A pdf copy of Ian Wilson’s talk to the Lavoisier Group AGM (11th July 2008) in Melbourne, Australia, is posted at:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
Ian Wilson was born in Ipswich , QLD, in 1955. He graduated in physics from the UNE in 1977 and obtained his PhD in astronomy in 1982 from the ANU, having worked at the Mt. Stromlo & Siding Spring Observatories.
He was subsequently a Junior Research Fellow at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, a Research Fellow at Harvard, Ass. Professor at the Universities of Toledo and Oklahoma , and Operations Astronomer at the Hubble Space Institute in Baltimore MD.
Since 1995 he has taught science and mathematics in Queensland and is now teaching in Toowoomba.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/gwinquisitionpanel.jpg
Ian; interesting paper; but what you are up against is 3 things; the egoes, the assumption of the high moral ground, and the misanthropic malice of the AGW crew; your thesis leaves them no room because it squashes the ego-driven idea that humanity is big and bad enough to threaten ‘nature’; it undermines the moral position of the AGW crew because they cannot point, a la Clive Hamilton, that wasteful and self-indulgent lifestyle is at the root of the ‘problem’; and most importantly, it takes away the justification to punish the rest of humanity for their alleged sins.
Very intriguing. Simple correlations like this should always be more appealing. Didn’t Einstein say something like this?
It seems that now the physical cause of the acceleration/deceleration of the earth’s spin needs to be shown and I wonder if the paper will do that.
In the paper:
“The only conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that long term changes in the North Atlantic climate system has an effect upon, or is affected by, changes in the Earth’s rotation rate.
Thus, we can say that the NAO correlates with the rate of change of the Earth’s rotation, however, we do not know which one affects the other.”
The only conclusion?!? Why can’t these two be affected by a third common factor (supposedly sun activity where the magnetic field affects rotation speed and also AMS somehow), and not affect each other at all?
Well, I shall go on reading it to the end now. Sorry…
Pete,
You are right. I should not have concluded that the ONLY explanataion was either that the westerly winds produced by the NAO are affecting
the Earth’s rotation OR the other way around.
It is always possible that a third factor could play a role.
The reason that these two (opposing) alternatives are favoured (over other alternative explanations) is the fact that it widely accepted that angular momentum is smotthly transfered backward and forward between the solid Earth and the atmosphere by chnaging wind patterns like those associated with the NAO.
Hence, it is not the ONLY explanation, just the most likley.
Sorry Pete – my previous email should have been addressed to Magnus.
Ian
If the earth’s rotation could be explained by the Maxwell-Lorentz equations, would this affect your conclusions?
A Compilation of the Arguments that Irrefutably Prove that Climate Change is driven by Solar Activity and not by CO2 Emission
Dr. Gerhard Löbert, Otterweg 48, 85598 Baldham, Germany. March 6, 2008.
Physicist. Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics.
Educated in Melbourne, Australia
Program Manager “CCV, F 104G” (see Internet).
Program Manager “Lampyridae, MRMF” (see Internet)
Conveyor of a super-Einsteinian theory of gravitation that explains, among many other post-Einstein-effects, the Sun-Earth-Connection and the true cause of the global climate changes.
I. Climatological facts
As the glaciological and tree ring evidence shows, climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred many times in the past, both with the magnitude as well as with the time rate of temperature change that have occurred in the recent decades. The following facts prove that the recent global warming is not man-made but is a natural phenomenon.
1. In the temperature trace of the past 10 000 years based on glaciological evidence, the recent decades have not displayed any anomalous behaviour. In two-thirds of these 10 000 years, the mean temperature was even higher than today. Shortly before the last ice age the temperature in Greenland even increased by 15 degrees C in only 20 years. All of this without any man-made CO2 emission!
2. There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming. This is shown by the fact that these two physical quantities have displayed an entirely different temporal behaviour in the past 150 years. Whereas the mean global temperature varied in a quasi-periodic manner, with a mean period of 70 years, the CO2 concentration has been increasing exponentially since the 1950’s. The sea level has been rising and the glaciers have been shortening practically linearly from 1850 onwards. Neither time trace showed any reaction to the sudden increase of hydrocarbon burning from the 1950’s onwards.
3. The hypothesis that the global warming of the past decades is man-made is based on the results of calculations with climate models in which the main influence on climate is not included. The most important climate driver (besides solar luminosity) comes from the interplay of solar activity, interplanetary magnetic field strength, cosmic radiation intensity, and cloud cover of the Earth atmosphere. As is shown in Section II, this phenomenon is generated by the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the core of the Sun.
4. The extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), which has been ignored by the mainstream climatologists, leaves little room for a human influence on climate. This close correlation results from the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the Sun and on the Earth (see Section II). Note that temperature lags rotation by 6 years.
5. From the steady decrease of the rotational velocity of the Earth that set in in Dec. 2003, it can reliably be concluded that the mean Earth temperature will decrease again in 2010 for the duration of three decades as it did from 1872 to 1913 and from 1942 to 1972.
