Reference Pages

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 28, 2012 1:30 am

Hello Justthefacts. I hope this reaches you. Don’t know how to contact you otherwise. I’m finally working on the wiki project as my primary one, thanks to recent developments. It is still firmly under wraps but looks set for growth. One member suggested I contact you with regard to establishing that side of the wiki. Please contact me by email through my other website (click my name) and I can tell you more and give you the URL.
This is excellent work btw. Thank you already.

Joachim Seifert
February 5, 2012 1:49 pm

Hi, Justthefacts……
….. for the Earth’s orbit section and all astronomical background…..some time is needed
to understand the real Earth’s trajectory…..
Any questions to me always welcome……
Following background: There is good data and analysis done at NASA JPL Pasadena…
I can quote literature….. but the IPCC/AGW “hijacked” the orbit topic by not using American
data….and the IPCC orbit analysis went to Belgium, to the University of Louvain, a center
of entrenched AGW-proponents…. Therefore in IPCC-studies, foremost Louvain folks
rule: such as Goosse, van Yperselen (now IPCC-director), Bertrand, Loutre, Berger….. and
not American authors….
…..all of them avoid to demonstrate, that the Earth’s orbit has an oscillating trajectory and
is NOT like an airplanes straight flight.
The orbit has “Librations” , even an librating comet follows on the Earth’s orbit in a distance…..
(see Wikipedia Libration for the Moon, the Earth does the same)
These Librations produce RF, depending on the annual shape of the orbit….
(my booklet explains this in detail….) …Reason for
Libration/oscillations is the 3-body-gravitation with Jupiter/Saturn interacting als third
body (Sun-Earth-3.-body -Sat+Jup_), …..this is not taken into account in
IPCC TAR or AR4…….(on purpose)…because they colluded to keep the
Earth’s orbit constant (AR4-wg1-LA-meeting in 2006) or quote: “assumed INVARIANT”
[ see AR4-wg1-chapter 2]……
…….the recent Nicola Scatetta paper (on WUWT already) is an epoch-making
paper….. showing the 60-20-40 years Three-body-gravitation cycle force onto climate….
…. a great leap forward…. the remaining analysis will come this year…
Best regards

Gary Pearse
March 25, 2012 9:36 am

JS: You are saying that the IPCC has “hijacked” the earth’s orbit topic!! This in itself is a worthy WUWT post. I can see ligitimate debate on many climatology issues, but I would have thought we had to take as given gravitation effects. Even if they are complex, I would have hoped that they wouldn’t be up for manipulation by the UN!!

May 3, 2012 7:50 am

If we are overlooking another earth orbit complexity, how about this….Our galaxy has an unseen portion of its apparent mass. Many free-flying cold dead sub-stars?…let’s name a couple which may be traveling paths nearby, one approaching sun, one departing…That one someone named Nemesis and It caused, perhaps the disturbance that separated earth from the moon and was the parent of the ellipsiticy of those orbits. Elliptic orbits undergoing instability (The precession of the gyroscope toy) ultimately decaying toward a collision with the focal point… .. How close is Nemesis II?.

May 3, 2012 4:28 pm

Of course it’s not a priority anymore. The satellites have not shown what they wanted them to show….

May 8, 2012 10:43 am

I was following the solar cycle progression via a nice overview page which is no longer being updated:
Very quick way to evaluate what’s going on and when it deserves more attention.
Can you find a replacement for this and include it on the Solar Page?

Gary Pearse
June 29, 2012 10:04 am

Is anyone keeping sea level data up to date? The folks at boulder are still stuck in 2011, just when the record was beginning to look interesting – look for major adjustments to come your way soon. This always happens with reporting when things aren’t heading for disaster.

September 14, 2013 11:19 am

With the results of the SKY2 Svensmark experiment, it is well past time to create a Cosmic Ray reference page. Even if there are not that many sources, it is a critical standalone measurement that can’t be derived from the Solar Page on the short term.

David in Michigan
October 10, 2013 7:55 pm

It’s unfortunate that a number of the graphs do not show the date of the graph. The assumption that those without a date are current, or at least current within one day, is sometimes a false assumption.

October 22, 2013 5:01 pm

How about adding a subtopic of charts etc. on glacial advance / retreat?

An Inquirer
April 22, 2014 10:44 am

Is the grpah showing forecast of El Nino vs. La Nina no longer displayed in the ENSO page?

Michael D
May 25, 2014 8:12 pm

hi Anthony,
These pages are so very excellent, and I know that you put a lot of work into making them so good. Thanks.
Would it be possible to add a “data adjustments” reference page, showing all the data adjustments that are being made (e.g. the down-adjustment of old US temperature readings)? Or maybe that would be more accessible if it was plotted beside the current best estimates.
Thanks (I hope)

September 14, 2016 2:37 pm

Where do I find documentation on the Pause, and fraudulent manipulation of the historic temperature record?

October 30, 2016 8:01 pm

Just the facts asked on the 22 Feb 2014 @ 10:55 am
However, the structure of the magnetosphere does not change the fact that I have not seen evidence that sufficient energy can be transported low enough in the atmosphere to influence Earth’s climate.
Here’s some tests they carried out back in 94

August 2, 2017 12:54 am

Wandering magnetic poles control global climate change. Watts up with that? Read and study, then engage in a discussion:

Dean Bruckner
December 24, 2018 6:20 am

Several examples of non-CAGW consensus views that turned out to be false have been stated and roundly affirmed, including Copernican laws of planetary motion, biological source of infection, etc. But there are still sacred Cows of Consensus among this readership. Consider the following:

1. Particles-to-people biological evolution via natural selection acting on random mutation not only did not happen; it could not have happened. The combinatorial space in biological codes (e.g., proteins) is too vast. A chance of 1 in 10^75 for a single functioning protein sequence is impossible given the constraints of time and particles in the universe, and falsifies the neo-Darwinian synthesis (

2. The earth and its life are much, much younger than standard age schemes taught these days. Soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils could not have endured for millions of years, let alone tens or or hundreds of millions of years. Their presence falsifies the consensus calendar of ages of the earth (

Whenever these two cows appear here, they carry their “Eat More Chikin” signs with them 🙂

%d bloggers like this: