Help me evaluate idea Jupiter/Saturn conjunctions are driving much of global warming.

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Billy T, Sep 14, 2014.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I need some help, as not well versed in astronomy. I want to compare the gravitational perturbations to earth's orbit that occur and repeat about every 60 years in sets of three, each separated from the other two by about 120 degrees in the heavens. I suspect that one of the three may be significantly stronger than the other two in each set of three and want to know if that is true. The reason I suspect this is shown in this graph:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Green sin wave, curve (MDV) has period of ~61 years
    But unlike the earlier deceleration periods, the ST (man's GHG release) is now over powering the recently started cooling phase of the MDV to hold the temperature increase small. (After ~2004 - right edge of graph. See two graphs at end of this post with years separately given.)My concern is what happens when the next heating phase of the MDV is assisted by the increased release of GHG during the next decades, if the current trend for each decade to release more GHG than the prior one continues as I fear it will with China burning ever more coal and selling 20+ million cars now each year.

    I note that the average humidity is also increasing with the temperature and that less than an hour exposure to 35C wet bulb temperature is lethal to human just resting in a chair. Thus, I want to see if the MDV is, as authors suggest, due to the ~60 year period of Jupiter and Saturn's return to same location in the heavens. I. e. understand why there is not much 20 year sine wave needed too to reproduce 88% of the thermal record but need help understating the astronomical data tables below.
    I. e. Which parts of the data tables below goes where repeatedly as Kepler showed in 1606 via this drawing:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and is one of the three locations in the heavens with much greater gravitational force on the sun (or Earth with its only one year averaging of that perturbation of its orbit) due to eccentricity of Jupiter's orbit?
    As Jupiter is both more massive and closer to the sun, Its gravitational force on the sun (or the earth) is greater, much greater, than Saturn's, so I would be happy if I could calculate their combined force on the sun when they are in conjunction. I think the first table below gives the data needed, but perhaps the second is more useful. I don't really understand this data. Both come from the same link as the quote.

    The Jupiter / Saturn conjunctions (in right ascension) in the last 60 year & before 2101 were:
    August 15, 1940 with Jupiter 1°15' north of Saturn 97.5° West Taurus
    October 11, 1940 with Jupiter 1°17' north of Saturn 155.0° West Taurus
    February 20, 1941 with Jupiter 1°21' north of Saturn 67.7° East Taurus
    February 18, 1961 with Jupiter 14' south of Saturn 34.6° West Capricorn
    January 14, 1981 with Jupiter 1°09' south of Saturn 103.9° West Libra
    February 19, 1981 with Jupiter 1°09' south of Saturn 141.2° West Libra
    July 30, 1981 with Jupiter 1°12' south of Saturn 57.9° East Libra
    May 31, 2000 with Jupiter 1°11' north of Saturn 16.9° West Taurus

    The following four are about 20 years apart as are the two above. Why none in 2020?
    Why are the first three above less than a year apart?

    November 5, 2040 with Jupiter 1°14' south of turn 24.8° West Libra
    April 10, 2060 with Jupiter 1°09' north of Saturn 39.8° East Gemini
    March 15, 2080 with Jupiter 6' north of Saturn 43.8° West Aquarius
    September 24, 2100 with Jupiter 1°18' south of Saturn 25.1° East Libra

    Jupiter / Saturn conjunctions (in ecliptical longitude) in the last 60 year & before 2101:
    August 8, 1940 with Jupiter 1°11' north of Saturn 90.9° West Taurus
    October 20, 1940 with Jupiter 1°14' north of Saturn 164.0° West Taurus
    February 15, 1941 with Jupiter 1°17' north of Saturn 72.9° East Taurus
    February 19, 1961 with Jupiter 14' south of Saturn 34.9° West Capricorn
    December 31, 1980with Jupiter 1°03' south of Saturn 90.9° West Libra
    March 4, 1981 with Jupiter 1°03' south of Saturn 155.9° West Libra
    July 24, 1981 with Jupiter 1°06' south of Saturn 63.8° East Libra
    May 28, 2000 with Jupiter 1°09' north of Saturn 14.9° West Taurus
    December 21, 2020 with Jupiter 6' south of Saturn 30.1° East Aquarius
    October 31, 2040 with Jupiter 1°08' south of Saturn 20.8° West Libra
    April 7, 2060 with Jupiter 1°07' north of Saturn 41.9° East Gemini
    March 15, 2080 with Jupiter 6' north of Saturn 43.5° West Gemini
    September 18, 2100 with Jupiter 1°13' south of Saturn 29.4° East Libra

