on Earth produces micro-spherules, “Homogenites” and
glassy rock melting…..
Only AGW can invent stories such as an impact was nothing more then regular Greenland
ice melting…. Please read our detail, answers are given in the paper….
Nice climate model. have Bob Tisdale check how well it represents SST.
Have Willis check the response to volcanos. And then lets see a headline article on THAT.
E.M.Smith says:
October 13, 2012 at 4:55 am
“…..there is a lunar tidal cycle that explains the connection. As orbital resonance locks various things in fairly fixed relationships, the lunar tidal cycles match the planetary / SIM cycles (as the planetary movements determine orbital resonance timing). That’s enough to be the ‘mechanism’ and explain why solar variations can’t be causal, yet are coincident…”
Aaah! E M Smith makes a lot of sense here! Thank you!
Actually I think this paper is an excellent start, It may or not be correct but it is the way this science should be done. BEFORE you start ttrying to ascribe observed temperature fluctations to mankind, you need to know what the natural background temperature fluctuations are.
I think everyone can agree that there are cycles found in a multitude of places in nature. It would be natural to expect there are cycles as well in the earth’s tempearature. The current “best” knowledge about earth’s temperature history suggests that there are several cycles that are occurring. It would also not be unreasonable to expect that there may be occassional random events which MIGHT temporarily interrupt tthe effect that these cycles have on earths temperature (such as comets, huge volcanic eruptions, man’s large scale land use changes and GHG;s to name a few).
As a first pass, the authors have attempted to correlate the temperature changes in the past with the frequency of other natural cycles. Correlation does not prove causation, but it does suggest there MAY be a link to causation. For some prominent people here to suggest offhand that these correlations between temperature and other cycles are are just merely coincidence and that you are a crackpot if you even suggest there could be a connection is ridiculous. First you find correlations, which they have done, and then you try to determine if this correlation is mere coincidence or if they indeed are cause and effect related.
Not necesarrily relevant to this paper discussion or trying to pick on Bradley but I am curious about a statement made. He says . “We know how high the tsunami was on the coast of Scotland (21 meters) , which is consistent with the slide being the cause. ” Does the estimate of 21 meters take into account that the oceans are believed to have been 40 meters lower than they are “today” when the 21 estimate is made? I have not read the paper that makes the 21 meter esitimate so I have no idea if that was taken into account or not. If not, then the 21 meter estimate may be wildly innaccurate.
To alcheson: You must include one more point: The falsification! We detected, as
you write, ‘correlations”. Wonderful. Now these correlations are multiple x multiple and
if I say: “This is a valid, steadily occuring mechanism”…then get into the detail and falsify
it by pointing out that the mechanism DOES NOT WORK/APPLY in this x-time span of
the Holocene…. This is the method….. we checked on it many times whether a
falsification would be feasible….. if there were a real possibility of falsification, I would
have used the standard AGW terminology, we are all used today, such as the standard
phrasology: “” This indicates…, this may…we believe…we assume…etc.pp ” and
almost total use of conjunctives…. a master of the conjunctive phrasology, for example
is a guy called S. Rahmstorf, I can point to pages of him with 30 conjunctives on a
single page and labelled then as high class “AGW-science”…..JS
Second reply to Geoff Sharp:
Our paper is already 18 pages long and you run the SIM+Landscheidt page….
fine…. all peer bloggers are invited to read all blog comments until now and I
BET, they all will find your SIM/Landscheidt stuff most tedious/uninteresting/boring
(Bloggers you can correct me, if I were off this time).
If you now trying to hijack Anthony’s climate page to convert it into a Landscheidt-SIM
discussion would be against the interest of our peer climate bloggers.
I indicated (not forgot) the SIM-motion as a WEAK climate mechanism, visible in
GISP2 from 7,000 to 1,000 BC, producing a minimum concave temperature
effect. This should suffice for our 20,000 year Holocene paper. How it exactly
works, is SIM-motion material…..and we could dispute it among ourselves by Email,
you have mine for a long time…. If you insist, please take the SIM effect OUT if you
want, fine, “SIM produces NOTHING” for you, no problem…. this does not effect the
four remaining forcing cycles, they have a different mechanism…
…….Let me ask politely not disrupt the peer reviewing by exigencies in respect to you
private SIM website….JS
Reply to Steve Mosher: Good idea with Bob Tisdale and checking on SST…
and Willis, he did 3 outstanding quality posts on volcano eruption effects,
from which I, myself, drew a lot….I would like his opinion about the paper..
