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.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:34 am
Regrettably for this argument, the position of the barycentre relative to the Sun is determined largely by the positions of the heavy planets Jupiter and Saturn, but these do not produce the largest tidal forces. Qualitative handwaving style physics using the barycentre will therefore always produce a spurious correlation with J-S cycles, as the tidal forces due to Mercury and Venus (combined) are actually greater. This means that use of the barycentre leads to an unjustified answer
The Mercury and Venus tides operate over shorter timescales and raise tidal bulges which are then acted upon by the larger planets. Ian Wilson, a qualified astrophysicist, has done a lot of work in this area, which the commenters dismissing the idea of planetary motion affecting solar variability haven’t read, and don’t (currently) understand. The Sun’s outer layers are highly mobile plasma, and do not act the same way as an incompressible fluid like Earth’s oceans. Gravitational forces from planets can act in a more localised way on such a fluid as the Sun’s envelope, and we do not yet have an accurate assessment of the fluid dynamics involved.
However, we have found correlations between the speeding up and slowing down of the latitudinal ‘belts’ at various latitudes on the Sun and the frequencies of planetary alignments. Jimmi has no idea of what is justified and what isn’t, because he has not studied the matter in sufficient depth.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Ian W says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:54 pm
If so do you also accept that the Sun has an epitrochoid ‘wobble’ in its orbit of the galaxy like other stars with large planets, or do you consider that it moves in a smooth orbit around the galaxy totally unaffected by the presence of the planets?
Is a straw man argument. The stars, the Sun, and all their planets are in free fall and feel no forces due to their movements [other than tidal forces], so solar activity is indeed unaffected by the presence of planets.
So you are saying when the direction of that ‘free fall’ is altered changing their velocity vector the Sun and planets do not have any inertia and no force is required to move them into different orbits? They act as massless objects?
Have you really considered what you are sayng?
From tallbloke on October 15, 2012 at 4:05 am:
…you smearing troll. We do give serious consideration to interesting ideas dismissed out of hand by fools like yourself it’s true. (…)
Yes, stuff shows up here, gets dismissed by fools like Leif Svalgaard, Willis Eschenbach, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, even Lord Monckton, then finds a home on your site. Excuse me for noticing.
Example of an “interesting idea” you recently posted on Oct 8: Ebisuzaki et al : Some volcanoes are triggered by cosmic rays.
Caption of volcano drawing: Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber
From the Abstract: We note the possibility that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was triggered by the same mechanism: an increase in cosmic-ray flux triggered by Typhoon Yunya, as a decrease in atmospheric pressure results in an increase in cosmic-ray flux.
From USGS (bold added):
(…) The barycentre exerts no force of its own, as Anna V tirelessly reminds us, but it is a ‘shorthand’ single word ‘notation’ for the combined forces of several planets acting on the Sun used by those of us who are working on the details.
And yet there are barycenter advocates finding meaning in how much area the Sun sweeps around it, and have discovered mysterious enormous forces changing the Sun’s velocity 100% every 10 years. Using a barycenter to simplify some calculations related to orbital mechanics, that is understandable. Ascribing powers to the solar system’s barycenter as has been done, is not understandable.
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Have you really considered what you are saying?
objects in free-fall follow geodesics of spacetime, and what we perceive as the force of gravity is instead a result of being unable to follow those geodesics of spacetime, because the mechanical resistance of matter prevents us from doing so, but since there is no such resistance in space within the solar system, there is no force acting on the bodies.
Tallbloke says “Ian Wilson, a qualified astrophysicist”, attempting an argument from authority, which always goes down badly of skeptic sites.
If he is, then he has some funny ideas. For example appears not to know how Doppler effects used to detect extrasolar planets actually work. And he says “The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits” yet when challenged to prove that this is correct (on the sort of timescale that is implicit in the discussion), he makes no reply. Perhaps you could try?