    This source also did sort of Fourier analysis to find the frequency components of the temperature varialtion and did find both the 20 & 60 year periods:
    My worry is what happens after that (if their theories are correct) when the MDV starts into the next warming phase. Are most humans dead before 2060?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Both planets are gas giants and have little gravitational affect on the Earth.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    How does your evidence show that "Jupiter/Saturn conjunctions are driving much of global warming"?
    I can't see the connection between that proposition and the graphs you have shown.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,025
  8. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well, Bill T I am probably the guy you want to talk to about his issue, but i have been working in the garden this summer.

    you probably do not need the older graph produced by kelper except for historic record of the past where it might be some use,as a physical record rather computer generated record of the past some times such records are of high value. At any rate i do not think you will need it.

    The cycles that you are looking for effecting earth atmosphere warming occur about every ten years.

    Jupiters gravity effect travels through the entire earth in respects to atmosphere effects, so the change occurs throughtout the entire earth or atmosphere as one background energy, as the rise is progressive instruments are effected as well, and may eliminate any reading although you wittness eviidence of physcial change.

    Carbon may be directly under the influence of Saturn i am unsure at this momment of the predominace of effect at a specific 10 years cycle as it takes reviewing data, if so the effect is also global, it seems likely, but saturn overtakes another predominate effect for a short period, in short satrun does not have axis controll.

    it does not require a conjunction to have the effect, it is a matter of duration of effect. but there may be times stronger than other.

    Dwayne D.L.Rabon
     
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    As opposed to Farsight/RealityCheck/Reiku/chinglu and the rest of the SPA?

    huh? Oh: the weed patch. Right. *cough cough*


    What the--?

    SOMEBODY BRING A FIRE HOSE

    Aw geez, Alice, tell me you mean 11.

    :wtf:


    :roflmao:

    SPA ALERT


    :roflmao:

    :roflmao:
    sounds like a contraindication for certain meds advertised on late nite TV

    :roflmao:

    [video=youtube;N9oq_IskRIg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9oq_IskRIg[/video]


    Holy crap.

    SPA ALERT. SPA ALERT. PLEASE PROCEED TO THE SHELTERS.

    I get it. They sign with names to subliminally reinforce the belief that they are actually different people. It's becoming so clear.
     
  10. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well, I am a liitle bit tired, but i could not make sense of that post even as a sarcasm or insult.

    and what is with the video thing?

    DwayneD.L.Rabon
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Well first why don't you try to explain your post. Why in the world would you tell BillyT you're the person he should refer his questions to? What in the world makes you think you are in a position to address a question of this nature?

    And cut to the chase: are you or are you not just another sock puppet of the same person as Farsight/RealityCheck/Reiku etc. ?
     
  12. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well, I guess you might be right about the explaining a little bit better, my reply was a vauge. but it make a general few points.

    No I am not some other person, I am Dwayne D.L.Rabon - you should be able to tell by my post almost nobody, will address a planet, or star and then give you a atom and descibe world background frequency, it takes a distinct mind carry such a conversation.

    Dwayne D.L.Rabon
     
  13. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    And you type lousy or you're not a native English speaker or you flunked out of math and science?
     
  14. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Stop picking on Dwayne!

    Don't mind him Dwayne.
    He's just grouchy today for some reason.
     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I think that is true. Quoting from your link:
    "a very simple climate model using two cycles (of 60- and 20-year periods) plus a LINEAR warming trend, and adjusted the parameters in their model to fit the observed temperature data ... this simple model does not accurately hindcast past temperature changes (Figure 1), and thus there is little reason to expect it to accurately predict future temperature changes."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The linear term (red line net slope) is great to show how silly linearing exponential can be. (after coal was being used in the industrial revolution, GW, became an exponential growth.) That is how the IPCC's first report projected ice free Arctic only after 2100 as that was the slope of lineraized ice decay rate back then, which IPCC extended to x-axis (zero ice line) showed.