.he is the one to notice fine details….he would never produce an AGW linear
hockey stick and declare the rest of data as “noise”….We do not do this in
our skeptical climate science….. JS… Please someone forward the message
to Willis, good move, detail checking….
Geoff Sharp: This is similar to the debunked solar chord theory (Bailey) which wrongly suggests the Earth orbits the SSB instead of the Sun. JPL data shows the perihelion/aphelion distances only vary by a maximum of 15000 kilometers over many thousands of years.
The problem with considering Barycentres is that it is the centre of *mass*. Planetary movement is determined by gravitational forces that, while linearly related to mass obey an inverse square law with distance. So centre of mass is not the same thing as centre of gravity in a non-uniform field like the interplanetary scale. For an object on the table it is , to all intents, the same thing. This means the two terms are often used synonymously. At the planetary scale this is an error an probably the cause of this confusion.
Why is it that the CIO is always down-up-down? If these are from impacts, are not the sources of the impacts randomly distributed, and wouldn’t the impacts from opposite directions have opposite effects?
The caption to Figure E Might be: “Examples of Cosmic Impact Oscillations: impact, rebound, and stabilization of Earths orbit flight and resulting temperature changes.”
Reply to Matthew: I like this great question! We gave it month’s of thought…..
It is a fact/correlation in GISP2. NO IMPACT without this impact pattern…see
also paper resume…. Why is it? Maybe a skeptical peer mechanical engineer
from space or aircraft science could explain why an impacted system tries to
stabilize itself in this described way. …..
Lets describe it for now this way: We take a system with (1) centrum attraction and
(2) centrifugal forces. Impacts enhance centrifugal forces (the orbit at both ends
of the minor axis) goes into the cold run, then rebounces into the warm and
stabilizes itself as the 3. phase….
If we had included calculations of this pattern, our peer climate blog community
would have been not amused…. because its too specific….lets an knowledgable
mechanical peer engineer do some explaining…..JS
We are dealing with a chaotic system of at least dozens of variables, with patchy data for any, and no real knowledbe of all. Let us admit that there are two other KNOWN variables that would have climate impact and have an astronomical driver, Earth’s internal fission rate and Earth’s magnetism. Since there is no agreed model for our varying magnetic filed, let us start with the model presented in “No Loophole for Your Soul” posted at Canada Free Press. We have a 900 mile diameter cubic cyrstal Iron core, which by it’s cubic nature would be a very large permanent magnet. A spinning magnet creates an electric field, which creates a magnetic field. The Iron core of the Earth makes one more rotation every 400 days than the crust. If this is due to internal particle impacts, or changes akin to a motor-generator set with the Sun, is speculation at present. There result is obvious, as the magnetic axis and magnetic field strength vary over time. Earth is partially protected by the magnetosphere, which means only partial protection for solar particles. Less magnetic protection means more particle impacts on high temperature, high pressure fissionaable material as well as the surface and atmosphere.
Give ME four parameters….and if those four parameters include GRAVITY, MAGNETISM, FISSION ENERGY and THERMODYNAMICS….then i too can make an elephant wag his tail.
Last two questions:
1. Did you make a list of geologically identified impact events that produced no discernable signal in the temperature data? It would be interesting to compare other features (e.g. estimated energy of the impacting object) of these impacts to the impacts that produced discernable signals.
2. Does your theory depend on the orbit-changing effects of the impacts or do you consider other possible effects such as atmospheric dust kicked up by the impacts?
Reply to Matthew:
Please read the impact mechanism page before asking, its all there. The impact
dust question is new: Therefore answer: Dust belongs to the micro- and nano-drivers…
..there is no detectable signal as dust driving Holocene temperature evolution….
As micro-driver, it always peeters out after some years, there are many optical
transparency dust studies on the atmosphere… as volcanoes, hurling millions of
tons of ash into the air……
there always is clean breathing after a couple of years…The dust does not
drive the climate…….JS.
J. Seifert: and
almost total use of conjunctives
What does that mean? Can you provide some examples?
So far the skeptic blog peer review process shows no bias. Everything presented is openly scrutinized.
However it appears the correcting discourse should be friendlier. With the old peer review process corrupted the new still needs discourse maturity.