6. The RSS AMSU satellite measurements show that the global temperature has not increased since 2001 despite the enormous worldwide CO2 emissions. Since 2006 it has been decreasing again.
II. Physical explanation for the strong correlation between fluctuations of the rotational velocity and changes of the mean surface temperature of the Earth
Despite its great successes, the gravitational theory of the great physicist Albert Einstein, General Relativity, (which is of a purely geometric nature and is totally incompatible with the highly successful quantum theory) must be discarded because this theory is completely irreconcilable with the extremely large energy density of the vacuum that has been accurately measured in the Casimir experiment.
Seaon Theory, a new theory of gravitation based on quantum mechanics that was developed eight decades after General Relativity, not only covers the well-known Einstein-effects but also shows up half a dozen post-Einstein effects that occur in nature. From a humanitarian standpoint, the most important super-Einsteinian physical phenomenon is the generation of small-amplitude longitudinal gravitational waves by the motion of the supermassive bodies located at the center of our galaxy, their transmission throughout the Galaxy, and the action of these waves on the Sun, the Earth and the other celestial bodies through which they pass. These vacuum density waves, which carry with them small changes in the electromagnetic properties of the vacuum, occur in an extremely large period range from minutes to millennia.
On the Sun, these vacuum waves modulate the intensity of the thermonuclear energy conversion process within the core, and this has its effect on all physical quantities of the Sun (this is called solar activity). This in turn has its influences on the Earth and the other planets. In particular, the solar wind and the solar magnetic field strength are modulated which results in large changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. Cosmic rays produce condensation nuclei so that the cloud cover of the atmosphere and the Earth albedo also change.
On the Earth, the steady stream of vacuum density waves produces parts-per-billion changes in a large number of geophysical quantities. The most important quantities are the radius, circumference, rotational velocity, gravitational acceleration, VLBI baseline lengths, and axis orientation angles of the Earth, as well as the orbital elements of all low-earth-orbit satellites. All of these fluctuations have been measured.
Irrefutable evidence for the existence of this new, super-Einsteinian wave type is provided by the extremely close correlation between changes of the mean temperature and fluctuations of the mean rotational velocity of the Earth. (see the figure referred to in Section I.4). Einsteinian theory cannot explain this amazing correlation between two physical quantities that seem to be completely unrelated.
While the rotational velocity of the Earth and the thermonuclear energy conversion process on the Sun react simultaneously to the passage of a vacuum density wave, a time span of 6 years is needed for the energy to be transported from the core of the Sun to the Earth’s atmosphere and for the latter’s reaction time.
As can be seen, super-Einsteinian gravitation reveals the true cause of climate change.
Ref.: http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf
It seems extraordinary that a variation of a few milliseconds in length of day could affect earth climate measurably. The correlation seems to be there, but could another factor be a possible orbital variation in the moon’s interaction with the earth amplifying the effect on our climate?
I mention this purely as an engineer’s thought.
The one OUTSTANDING point here is that the Sun’s barycentric eccentricities appear to correlate with the LOD (length of day). One may rationally posit (as ecforster above) that “it seems extraordinary that a variation of a few milliseconds in length of day could affect earth climate measurably” – yet one may make the connections.
It appears to be an incontrovertible fact that the global Atmospheric Angular Momentum (AAM) follows the LOD. See for example:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/255/5042/321 .
There is a very strong correlation between the ENSO and global AAM (and hence LOD). See for example:
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/10515/EGU2008-A-10515.pdf?PHPSESSID=
I looked into this a while back and plotted the global AAM against the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) – see here:
http://i36.tinypic.com/qpfmmp.jpg
The correlation between the GLAAM and ENSO is compelling. And as ENSO indisputably drives global climate on the sub-annual time-scale, the Sun’s barycentric eccentricities may be a causal link.
I believe that this merits deeper investigation.
Considering the disappareance of Luke’s presence here with the sudden appearance of some superficial expostions of, er, pseudoscience,
fool most you might, but not this little doberman Luke.
Arnost
The earth’s rotation might better be desribed in terms of a Faraday motor.
??????
Arnost,
Also consider the solar system, generally, as a Faraday motor; this assumption might make life more simpler.
I have a number of concerns about this presentation:
1. It relies entirely upon correlations, but those correlations are presented visually and no statistical calculation of their magnitude is offered. This seems a major deficiency. I don’t trust eyeballing data when it’s not difficult to present the actual calculation. Why didn’t you?
2. There’s an explicit “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” assumption in the reasoning. That bothers me a lot.
3. Why are you publishing it in Russian? To be blunt, what English-language publications rejected it?
4. There’s no suggested mechanism to explain any of the correlations you claim. How on earth (literally!) would changes in the LOD affect climate?
5. The orbital motion of the sun around the CM of the solar system should produce interesting changes in solar output. I’d expect that this phenomenon has long since been investigated. What results have been found?
Louis – not challenging the “electric universe” thesis…
I’m looking at this from an ENSO point of view – prevalent winds (i.e. the trades) blowing (or not blowing as he case may be) in a consistent direction will (angular momentum being conserved) slow or speed the rotation of the earth, and hence affect the LOD. This is an orthodox explanation of why the global AAM correlates with the ENSO variations…
The INTERESTING thing is that the LOD is correlated to, but appears to PRECEDE the GLAAM (by about a month)! Now IF the LOD is correlated to the barycentric eccentricities of the sun, were straying into seriously heretical theories as we are presuming a causal link…
This needs to be addressed logically.
(1) Are the solar barycentric eccentricities accurate (as per Wilson / José)?
(2) Is the historical LOD reconstruction accurate (as per Wilson / Sidorenkov)?
(3) If so, does the LOD lead the GLAAM as currently accepted?
If n one of the above are shown to be flawed – this then becomes a headache because all of a sudden the “pseudoscience” theories of Landscheidt and Timo Niroma (http://www.tilmari.pp.fi/tilmari6.htm) gain a bit more credibility. And this will upset a lot of people… And that is why I think it interesting.
Luke – what say you?
Chris, very good points BUT…
1. It relies entirely upon correlations, but those correlations are presented visually and no statistical calculation of their magnitude is offered… (Detail – but agree that it is something that needs to be done…)
2. There’s an explicit “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” assumption in the reasoning. (Bothers me too, but the fact that a correlation without a “known” explanation exists does not mean that there is not one…)
3. Why are you publishing it in Russian? (The “Russians” are sceptical of the “Western” preoccupation with CO2 as a driver of climactic change – so they may see the value in getting the LOD / barycentric eccentricity correlation into print for discussion)
4. There’s no suggested mechanism to explain any of the correlations you claim. How on earth (literally!) would changes in the LOD affect climate? (I think that I have explained how…)
5. The orbital motion of the sun around the CM of the solar system should produce interesting changes in solar output. I’d expect that this phenomenon has long since been investigated. What results have been found? (Lots done, but inconclusive is what best describes the conclusions…)
Chris Crawford,
You state that:
“I have a number of concerns about this presentation:
1. It relies entirely upon correlations, but those correlations are presented visually and no statistical calculation of their magnitude is offered. This seems a major deficiency. I don’t trust eyeballing data when it’s not difficult to present the actual calculation. Why didn’t you?
My response: A former collegue of mine who was one
of the (recent) Directors of the Mt Stromolo Observatory noted that if a correlation between two parameters was not clearly evident from cursory visual inspection then it was not worth publishing. If you read the English translation of my upcoming (Rusian) paper, you can find the references to obtain the raw data and do the statisca calculatios for yourself. If you know what you are doing, you will find that the correlations are “statistically significant”.
2. There’s an explicit “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” assumption in the reasoning. That bothers me a lot.
The title of the talk is “Which came first
the chicken or the egg?”.
If two phenomenon correlate that does not necessarily mean that they are causally connected.
However, my 2009 paper suggests a possible physcal reason that could explain the correlations that we observe. You will have to
wait for that paper. Sorry.
3. Why are you publishing it in Russian? To be blunt, what English-language publications rejected it?
My paper has not been rejected by any English
Journal. I have decided to publish it by including it in a compendium of papers on the same topic put out by a Russian Instute. English
versions of the paper will be available to those
who request them from me. No conspiracy here.
4. There’s no suggested mechanism to explain any of the correlations you claim. How on earth (literally!) would changes in the LOD affect climate?
Angular momentumm is constantly transfered between the atmosphere and the solid Earth.
Transfers of angular momemntum from the Earth to the atmosphere have been shown to affect wind
and circulation patterns in the atmosphere and oceans [and vice versa].
It has long been assumed that these transfers
of angular momentum to and from the Earth were
equal and opposite, snce it was believed that
Earth/ocean/atmosphere system conserved its
angular momentum, as it was not subject to
external torques other than the Sun and Moon.
My work suggest that this assumption is wrong.
5. The orbital motion of the Sun around the CM of the solar system should produce interesting changes in solar output. I’d expect that this phenomenon has long since been investigated. What results have been found?
No, the distance between the Sun and Earth only varies by ~ 500 kn due to Barycentric motion. This is far too small to have much of an effect.
Ian Wilson
ecforster wrote:
“It seems extraordinary that a variation of a few milliseconds in length of day could affect earth climate measurably. The correlation seems to be there, but could another factor be a possible orbital variation in the moon’s interaction with the earth amplifying the effect on our climate?”
My Russian paper proposes that the force that is driving the inter-decadal millisecond changes in the Eath’s rotation rate is in fact the draconic wobble of the Lunar orbit. The line-of-nodes of the Lunar orbit prcess in a retrograde direction completing one circuit of the Earth every 18.6 years. This motion induces a long term tide in the Earth’s oceans that is of the order of 7 millimetres in height. The tide takes the form of a north-south standing wave in the Earth’s oceans which has at nodes at +/- 35 deg N and S.