    Nor should any model based on linear projections of the future events which are now changing exponentially. Before say 1800 the quasi-flat part of black curve in Fig 1. a linear model, especially if it also contained the MDV with 60 year period probably would give a very good fit to the data, as this simple model (one 60 year MDV and one slightly exponential term) does. Theory for it is here:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png but their main results, they gave in three graphs were redone by WUWT to have more flashy colors you see below:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It is amazing they reproduce data to 88% accuracy with only two terms, one of which is major part with a 61 year period sine wave form. They, I, and several others, including your link, think this is probably the result of periodic return of the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction to same location in the heavens every ~61 years.
    (That direct gravitational effect must be amplified some way to make the numbers work out - more on this in my next post, also a reply.)

    I started this thread as wanted to understand why the period is not ~ 20 years as that is the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction period as Kepler show back in 1603 book with this drawing:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Note there is at top a conjunction in 1623,& at lower left one at 1603, etc. even today.

    I. e. Until I understand why these "sub harmonics" can be ignored and get 88% accurate fit I am skeptical, but not nearly as skeptical as I am of all the IPCC projections from their more simple LINEARIZED model (actually just a fixed in time "snap shot.") of GW, which MUST have a significant exponential term to reflect the ever increasing release by man of GHGs (Green House Gases) and unfortunately now the more than 31 mutually amplifying positive feed back processes - I.e. even if man stopped totally releasing GHGs, nature is now in an exponentially growing release mode.

    Some of those exponentials will "saturate." For example CO2 is already blocking the escape of 2/3 of the IR in its absorption bands with 400 ppm atmospheric concentration. Thus making that 4,000 ppm would only block the last 1/3. (only 50% increase in its "radiative forcing" strength, not a 10 fold one.) Likewise 6 or more feed backs are making the Arctic Ice melt, but when it is gone, they are too. You can not expect to get accurate projections if your model ignores that fact that the strengths of the feed back interactions is rapidly changing, as the IPCC does with its "one time snap shot" then LINEARIZED TO MAKE IT EVEN WORSE (But more agreeable to the oil industry and governments who MUST approve every IPCC report before it can be released and don't want more "useless" mitigation expenses.)!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2014
  16. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Strange that the sun also has a 10/11 year solar cycle having more solar flares at that time which increases the Earths weather.
     
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Good question. And the answer to your point is not certain, perhaps "unknown;" but here is one possibility:

    Following is part of my post 1410 in the "climate gate" thread:

    I was made aware of several Planetary effects on GW others have suggested by link Trippy gave. They included the tidal modualtion of the sun being reflected in the rate of nuclear fusion (See quote below) and two more recent, pier - reviewed, papers by Scafetta; with the result than I am beginning to accept that man's contribution to GW, may not be dominate as I thought, but if it is not already it will be in the next few years (as we are addicted to growth in fossil fuel use.) and is the only component of GW man can do anything about, and must if does not want to see very large (>50%) fraction of humanity die before ~1960.
    Some details of the mechanism are given before this section - and they seem quite plausible to me. Basically the fusion rate depends very strongly on the sun's temperature but also essentially quadratic on the proton density that tidal compression can change, as any pressure gauge set on the coastal sea floor will show. I'm not sure - perhaps the effect is partly in that the compression both releases gravitational energy* (which will be recovered at low tide, with slight solar cooling - other half of the modulation) or heat the ions like compressing an ideal gas does. (Conservation of energy: High quality energy made irreversibly into thermal energy.)

    * That is what heated the sun up to fusion temperatures to start with and why Jupiter, which would have been half of a binary star system if it had been just a little more massive, is STILL radiating slightly more IR than the energy it receives from the sun - still in the cooling down mode.
     
  18. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
  19. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,201
    If tidal modulation of the Sun were the culprit, then looking at Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions is barking up the wrong tree. Since tidal forces fall off by the cube of distance, Venus' tidal effect on the Sun is within 5% of that of Jupiter, and the Earth's is 10 times that of Saturn. So Earth-Venus conjunctions (every 1 2/3 years) would have a larger effect. Then of course there is the fact that the heat generated by the nuclear fusion at the core takes some 170,000 years to work it's way to the surface and effect the luminosity of the Sun, so it seems unlikely that the conjunctions and luminosity peaks would remain in step.
     
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,154
    Well this seems like crap to me. Let's just go ahead and assume that the gravitiational effects on the sun influence the rate of nuclear fusion. The pertubations change on the order of say 100 years.

    It takes the EM raditation produced by fusion at the cored on average 170,000 years to reach the surface of the sun. That is an AVERAGE so any small variation in the fusion rate for short durations would be completely masked by the variablity in the rate of photon diffusion to the surface of the sun.