From Ian W on October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm:
So you are saying when the direction of that ‘free fall’ is altered changing their velocity vector…
You may stop there. A vector has two components, magnitude and direction. An object in orbit is undergoing a continuous change to its velocity vector as its direction continually changes due to the acceleration provided by the gravitational force, its instantaneous direction given by the tangent of its orbit. The magnitude of the velocity vector is the speed of the object in orbit. Please try to make your arguments sound more authoritative by proper use of the proper nomenclature.
J. Seifert says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm
As far as I can see, Leif has said nothing about “temp-drop-rebounce-patterns” or about the Toilet-Paper-Shift (or ‘Temporal-Persistence-Shift’, or whatever the “TP” actually stands for).
What he and I have both said is that there is not enough energy in the impacts you list to change the orbit of the earth. It’s less than the impact of a fly hitting a car, more like the impact of a midge hitting a car. Sure, there is an impact, the midge thinks it’s the end of the world.
But if you think a midge hitting a car significantly changes the car’s orbit, you’re not paying attention. Similarly, thinking that the impact of even something as large as the Chicxlub meteorite could significantly change the Earth’s orbit is just magical thinking. Run the numbers.
No, Leif is not claiming that. He said nothing about the “impact pattern” or the toilet-paper-shift.
He said that there is not enough energy in your cosmic impact to affect the earth’s orbit in the way you claimed. Which is what I said, and others have said.
There’s an old saying that goes “If one man calls you a horse, laugh it off. If two men call you a horse, check your footprints. But if three men call you a horse, buy a saddle.” A number of people here have pointed out a huge flaw in your claims. The cosmic impacts don’t have enough energy to do what you claim, by several orders of magnitude. The math is not hard, Leif went through it above, as did I. Tallbloke went through it as well, and his numbers agree with Leifs.
In response, you keep waving your hands, and saying well if it moves the Earth just a little off then over time it will be a larger effect, and the like. All that is doing is causing people to lose respect for you. Man up, do the calculations, admit you were wrong, buy a saddle, and move on.
Or you could just move the conversation over to Tallblokes … because you are rapidly losing credibility here.
Me, I’d stay here if I were you, because here on WUWT folks will tell you the truth. And I would give up on the bluster, and on the claims that Leif and tallbloke and I are just fools who are trying to do you wrong. We are the good guys who are trying to do you right, and you would do well to seriously consider our objections.
Because after all, you knew enough to ask for peer-review here on this site, which was a very wise move. Now, if you are truly wise, you will pay attention to the peer review you have received. I can tell you this. Without the calculations showing that the cosmic impact can have the effect on the Earth’s orbit that you claim, your paper will never get published in any reputable journal. Because the first question the peer-reviewers will likely have is the same question asked over and over here—where are the numbers for the effect on the orbit of the earth? Where’s the beef?
My best to you,
w.
PS—If you are truly allergic to the math, Joachim. then just consider the relative sizes of the Earth and say the Chicxlub meteor. The Earth is ten billion times as massive as the meteor. Next, consider the ratios of their kinetic energies, which are calculated as
KE = 1/2 m v2.
where v is the velocity and m is the mass.
If we assume that the two are moving at the same speed, the kinetic energies are in the same ratio as the masses, so the Earth has ten billion times the kinetic energy of the meteor. Heck, even if the meteor were improbably going a hundred times faster than the Earth, the Earth would still have a million times the kinetic energy of the meteor …
In other words, the Earth hitting the meteor is like a container ship hitting a sailboat … nobody even notices, there’s no palpable change in the orbit. The container ship’s crew don’t even know they hit something until they get back to port and find the sailboat’s mast and rigging hanging from the container ship’s anchor.
PPS—A friendly word of advice. Lose the capital letters, they just make you sound both eccentric and desperate …
To Willis: Your quote:
……..”’ ……there is not enough energy in the impacts you list to change the orbit of the earth.
It’s less than the impact of a fly hitting a car, more like the impact of a midge hitting the car.