Anna v said:,
“The only meaning that the motions relative to the barycenter can have is as a type of clock, a time measuring machine. The barycenter is just a very useful point to describe the whole planetary system with respect to the galaxy, in larger frameworks:”
Th e question is – why does there appear to be a correlation between time scales associated with the SIM (Solar Inertial Motion) and aspects of the Earth’s climate?
You are correct in pointing out that motion of the Sun about the Barycentre is probably only a clock that is ticking at the same rate as another planetary effect upon the Sun.
The most promising of these other planetary effects is a process of tidal-torquing. This is where the periodic alignment of Venus and the Earth distorts the deep layers of the Sun’s convective zone (near the tachocline) so that they no longer have a spherical shape. This distorted region becomes susceptible to Jupiter’s gravitational force which is able to tug on the asymmetric bulges. This tugging force either slows down or speeds up the motion of material at the base of the Sun’s convective zone in such way as to effect the level of solar activity on the Sun.
If this tidal torquing model is correct then there is only an apparent connection between the SIM and the level of solar activity [that effects the Earth’s climate].
The real connection is as follows:
Motion of Jovian planets ——> determines stable orbits of inner terrestrial planets
So Motion of Jovian planets indirectly determine time scales associated with the tidal distortion of the deepest layers of the Sun’s convective zone.
Motion of Jupiter relative to the Inner terrestrial planets determined the timing and nature of the tidal torquing of the deepest layers of the Convective Zone. –> governing the level of solar activity.
SIM only APPEARS to correlate with the level of solar activity because SIM is being determined by the same factor which determines the level of tidal torquing on the Sun [which determine the level of solar activity on the Sun]. This common factor is the motion of the Jovian planets.
LazyTeenager says:
October 12, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Well they just contradicted the definition of a cycle. There is reason to claim cycles have a fixed period and amplitude and oscillate around a fixed point. It’s a definition.
There is no reason why you can’t have a cycle of increasing or decreasing frequency! A cycle does not mean fixed frequency. A crystal oscillator slowly changes it’s frequency over time.
J. Seifert: If we had included calculations of this pattern, our peer climate blog community
would have been not amused…. because its too specific
How about an appendix, or “supporting on line material”? Such computations will, I think, eventually be necessary to wash away the Velikovsky analogy.
I don’t understand why the effect is always “down => up => down” if the impacts are random. Wouldn’t you expect random impacts to produce random orbital deviations, hence random temperature effects?
To Matthew: Theoretically …but I cannot do this without explaining a lot of
background…. the SIM motion is a special matter, and as descibed as over
a multi-millenial period, needs explication with graphs up to a million years
back…. After this paper, I will explain the decadal Sat-Jup cycle in 2013, in
autumn 2013 the anti-science infantilistic hockey stick, which is also important
to shred into pieces and then comes the SIM and the glacial sequence
analysis….. this is my schedule for 2013-14. Sorry if you have to wait, I believe,
the present paper provided sufficient conversation items, greetings…. JS
Kelvin Vaughan: There is no reason why you can’t have a cycle of increasing or decreasing frequency! A cycle does not mean fixed frequency. A crystal oscillator slowly changes it’s frequency over time.
As does an automobile engine during acceleration and deceleration. I present this as a somewhat more common experience among non-electronics boffins.
J. Seifert claims a 790 year temperature cycle. .
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_seifert_790.gif
But the temperature reconstructions show a complex mostly threefold extrema with a frquency of 2/1827 years, which can be shown as a heliocentric synodic function of two planets with some difference in frequency and one has a great ellipticity (Pluto). This is especially indicated in the temperature reconstruction of E. Zorita (ECHO) between 100o AD and 1200 AD.
Seifert deals in his book also with a different distance for the times of cold resp. warm climate:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/aphel_1.gif
But is not.
V.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm
As seen in the Abstract, one mechanism is Solar Inertial Motion (SIM).
………..
A. How does the barycenter of the solar system matter? Why would the Sun moving “across an area the size of 4.3 solar radiuses” have any meaning? This motion is not with regards to anything larger than the solar system which has an effect worth noting on either the Sun or the solar system. Thus the reference frame is wrong, consider the center of mass of the Sun as fixed with the rest going around it, the effects of the planets and the rest are treated as tidal forces. And stop the inane talk with the Sun and planets twirling together like skaters on ice.