(please see the second last slide in my presentation).
I am also contending that the wobble in the Lunar orbit is a fossil record of the cummulative graviational resonances that have occured between the Lunar orbit and the orbits of Venus, Jupiter and Mars over the last few billion years.
Thanks for the responses, Ian. Please permit me to follow up:
1. I agree that it’s useful to see the raw data, but the statistical confirmation of the visual impression is, I think, the definitive factor. I realize that there are some tricks involved in this data: you’re lining up peaks, not correlating all the data. Nevertheless, this kind of statistical analysis has been done many times and I think it a major deficiency in your presentation that you don’t provide that calculation.
2. OK, fine, I’ll be happy to wait to see the physical mechanism you propose.
3. OK, sorry so insinuate something that wasn’t true.
4. Are you suggesting that the angular momentum transfer also includes an energy transfer? That is, increasing the LOD requires a transfer of energy as well as momentum, and we’d expect from the tidal mechanism that this transfer of energy would take the form of heat. Are you suggesting that this heat is a source of temperature change?
5. You misunderstand. I wasn’t talking about changes in insolation due to changes in the earth-sun distance; I was talking about changes in solar output due to changes in the internal gravitational field of the sun. I’m sure that some partial-differential-equation loving stellar structure people have tackled this problem, if only because it’s so horribly hairy. Given the high sensitivity of reaction rates to pressure, I’d expect that this factor would be more important than tidal effects. Any thoughts on this?
So it may all be caused by Jupiter? Makes the AGW ecofreaks look even stupiter and stupiter!
Ian – you wrote above:
“Transfers of angular momemntum from the Earth to the atmosphere have been shown to affect wind
and circulation patterns in the atmosphere and oceans [and vice versa].
It has long been assumed that these transfers
of angular momentum to and from the Earth were
equal and opposite, snce it was believed that
Earth/ocean/atmosphere system conserved its
angular momentum, as it was not subject to
external torques other than the Sun and Moon.
My work suggest that this assumption is wrong.”
May I draw you attention to a report in New Scientist earlier this year of the recent discovery of ‘stripes’ of surface currents on all of the oceans running west-east and west-east in parallel bands from (more or less) the Artic to the Antarctic.
When I read this, it immediately struck me that this hitherto un-noticed effect could possibly be the result of transfers/equalisation of angular momentum between the (solid) Earth and where it should be expected most to be manifest in the non-solid part of the planet – in the atmosphere and at the surface of the oceans.
I’d be interested in your comments on this new phenomenon. Jan Pompe who posts in this blog and has a fine physics education may be interested to comment as well. Cohenite as well.
Sorry – “…west-east and east-west in….”
Amazing that electricity remains ignored in these dicussions.
Louis Hissink writes,
“Amazing that electricity remains ignored in these dicussions.”
What do you mean? Do you have a mechanism in mind?
Stripes; cripes. We have enormous compartmentalised oceanic features which have bizarre characteristics such as the “velocity within the stripes does not always follow the orientation of the stripes.” Are these features energy storage mechanisms? If so, where does the energy come from and how is it eventually released; maybe this is the oceanic lag device that Hansen and his acolytes have been looking for; if these are a topographical feature we are all in trouble and had better start looking for a cave to live in (sarcasm off).
Chris crawford wrote:
“I agree that it’s useful to see the raw data, but the statistical confirmation of the visual impression is, I think, the definitive factor. I realize that there are some tricks involved in this data: you’re lining up peaks, not correlating all the data. Nevertheless, this kind of statistical analysis has been done many times and I think it a major deficiency in your presentation that you don’t provide that calculation.”
Yes, you are right. Logically, the best way to
establish statistical credibility is to either
do a Morlet Wavlet analysis of the data to show that the dominant frequencies in the two data sets are the same or (at minimum) present a fourier analysis of both data sets to show that frequencies present in both data sets are similiar.
You also right in pointing out that I am trying to match the timing between the peaks in the two data sets and that I am not using the full wave-form.
All of these things will need to be done before the wider scientific community will fully accept these results. However, given my limited resources and time, I believe that my data
is sufficiently convincing to put it forward so that it will promote discussion and further investigations.
Chris crawford also wrote:
“Are you suggesting that the angular momentum transfer also includes an energy transfer? That is, increasing the LOD requires a transfer of energy as well as momentum, and we’d expect from the tidal mechanism that this transfer of energy would take the form of heat. Are you suggesting that this heat is a source of temperature change?”
Whenever a mass changes (angular) speed there must
a loss or gain of energy, hence, momentum transfers from one body to another will always involve transfers of energy.
In isolated rotating system (i.e. one that is free of net external torques), the momentum (and hence energy) transfers back and forth within the system will be conserved. Thus energy is not lost from the system just moved back and forth from one part of the system to other.
For example, if the mid-latitude westerly winds
in both hemispheres are strengthened, the gain in angular momentum of the atmosphere must be balanced by an equal an opposite loss in angular momentum of the rotating Earth.