Sure, there is an impact, the midge thinks it’s the end of the world. But if you think a midge
hitting a car significantly changes the car’s orbit, you’re not paying attention. …….”’
….. NOW, LET ME SAY THE FOLLOWING TO WILLIS CLAIM:
(1) You have not read the paper, and in case you really went across pages and figures,
then, you did not understand what you saw. This can be proven that the few
coined abbreviations used in the text are unknown/inexplicable to you….. Sad.
(2) Your judgment is solely based on the fly/midge -car comparison. This comparison
rests on Leifs ‘simple” (HIS quote) calculation, that an impact mass must not be
a fly/midge but some huge sized object. Indeed, his simple calculation as such
is correctly done, there is no doubt about it… But, as always in life, his solution
is too simplistic and does not describe full cosmic impact conditions. Full cosmic
impact conditions are more complicated then Leifs simplistic presentation. There
are more dynamic impact forces, gravitation, centrifugal effects, the Earth orbital
motion as osculation [correct term] and many more to be included …..
(3) You ask for presentation of complicated astrophysical calculations on one hand ….
yet on the other hand you trust in Leifs simplistics showing only that flies do not move
a car…..
(4) Willis, you tried to give me your advice, and I will give you mine: You did outstanding
work until now, I enjoyed every article of you and be glad you will be around for many
more to come….but, here the but:
Do your things your own way and do not follow the misleading trail of Leif&Co.
I give Leif a 1,000 points in his proper field of solar science, I will accept every single
of his solar words…. but I give him +/- zero points in the field of the Earth’s orbit, which
is NOT his turf….. His word counts as much as the word of my veterinarian next door.
Do your own, get rid of the outmoded Leif-style and you will stay as the Best…….
(5) Reaching this point, I must not forget to mention our paper: We present EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE, which everybody should respect, that the EEO-cycle, the T”oilet”-P”aper”
-shifting, the CIO-impact – Z-type- pattern, the correlation of impact crater size-to Z
-type (“high voltage symbol”) temperature swing (cold-warm-middle level) EXIST and
are clearly VISIBLE and quantificable in the analyzed 20,000 years of temperature
evolution. We achieved this goal and claim sky-high performance compared to our
GCM-competition, the Warmist -style Microdriver GCMs, which cannot, as model-data
comparisons proved, ( see our paper introduction), quote: “claim any status of truth” .
We instead show the absolute best Holocene temperature reconstruction and will
therefore, in a few years time, sway high above the ashes of discarded GCMs.
We thank you that you concede that you CANNOT FALSIFY OUR PRESENTATION
AS IT STANDS. …point.
(6) Lets settle on the following: I heed your advice and you heed my advice and we both
will have made a great leap forward….JS
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Have you really considered what you are saying?
objects in free-fall follow geodesics of spacetime, and what we perceive as the force of gravity is instead a result of being unable to follow those geodesics of spacetime, because the mechanical resistance of matter prevents us from doing so, but since there is no such resistance in space within the solar system, there is no force acting on the bodies.
Yes I am aware of your definition of ‘freefall’. However, that was NOT what I asked. If a body like the Sun is in freefall ‘following the geodesics of space time’ and the direction of that freefall changes – you are saying that there is no inertia, no effect whatsoever the Sun would merely change direction and follow the new geodesics of space time’ as if it was entirely massless.
No inertia, no momentum, massless change of vector,
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 15, 2012 at 1:57 pm
From Ian W on October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm:
So you are saying when the direction of that ‘free fall’ is altered changing their velocity vector…
You may stop there. A vector has two components, magnitude and direction. An object in orbit is undergoing a continuous change to its velocity vector as its direction continually changes due to the acceleration provided by the gravitational force, its instantaneous direction given by the tangent of its orbit. The magnitude of the velocity vector is the speed of the object in orbit. Please try to make your arguments sound more authoritative by proper use of the proper nomenclature.
There is no reason to be patronizing – I was using simple language to force you Leif and Jimmi to think about what you were saying instead of parroting well worn phrases. Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector. (However, Leif you will note, states this centripetal force does not exist as the body is in freefall following the geodesics of space time )
My entire point was that if that ‘gravitational force which for bodies in the solar system is actually the sum of several gravitational foces; changes its ‘instantaneous direction’ due to the change of position of the other bodies in the solar system, then the orbit of the Sun around the galaxy and the planets and their moons will also alter. In Leif’s parlance the geodesics of space time will change and the body will change the direction of its freefall.
I find it difficult to accept that changing the velocity (that is – just so you understand me – the direction and speed) of any body be it the Sun or the planets or their moons is without any inertia or momentum and these massive bodies just change direction as if they were a massless mathematical point. You Jimmi, Leif, and Anna are of the massless point persuasion (despite your polemic to me above on the centripetal action of gravitational force – obviously no force is needed as the Sun and planers are massless and change velocity (that is speed and direction) without any inertia or momentum.
The reason I was using simple language was to draw this rather strange concept out into the open so it could be bluntly stated.
What I wonder is the centripetal force required to keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun? What force is then required to alter that orbit from its current almost circular pattern to the extended ellipse? The answer from the cognoscenti is that no force is required at all.
I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector.
Imagine a small body [a spacecraft perhaps] orbiting the Sun just skimming the surface. It will complete one orbit in 2 hours 47 minutes. Adjust the mass of the body such that the barycenter of the Sun and the body [remove all other bodies from the solar system if you must] is positioned one meter from the center of the Sun [on the line connecting the center and the body]. Now one way to treat the system is the classical Newtonian way [which is good enough for this]. In this paradigm the Sun and the body both orbit their common barycenter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit3.gif in particular the Sun orbiting in 2h 47m. During that short time the solar velocity vector with respect to the barycenter changes direction 360 degrees. The Sun so to speak rounds a very sharp corner. I maintain that this has no influence on the Sun.
“What force is then required to alter that orbit from its current almost circular pattern to the extended ellipse?”
Actually the real question is : When does this ever happen? Please provide proof that this has ever occurred during the last few thousand years, otherwise you are in the same category as Seifert and his EOO and CIOs.
“I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.” And now you are doing ‘argument from incredulity’, definitely a bad sign.
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector.
Now move the small body slowly away from the Sun. This moves the barycenter away from the Sun’s center. Continue to move the small body away from the Sun, the barycenter moves out as well. At some time [remove the rest of the universe if you must] the body will have reached such a distance that the solar orbit around the barycenter will take 12 years [as around the real solar system barycenter]. I still maintain that that small body does not influence the Sun in any measurable way.
Willis Eschenbach: 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.
I am glad you wrote that. I was going to post the same thought today, and you have scooped me.
I think if I were a reviewer I would require some computations of the sizes of the orbital swings forced by these impacts, and a justification that they all produce the same down-up-down swing in the global climate (instead of random perturbations), as a condition of publication. Do all of the impacting bodies come from the same direction at the same season of the Earth year? Publication is always something of a calculated risk, and as presented this paper needs another calculation, in my opinion. Perhaps the other analogy, besides Velikovsky, is Wegener, who also had a semi-quantitative hypothesis with an inadequate quantitative substantiation. The paper as it is looks less substantial than Wegener, all things considered.
Leif:
May I politely disagree with your summary, though please understand I’m not ready to accept a “physical collision” process to explain past repeated changes. Nor to accept physical changes in rotation or changes in the earth’s axis.
The barycenter of the solar system does NOT have to “change” the sun .. You are assuming an effect or change based on the simple Newton solid-body “particle” orbits and inertia.
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though. It is a roiling, flowing mass of plasma continuously compressed inwards by gravity on 10^30 some-odd independent charged particle each moving at incredible velocities and moved themselves by roiling twisting currents and loops at various speeds and various directions that themselves change rapidly over time. Outward force comes from the interior fusion r(randomly directly energy coming from collisions: and those loops and currents of charged particles create the (rapidly changing) magnetic fields and loops we see as the sunspot cycle.