Kadaka
I presume that you will be passing your opinion onto those astronomers searching for ‘extrasolar planets’ who do so using just such a motion of the planet’s parent star to indicate their presence?
“Doppler spectroscopy is an indirect method for finding extrasolar planets from radial velocity measurements via observation of Doppler shifts in the spectrum of the star around which the planet orbits.
Over 90% of the extrasolar planets known as of September 15, 2011 were discovered using Doppler spectroscopy.
HISTORY
Otto Struve proposed in 1952 the use of powerful spectrographs to detect distant planets. He described how a very large planet, as large as Jupiter, for example, would cause its parent star to wobble slightly as the two objects orbit around their center of mass.[2] He predicted that the small Doppler shifts to the light emitted by the star, caused by its continuously varying radial velocity, would be detectable by the most sensitive spectrographs as tiny red shifts and blue shifts in the star’s emission. However, the technology of the time produced radial velocity measurements with errors of 1,000 m/s or more, making them useless for the detection of orbiting planets.[3] The expected changes in radial velocity are very small – Jupiter causes the Sun to change velocity by about 13 m/s over a period of 12 years, and the Earth’s effect is only 0.1 m/s over a period of 1 year – so long-term observations by instruments with a very high resolution are required”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy
AND
The following is a list of 456 extrasolar planets that were only detected by radial velocity method –– 31 confirmed and 323 candidates, sorted by orbital periods. Since none of these planets are transiting or directly observed, they do not have measured radii and generally their masses are only minimum. The true masses can be determined when astrometry calculates the inclination of the orbit.
There are 160 members of the multi-planet systems –– 21 confirmed and 139 candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extrasolar_planets_detected_by_radial_velocity
These astronomers are going to be extremely upset that you have identified the failing in their (and Newton’s) logic and their life’s work is wasted.
Alternatively, you could hypothesize why it is that only the Sun of all the stars in the universe with planets does not have any change in radial velocity due to the planets in orbit around it.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm
GlynnMhor says:”the net solar angular momentum changes as the combination with the rotation of the Sun around its own axis.”
Physics is quantitative, not just handwaving. Please give magnitudes for any effects that result.
“the smooth transition of the angular momentum curve is disrupted from time to time by the orbital effects of the largest planets, ”
Total angular momentum is conserved, so if this were true the angular momentum of the planets would have to change, so their orbits would change. Please give data showing that.
Anthony is correct to be skeptical of claims related to planetary motions….
We talk again on the same subject.
I suggest you read the works referenced here:
HISTORY
Otto Struve proposed in 1952 the use of powerful spectrographs to detect distant planets. He described how a very large planet, as large as Jupiter, for example, would cause its parent star to wobble slightly as the two objects orbit around their center of mass.[2] He predicted that the small Doppler shifts to the light emitted by the star, caused by its continuously varying radial velocity, would be detectable by the most sensitive spectrographs as tiny red shifts and blue shifts in the star’s emission. However, the technology of the time produced radial velocity measurements with errors of 1,000 m/s or more, making them useless for the detection of orbiting planets.[3] The expected changes in radial velocity are very small – Jupiter causes the Sun to change velocity by about 13 m/s over a period of 12 years, and the Earth’s effect is only 0.1 m/s over a period of 1 year – so long-term observations by instruments with a very high resolution are required”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy
You are at liberty to disagree – but astronomers have been using radial velocity changes causing Doppler shifts for some time.
Total angular momentum is conserved, so if this were true the angular momentum of the planets would have to change, so their orbits would change. Please give data showing that.
The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits. Have you never wondered why that is? What possible force could cause the change from a circular to an eccentric ellipse for a coupled system as large as Earth/moon or even Jupiter and its moons?
Reply to Volker Doormann:
We are peers on this website and you are the good, star gazing, esoterical ASTROLOGICAL guy…I know, Pluto told you all, stars do not lie and because Saturn crossed the Venus line,
the discussion paper must have many flaws….. My climate peers, Doormann has spoken…JS
anna v says:
October 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm
I am with Leif on this and cannot be open minded in discussing this analysis. The only meaning that the motions relative to the barycenter can have is as a type of clock, a time measuring machine. The barycenter is just a very useful point to describe the whole planetary system with respect to the galaxy, in larger frameworks:
The barycenter has no mass and no meaning for the forces appearing within a planetary system; it is just a parametrization, as the geocentric system is just a parametrization of the planetary system. It makes no sense to discuss angular momenta etc in the barycenter system as in the geocentric system.