5. You misunderstand. I wasn’t talking about changes in insolation due to changes in the earth-sun distance; I was talking about changes in solar output due to changes in the internal gravitational field of the sun. I’m sure that some partial-differential-equation loving stellar structure people have tackled this problem, if only because it’s so horribly hairy. Given the high sensitivity of reaction rates to pressure, I’d expect that this factor would be more important than tidal effects. Any thoughts on this?
This circumstance breaks down, however, if there
is an external torque acting on the Earth that is
either slowing the Earth down or speeding it up.
this external torque could be a source of external energy that could be dissipated somewhere within the solid Earth/liquid core/ocean/atmopsheric system.
Finally, Chris crawford wrote:
“You misunderstand. I wasn’t talking about changes in insolation due to changes in the earth-sun distance; I was talking about changes in solar output due to changes in the internal gravitational field of the sun. I’m sure that some partial-differential-equation loving stellar structure people have tackled this problem, if only because it’s so horribly hairy. Given the high sensitivity of reaction rates to pressure, I’d expect that this factor would be more important than tidal effects. Any thoughts on this?”
No, the Sun is in free-fall about the Centre-of-Mass of the Solar System, and so by the Einstein’s
Principle of Equivalence this motion cannot induced internal differential forces inside the Sun. This can only be achieved by the very eak tidal forces of the planets.
Steve Short wrote:
“May I draw you attention to a report in New Scientist earlier this year of the recent discovery of ‘stripes’ of surface currents on all of the oceans running west-east and west-east in parallel bands from (more or less) the Artic to the Antarctic.”
It is possible that these strips are resonance patterns that are induced by the long-term (rythmical) slowing-down and speeding-up of the Earth’s rotation cause by the long-term tidal variations of the Moon. Though more work has to be done to understand the true cause for these
remarkable features.
Steve : “May I draw you attention to a report in New Scientist earlier this year of the recent discovery of ‘stripes’ of surface currents on all of the oceans running west-east and west-east in parallel bands from (more or less) the Artic to the Antarctic.”
Steve I missed that one o you have a reference I can follow to get it?
On exchanges of energy between the earth, ocean and atmosphere I agree with Ian that absent external torque the angular momentum/energy will be conserved. I also expect that the external torque exerted by solar and lunar gravity will have a different effect on each of the different bodies so in our system it will no be seen to be conserved losses (to entropy) are bound to occur as the system tries to achieve equilibrium.
Chris Crawford
Basically the work of Kristian Birkeland and his terella experiments.
In addition Tinsley’s recwent paper
“The global atmospheric electric circuit and its effects on cloud microphysics”
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/71/6/066801/
Would be of interest.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm
Where the Italians blame space aliens for some wierd electrical effects but I would suggest a more prosaic explanation as the article dicusses.
No need for UFO’s and other fantasies.
Ian Wilson writes:
“However, given my limited resources and time, I believe that my data is sufficiently convincing to put it forward so that it will promote discussion and further investigations.”
Fair enough. I agree, the graphs are certainly interesting and suggestive. I think you’re doing the right thing putting it out there for people to mull over. Somebody might come up with something to blow it out of the water — or somebody might just as easily come up with something that extends and develops it in interesting ways!
On the matter of solar motion around the solar system CM, my point is that the basic equations of stellar structure assume that the gravitational field is coincident with and opposite to the radiative pressure inside the star. With an altered center of mass, that would no longer be true and you’d get all sorts of very interesting gradients (thermal, gravitational, radiative, and pressure) that aren’t radial. This in turn would lead to many odd results, such as one area of the photosphere being hotter than other areas, for example. Moreover, total solar output would likely be dependent on the distance between the center of mass of the sun and the center of mass of the solar system. This might well be an important factor.
On the matter of the tidal effects: the basic physics is that tidal effects slow down the earth’s rotation because rotational energy is converted into heat. I’m too lazy to dig up the formula for a sphere, but a quick-and-dirty calculation suggests that the rotational energy of the earth is about 3*10**29 J. Therefore, a slowing of the earth by one millisecond would release about 10**21 J, which is about as much insolation as the earth receives in roughly a week or so. This would be enough to raise the temperature of the earth’s oceans by about 0.0001ºC — not enough to be significant.
Oops! An extra zero in the last statement. The correct value is about 0.001ºC. Still not enough to be significant.
Chris Crawford,
The rotational energy does not heat the Earth (as you rightly point out) but it could influence the rate of upwheling of deep (cold) water in the oceans and so control the World’s thermostat.
It’s amazing that nobody has spotted it before. Superimposed on every ocean on the planet there is a striped pattern of currents. Yet what causes them is a mystery.
Between 1992 and 2003, Peter Niiler of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and colleagues collected data from more than 10,000 drifting ocean buoys, which they tracked with satellites. As expected, the buoys’ movements were influenced mainly by known global currents, which are driven by wind and by differences in the temperature and salinity of seawater.