Therefore, the ONLY thing a potential “change” from some periodic outside influence needs to do is “change” those charged loops that are already changing on an 22 year cycle. What seemly everybody misses is the fact that sunspots are only one (but highly visible!) indication or symptom of an underlying change in the magnetic fields and particle flow in the sun.
So, to temporaily change the loops of a flowing current water in a wide river near a whirlpool behind a rock, I do NOT need to build a dam and block all of the river. (This is your constant analogy of showing that the “sun” is not moved by 2-body point-mass calculations. And I agree, I don’t expect to see the sun change due to the barycenter changing from the interior of the sun out past its surface and back inside. But, like a single stick inserted into that whirlpool behind the rock, then withdrawn, I would NOT be surprised to see changes in the changing currents visible on the sun. After all, each current (because it sis looping up, stopping at an altitude, then falling back, is already weightless at the top of the parabola of the loop. And, each particle in that immense loop is only a single ion – with no mass at all to to be pulled or twisted from what would have been its path if the barycenter (or Saturn, or Jupiter, or whatever) were someplace else.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector.
Now move the small body slowly away from the Sun. This moves the barycenter away from the Sun’s center. Continue to move the small body away from the Sun, the barycenter moves out as well. At some time [remove the rest of the universe if you must] the body will have reached such a distance that the solar orbit around the barycenter will take 12 years [as around the real solar system barycenter]. I still maintain that that small body does not influence the Sun in any measurable way.
Leif – if you look at my earlier posts on this thread you will see that I started from the position of a binary star system with two stars orbiting each other. Perhaps you could rework your thought experiment using that example. The answer may be somewhat different to your straw man. 😉
davidmhoffer: 5. I don’t need to ask Leif about anything. He’s presented his rough calcs, as has Willis. Their calcs are more than sufficient to show that the forces that you assume are orders of magnitude too large to have been caused by the impacts you have identified. I followed their math and the numbers are reasonable.
I have read the whole thread, or almost the whole thread. I agree with the thoughts like that quoted that Dr. Seifert has not shown that his proposed mechanism can produce the results he wants from it. Someone mentioned Ceres, with which I am not familiar. Don’t the impacting objects have to be at least the size of Madagascar, including its underwater support down to the ocean bottom? Is there any evidence for impacts caused by objects that size, frequently in the last few thousands of years? The mechanism does not require an object large enough to destroy a fleet, it requires an object large enough to destroy Japan. Does it not?
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:22 pm
“What force is then required to alter that orbit from its current almost circular pattern to the extended ellipse?”
Actually the real question is : When does this ever happen? Please provide proof that this has ever occurred during the last few thousand years, otherwise you are in the same category as Seifert and his EOO and CIOs.
“I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.” And now you are doing ‘argument from incredulity’, definitely a bad sign.
Now we are on interesting ground – you thought the Earth’s orbit was perfectly circular and never changing?
See
Orbital shape (eccentricity)
The Earth’s orbit is an ellipse. The eccentricity is a measure of the departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth’s orbit varies in time between nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.005) and mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.058) with the mean eccentricity of 0.028. The major component of these variations occurs on a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). A number of other terms vary between components 95,000 and 125,000 years (with a beat period 400,000 years), and loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of −0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
and:
The eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit is currently about 0.0167; the Earth’s orbit is nearly circular. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit varies from nearly 0.0034 to almost 0.058 as a result of gravitational attractions among the planets (see graph).[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity
There are lots of other references but those were the easiest to find. Perhaps you ought to go and correct them I am sure Wikipedia would be grateful.
RACookPE1978 says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:50 pm
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though.
This is the usual ‘out’ from the dynamical calculations. Helioseismology shows that to a very high degree of precision the Sun’s interior is in hydrostatical equilibrium, that is: the density varies only with the radius. Already Newton showed that such a mass distribution can be treated as a point mass. But this is not really the issue. The point is that every assembly of particles in the Sun [apart from extremely tiny tidal effects] moves along the same geodetics [‘straight lines’] in spacetime. Because of internal motions [e.g. convection] one has to deal with time averages over a suitable interval. Now, all of this can be made complicated beyond belief, and it behooves proponents of the barycenter idea to show how the physics works. One attempt was made by Wolff and Padrone. Unfortunately their mechanism does not work. Even W&P explicitly state “A star in orbit about its barycenter is in a state of free fall (Shirley, 2006). At the center of the star, the attractive force from all the planets is exactly canceled by the orbital accelerations (centrifugal and angular). At other locations, the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid is the tidal force. It raises a tide 1 mm high at the solar surface.”
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 6:05 pm
if you look at my earlier posts on this thread you will see that I started from the position of a binary star system with two stars orbiting each other. Perhaps you could rework your thought experiment using that example. The answer may be somewhat different to your straw man
Your example is not different from mine. I’m also dealing with a binary star, except one of the two is teeny tiny. The physics stay the same, though.
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 6:05 pm
The answer may be somewhat different to your straw man
As always, the thread has been taken over by the barycenter cult-followers and the discussion degenerated to the same old, tired, and predictable tirades that we have gone over a zillion times. And as always, nothing will come of further ‘discussion’, except perhaps a certain disdain that a casual visitor to WUWT must feel by this unsavory display of science illiteracy.
RACookPE1978 says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:50 pm
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though.
And yet, in calculation of the incredible accurate ephemerides by JPL http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/ that help guide our spacecraft with meter precision and predict transits and eclipse to fraction of a second accuracy it suffices to treat the Sun as a point mass.
“Now we are on interesting ground – you thought the Earth’s orbit was perfectly circular and never changing?”
No of course I did not.
But you keep talking of “extended” ellipsis and “unstable” orbits, which to have any effect in the way you imply, must be happening over a time scale of a few decades. We are NOT talking about the Milankovitch cycles during which the eccentricity may change from 0.005 to 0.05 over 400,000 years. If that is the sort of change you meant , then it is completely out of step with claims that the Jupiter-Saturn period can cause significant changes.
Now stop being evasive and answer the following:
1. are your theories provably independent of the choice of origin
2. why do you think that techniques for detecting extrasolar planets tell you anything about the effect of planets on the internal structures of stars
3. why do you not understand the Doppler effect
4. why do you keep referring to planetary orbits as “unstable” when they are not (over the time periods we are talking about)
5. which specific parts of Newtonian planetary dynamics do you disagree with.
I notice with interest that you are increasingly relying on sarcasm in your posts – this is backfiring as it actually is showing you know less than others participating in this discussion – please try to provide answers well founded in mathematical and physical principles and if you are going to disagree with Newton and/or Einstein try to find a better reason than “I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.”
Good point Leif. If NASA were to use the funny money calculations of barycenter believers, we would be landing on a 10 meter square of…space. We would have missed the moon entirely and don’t even bother with objects further away. Mistakes like that multiply the further you get away from the mistake.
You don’t suppose barycenter proponents would like to put money on their calculations being accurate enough for a multi-billion attempt at landing on Mercury?
Pamela Gray says:
October 15, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Good point Leif. If NASA were to use the funny money calculations of barycenter believers, we would be landing on a 10 meter square of…space
If you had a little knowledge on the subject you would not make such a ridiculous statement. The AM calculations that align so nicely with the Holocene are derived directly from the JPL vectors and coordinates that NASA use. Perhaps you could educate yourself, instead of playing team groupie.
From Geoff Sharp on October 15, 2012 at 8:53 pm to Pamela Gray:
Perhaps you could educate yourself, instead of playing team groupie.
Warning, imminent eruption of redheaded Irish volcano detected.
Geoff, your complete lack of survival instinct is noted. I suppose it was nice knowing you.