The path of the solar system through space is described by the barycenter not the Sun’s center of mass. The sun describes a path around that barycenter as the solar system orbits the galaxy. This variance in velocity (wobble) is seen in other stars. What force is required to make the sun leave a smooth velocity and ‘wobble’ in an epitrochoid pattern? It is not just a theoretical nicety a force affects the Sun’s path through space. A similar force affects the orbits of all the planets. Why do you think the Earth follows Milankovitch cycles?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit
In 1989, Jacques Laskar’s work showed that the Earth’s orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the initial position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years’ time. Modeling the solar system is subject to the n-body problem.
Surely if you are correct the planetary gravitational effects are so minimal that there is no ‘n body’ problem and you can forecast the positions of the planets perfectly? Why do these astronomers see things differently?
Ivanka Charvátová and Pavel Hejda
A possible role of the solar inertial motion in climatic changes,
33rd International Geological Congress August 8-14, 2008, Oslo,
http://catriskglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/charvatova.pdf
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:45 am
Thank you for your kind words. Let me start by saying that I find your ideas thought-provoking.
I am concerned by the following claim:
My main concern, for this paragraph as well as for the paper as a whole is, where are the numbers? Where is the data to back up your ideas?
My other concerns, in no particular order, are:
• When there is a collision between between a cosmic object and the earth, as far as I know there is no resulting “oscillation” in the orbit of the earth. It takes up a very slightly altered orbit, and that’s it.
• How much altered? Depends on a host of factors, but consider the masses. The Chicxlub asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs is estimated to have weighed on the order of 6e+14 kg. The mass of the earth is about 6e+24 kg … that’s ten full orders of magnitude larger. The earth has ten billion times the mass of even that huge asteroid.
• It is not clear what you mean by the term “orbital run equilibrium”.
• Estimates of “units of megatons” or “multitudes of Hiroshima bombs” do not tell me much. Your average thunderstorm releases about as much energy as a Hiroshima bomb …
You follow the previous quote by saying:
While this may all be so, the devil is in the details.
• How do we know that the collision will elongate the minor axis of the elliptic orbit of the Earth?
• Why not the major axis?
• How much (as a percentage) can a collision with something one ten-billionth of the mass elongate elongate either asia?
• Where are the astronomical observations, or even theoretical calculations, that support this claim of minor axis elongation?
You continue:
I fear I don’t understand that at all. What does “the orbit swings into reverse” mean? And how can it swing into reverse “toward the opposite orbit side”? Also, I don’t understand why anything should start “from the furthest end point positions”.
Finally, all of this assumes that the disturbance of the orbit from the collision will result in a damped oscillation on either side of the original orbit. You further assume that this oscillation will die out, and leave the planet in the original “orbital run equilibrium”.
I see no reason to assume that either of those is true. After the collision, the planet will immediately take up a new orbit. If it speeds the planet up, the orbit will be further from the sun, and vice versa.
But there’s no swinging on either side of the original orbit back to the previous “equilibrium”.
In closing, let me again recommend to you a consideration of the relative masses. The Chicxlub asteroid hitting the earth is the equivalent of a 75 kg man being hit by a mass on the order of one milligram [UPDATE: a friend points out I meant a microgram] … one millionth of a gram. A gram is four-hundredths of an ounce.
Do you think that being hit by a mass, not of one gram (4/100 of an ounce) but of one millionth of that mass, one microgram, will affect the orbit of a man?
All the best,
w.
The cosmic connection in this paper is far overblown. Even mentioning the De-Campo impact as having any importance for climate (this impact produced about 5000 tons of metallic debris and hardly any crater), is suspect.
If the frequency of impacts were as high as this paper implies we would see it in many other proxies that simply aren’t there.
To Dennis Ray Wingo: Here another example of someone overblowing without
having read the paper at all…. airing wishfull AGW – Warmist nonsense….
Let me confirm again: (1) The IMPACT PATTERN &together with the (2) TP-EOO
SHIFT prove the occurence of an cosmic impact, which are 2 features for an impact…..
Both cosmic features together cannot be produced by any terrestrial catastrophic
event, since purely terrestrial events cannot cause orbital movements….
I get slowly tired to answer to trolls, who “air and overblow” themselves, in order to
feel important…my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer
blogging site….JS