    Edit to add: Geeze I didn't see your posts Janus58. Well I wasted my time....
     
  21. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well, Billy T

    The older graph you mentioned in comparison to new observations is most likely different, as a result that there appear to be two conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter before the are conjunct in the same position of the heavens, so it is the third conjunction that is taken as point of consideration for producing the data.

    In general given what you have mentioned, it is thought by some that Jupiter and Saturn have a effect on the release of green house gases from the natural environment, or cause a increase in earths temperature, if so this is a result of change in background chemistry, (electron background) a change in the potential energy that is available to electrons. The two planets have a effect that covers the whole earth so the consideration is valid.
    you can expect that the atomic elements that are involved are aluminium, silicon, nitrogen and carbon and that atomic elements up to silicon have chemical differences(electro negativity). The effects of Saturn are of notice as it appears to have two orders of effect on carbon, and carbon being the most polar atomic element play a large role in the earths magnetic field and volume, as well carbons role in green house gas. (Saturn may not always be so dominate in this issue as other gravition event do occur)

    Also in general the issue of green house effect on the earth and ozone layer changes do appear to be a internal issues and not a external issue, meaning not a issue that involves the area of local space in which through are solar system travels, or effects of a local star such as Alpha Centauri; in point it is these that give stability to earth temperature and ozone formation protecting and restoring conditions. So it is a earth based change that is the resulting cause of warming, and solar events that cause reaction within the environment of earth, Saturn seems fits that bill, however there remains issues such as the earths expansion and collapse which effect density and van walls forces and interaction with the magnetic field of earth.

    Dwayne D.L.Rabon
     
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Thanks. Glad to read your POV. - Clearly said and right as usual. If, as claimed, the MDV + ST terms do quite accurately capture (12% average error claimed), then the MDV must be something in internal solar dynamics, not the planet motions.

    The Landscheidt quote in post 14 claims: "oscillating luminosity increase from 0.05–0.65 W/m2 to 0.25–1.63 W/m2, which is a range compatible with the ACRIM satellite observed total solar irradiance fluctuations." Which seemed too high to me, but is it? - I don't even know what is the ACRIM satellite, but bet you do.

    The sun spot cycle can vary 10 to 12 year period, so I read, but also think, from reading, that it may be magnetic dynamics driving it. Certainly the plasma and B field must be tightly coupled due to the high conductivity of the plasma. Field lines must also get stressed by fact equatorial region has different rotational period.

    Anything you care to comment on going on in the sun with a ~60 year period? I started this thread as could not see how the 20 year sub harmonics of the Jupiter/ Saturn conjunctions would not be the dominate period (instead of 60) for the MDV term. - Now know thanks to you, I think neither 20 nor 60 makes sense.
     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I'm still wondering what could give rise to the ~61 year period sine wave term (MDV) that has rate of change max about same as the slope of the slight exponential term (ST) has now as this model (alone, I think) did predict (in contrast to IPCC) the turn down in temperature rise that is seem in the 5-year global average temperature, some years BEFORE that fact was known.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The MDV + ST model claims that fall will continue (perhaps for a decade) until the accelerating release of GHGs (the ST term) over powers the negative going MDV term.

    One idea (quite possibly silly) is that there is a "breathing oscillation" in the sun that varies its radius very slightly and that changes either the average surface temperature or radiating area or both with ~6 decade period. I vaguely recall reading about some measurements of "sun quakes." Could there be a zero order term in the harmonic expansions for the sun's radius as function of time with ~60 year period?

    Another idea, which also seems "far out" to me, in part because I don't understand it, does have only inverse square gravity (mainly Jupiter) driving it to "wobble" the sun about the SSB (solar system barycenter). More at: http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    For what strikes me as numerologistic nonsense, see: http://www.jupitersdance.com/thefinalwaltz/ - Here is quote from that, which seems to relate to above drawing and notes on it:
    " The work by I. Charvatova, Theodor Landscheidt, P D Jose, Geoff Sharpe and others have shown that disordered motion of the sun around the barycentre accompanies reduced solar activity and disordered timing of the solar cycle. It implies either a process caused by that motion or a process that occurs when planets are so positioned to cause that motion."
    I think graph below show magnitude of sun's wobble about the SSB (Same as first "2D" version). It is from: http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/scafettas-new-paper/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Graph "B" (not reproduced here) seems to give the solar velocity (or speed?) wrt the SSB.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2014

Share This Page