But when the team analysed the data, it emerged that something else had been subtly influencing the buoys’ paths. It turned out that there were alternating strips of water running eastward or westward, a bit like parallel moving sidewalks. Niiler recalls his reaction: “My God, we’ve never seen these before.”
Satellite measurements showed that the interfaces between adjacent currents were alternately associated with slight peaks and troughs in sea level. When the team looked at this variation globally, they found that the 150-kilometre-wide bands covered pretty much every ocean (see Map).
To confirm that the currents were real, the team set out to measure them directly in two regions in the eastern Pacific. “Their existence is so surprising that we had to prove first that they are not an artefact of satellite data,” says Nikolai Maximenko of the University of Hawaii. Sure enough, they recorded currents flowing in opposite directions at around 40 metres per hour (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2008GL033267). This is slower than most previously known ocean currents, which may explain why the striped flows have remained undiscovered until now. “Only a very lazy canoeist would notice the effect,” says Maximenko.
“This is slower than most previously known currents. Only a very lazy canoeist would notice the effect”
The flows extend right down to the ocean floor, and the boundaries between currents are alternately associated with peaks and troughs in temperature as well as sea level. This suggests that they influence processes such as nutrient and energy flow around the oceans, but this has yet to be proven, says Niiler.
What causes the striped flows remains a puzzle. “They are a fascinating new aspect to the ocean’s circulation, but the jury is still out on the mechanisms leading to their formation,” says Geoff Vallis of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University.
He points out that similar patterns exist in atmospheric flows on other planets, for example, Jupiter. Whether similar effects are at play here is unclear, he says.
From issue 2652 of New Scientist magazine, 21 April 2008, page 10
Ian: “The rotational energy does not heat the Earth (as you rightly point out) but it could influence the rate of upwheling of deep (cold) water in the oceans and so control the World’s thermostat.”
I think common cause and indirect effects are all too often ignored.
thanks Steve,
My initial was the same as the research team I.e. a satellite measurement artefact but they have check for that already my next thought was a coriolis effect bit I don’t that will explain bands as narrow as 150KM alternately moving in opposite directions over thousands of kilometres. I think we are going to have to dig deep to explain this one and there is always the possibility still they are not real though I have not reason to doubt they are.
Ian and Jan; the stripes are amazing, but one wonders how they could contribute to the ocean’s circulation as Geoff Vallis suggests; they are remarkably consistent in internal conditions -“the variation across stripes was approximately one degree” – while “the temperature at a depth of 100 metres varied by 12 degrees”; unlike the rest of the ocean these things are remarkably uniform internally and from one to the other; that is to say, they appear to have very little vertical temperature gradient, and “are coherent all the way to the sea floor”; if that is the case you would think that they would tend to not only play a crucial role in thermahaline movements around the world but in respect of vertical upwellings as well; as the 1976 Pacific Event has shown, a cessation of cold water upwelling had profound effects, not only on world temp, but also CO2 levels through a warmer SST; the issue is, since the 1976 event saw the beginning of the +ve PDO which has lasted until 2006, how long-lived are the stripes, and does their advent and/or disappearance or mitigation play a part in upwellings and PDO phase shift?
cohenite
For the present I have a completely open mind about what it is and what it might do.
“how long-lived are the stripes, and does their advent and/or disappearance or mitigation play a part in upwellings and PDO phase shift?”
I don’t think anyone has answers to these questions yet anything we might come up with will be pure speculation. There appearance was the result of a 20 year period of observations we don’t know what they were doing 25 years ago or what they will be doing 5 years hence. That +ve PDO was ~30 years long it’s too soon to tell if there is an association in behaviour between PDO and the current stripes.
THE CENTRAL SUBJECT OF CLIMATOLOGY
Dr. Gerhard Löbert, Munich. April 24, 2008
In my opinion the researchers in climatology should put aside their present work for a moment and focus their attention on the central and decisive subject of climatology. This is the extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean surface temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), which has been ignored by the mainstream climatologists. Everything else in climatology follows from this one central theme.
Note that temperature lags rotation by about 6 years.
Since temperature is lagging rotation it cannot be influencing the latter. On the other hand, it cannot be envisaged how rotation should influence temperature. Hence, a third agent must be driving the two. The solution is given in http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf . There it is shown that small-amplitude vacuum density waves generated by the motion of the supermassive objects located in the center of the Galaxy are constantly acting on the Sun and the Earth and are thereby producing a series of physical reactions within these celestial bodies.
Remember: Everything in climatology follows from this one central theme.
My final contibution
Climate Change Cycles, Galactic Vacuum Density Waves, and the Orbital Periods of the Planets
Dr. Gerhard Löbert, Otterweg 48, 85598 Baldham, Germany. April 4, 2008.
Physicist. Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics.
Conveyor of a super-Einsteinian theory of gravitation that explains, among many other post-Einstein-effects, the Sun-Earth-Connection and the true cause of the global climate changes.
Abstract: In a previous Note it was shown that climate change is driven by solar activity which in turn is caused by the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the core of the Sun. Irrefutable proof of the existence of these super-Einsteinian waves is given by the extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global surface temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth – two physically unrelated geophysical quantities – in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm). In the present Note it is shown that the orbital periods of the planets provide further evidence.
In an excellent paper by the late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt (see http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm) it was shown that the Sun’s Gleissberg activity cycles are closely correlated with the oscillations of the Sun around the center of mass of the solar system. The first and second space derivatives of the gravitational potential of the planets in the vicinity of the Sun are, however, so minute that it cannot be envisaged how the extremely slow motion of the Sun about the center of mass of the solar system could physically influence the processes within the Sun. It is much more likely that a common external agent is driving both the Gleissberg cycle and the related oscillatory barycentric motion of the Sun.
The small motion of the Sun is, of course, determined, almost entirely, by the motion of the large planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune that revolve around the Sun with periods of 11.87, 29.63, 84.67, and 165.49 years respectively. Note that the sunspot cycle has a mean period of 11.07 years (see T. Niroma in http://www.personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot4.html) and in my previous Note “A Compilation of the Arguments that Irrefutably Prove that Climate Change is driven by Solar Activity and not by CO2 Emission” of March 6, 2008 I pointed out that the mean surface temperature of the Earth is changing in a quasi-periodic manner with a mean period of 70 years, approximately. If we stipulate for the moment that there exists – in addition to the 70-years wave – a galactic vacuum density wave of 11.07 years period that is driving the sunspot cycle, then the addition of both waves leads to a periodic amplitude modulation with a period of 2/(1/11.07 – 1/70) = 26.3 years.
If two galactic gravitational wave trains of 11.07 and 70 years period were to pass through the solar system, the gravitational action of these waves on the revolving planets would slowly relocate these celestial bodies until the orbital periods were close to 11.07, 26.3, and 70 years, the periods given by the combined wave train. The orbital periods of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus are 7%, 13%, and 20% higher than these values. A cose lock-in cannot be expected because of the gravitational actions of the neighboring planets and because of the large variability of the periods of the vacuum density wave trains (see the large variability of the sunspot and surface temperature cycles).
If one considers all of the documented sunspot cycles, the mean Gleissberg cycle length increases to 78.5 years (see T. Niroma) which is 7% smaller than the orbital period of Uranus. Note also that the orbital period of Neptune is 5% larger than 2 times the mean Gleissberg period and that of Pluto is 7% larger than 3 times Gleissberg.
Now to the remaining planets. The following table shows the ratio of the mean sunspot cycle period of 11.07 years to the planet orbital period.
Mars = 6 – 0.11 Earth = 11 + 0.07
Venus = 18 – 0.01 Mercury = 46 – 0.04
With an average error of 6% of an orbital period, the orbital periods are whole-number fractions of the mean sunspot cycle period.
As can be seen, the 11.07 years and 78.5 years galactic wave trains have brought good order into the Solar System. The degree of order increases with the number of orbital revolutions per million years.
In my opinion, the orbital periods of the planets provide — in addition to the extremely close temperature-rotation-correlation — further evidence for the existence of galactic vacuum density waves with mean long-term periods of 11.07 and 78.5 years.
Excuse me folks but I’ve only just dropped in on this thread. As one who first got interested in astrophysics (a part time student) back in the 1960’s I can’t believe we are now racing away from the obvious, human interference on the earth’s surface in favour of some remote source of climate change.
Firstly, “supermassive objects located in the center of the Galaxy are CONSTANTLY acting on the Sun and the Earth” so what’s new in respect to human time frames?
Secondly: I don’t go to blogs for any support in clear thinking.
There was a discussion on ABC radio this week about how scientists finally weighed the atom. It turns out they were measuring vibrations in a small space via a nano tube and getting a slight variation from the norm with the addition of the odd atom or two. For someone also interested in radio spectrum phenomena, quite easy to understand as opposed to all the speculative comments above re various aspects of “turbulence”.
Gavin: ” so what’s new in respect to human time frames?”
Nothing and that is the whole point. Climate has shown great variability over time frames of mega-years.
The only people that are claiming something new in human time frames are those claiming the moderate warming in the latter half of last century is unprecedented and has a CO2 cause.
Gavin: ” so what’s new in respect to human time frames?”
Nothing and that is the whole point. Climate has shown great variability over time frames of mega-years.
The only people that are claiming something new in human time frames are those claiming the moderate warming in the latter half of last century is unprecedented and has a CO2 cause.
nyone digging deeper could use some key words from this lot
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_citedby&task=crossref&doi=10.1051/0004-6361:20010607
Ian: Sorry for jumping in so late, but here are a few things that could add fuel to the fire for you.
Assume for this discussion that the PDO is a function of ENSO. My reference: In “ENSO-Forced Variability of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation”, Newman et al state in the conclusions, “The PDO is dependent upon ENSO on all timescales.” Refer to:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
A simple illustration of the correlation between the PDO and NINO3.4 SST anomalies also helps:
http://i28.tinypic.com/9s4bgl.jpg
If the PDO is a function of ENSO, and if the PDO correlates with LOD, then ENSO should correlate with LOD, though I haven’t confirmed it since I don’t have LOD data readily available. That distinction is important because the global temperature record mimics the curve of a running total of long-term NINO3.4 anomaly data.
http://i31.tinypic.com/14rzb8.jpg
I’ve discussed that in a 2-part series at my blogspot:
Part 1: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-there-cumulative-enso-climate.html
Part 2: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-there-cumulative-enso-forcing-part-2.html
And likewise, annual changes in global temperature anomaly mimic ENSO.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/annual-and-long-term-impacts-of-el.html
My only concern, I note you use the D’Arrigo PDO reconstruction for your long-term PDO data correlation. I believe the D’Arrigo reconstruction is limited to springtime. But in your short-term graphs of the PDO, it appears you use annual data. Does the springtime D’Arrigo PDO reconstruction agree with the annual instrument-based PDO data?
Now, to change tacks. I also recently put together a series of posts (20+) on Smith and Reynolds SST data.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/smith-and-reynolds-sst-posts.html
In many of the SST data sets, but especially in the North Atlantic, North Pacific and at MOC upwelling points, there are major drops in SST anomaly from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. Example:
http://i36.tinypic.com/ax0j13.jpg
Then I noticed your illustration of LOD on page 26 of your presentation.
http://i38.tinypic.com/v4td7d.jpg
Sure looks like a match.
Regards
Firstly, “supermassive objects located in the center of the Galaxy are CONSTANTLY acting on the Sun and the Earth” so what’s new in respect to human time frames?
Gavin,
A constant acting on the sun and the earth is not measureable – we only notice changing situations – so your CONSTANTLY thing is actually a metaphysical assumption. Religion in other words.
Bob; very interesting; one of the failures of this AGW debate is the base period device for describing anomalies and trends; your method of calculating temp not only shows how misleading the base period is, but also shows the internal consistency of temp with the prevailing climate pattern.
Bob Tisdale,
If you have a google account you can go to my eblog and see a comparison between sea surface temperatures for the North Pacific beween 1850 and 2008 and the changes in LOD.
http://itscoolingdown.blogspot.com/
There is a good correlation – particular with the Eastern North Pacific.
Note: The LOD has long-term background downward
drift of 1.7 ms per century.
Bob,
Double click on the graph to get a larger plot. Note also that the LOD has been shifted to allow for the fact that it preceeds the SST by
~ 8 years.
Ian,
Have you considered surge tectonic theory and correlations between seismic activity and climate (ENSO)? See link to paper
http://www.geostreamconsulting.com/papers/Leybourne_Oceans_Fin.pdf
Further Footprints of Galactic Vacuum Density Waves
4. The Orientation of the Ecliptic Relative to the Galactic Center
The forces exerted by the galactic waves are directed parallel to the propagation vector. Thus it can be expected that ultimately the plane of the ecliptic will be directed towards the galactic center. Actually, the galactic center lies about 5 deg. below the ecliptic.
5. The Tilt of the Rotational Axes of the Planets
With the exception of Mercury and Jupiter, all planets have a relatively large tilt of the rotational axis. Since the moment of the tidal forces acting on an oblate rotating planet is always directed normal to the rotation vector and parallel to the orbit plane, the tidal action of the Sun and the other planets cannot change the inclination angle of the planet. One therefore has to ask how these large tilt angles and the retrograde rotation of Uranus, Pluto, and Venus were brought about. The galactic vacuum density waves provide a possible answer. Since the tilting moment resulting from the tidal forces of the galactic wave is not directed parallel to the orbit plane of the planet, the inclination angle of the planet can change.slowly with time to any value.
6. Cataclysmic Vacuum Density Waves
Every few tens of millions of years the supermassive and superdense object situated at the center of the Galaxy explodes and sends a cataclysmic vacuum density wave through the Galaxy. When this wave hits the Earth, the rotational axis is forced into a new position, the radius and circumference are reduced drastically, the tectonic plates are forced against each other and rise and fall significantly, complete river systems change their beds, volcanos erupt, magma is ejected, and mass extinction of animal life occurs. The Grand Canyon vividly shows the sudden transitions between differing sediments and differing fossils that result from the passage of such a cataclysmic wave.
The large number of ring galaxies, for example NGC 1344 and the Cartwheel Galaxy A 0035 (see http://www.apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010612.html), provide a vivid impression of the devastating action of such a cataclysmic vacuum density wave on the celestial bodies through which it passes.
“Needle of Honor in astrophysics, …”
What year ?? Blog flufff?
Gavin
“Needle of Honor in Astrophysics”
Seems most likely to be a poor translation of the original German. There exist quite a few European language words which have no direct analog in English.
Dr. Loebert’s ideas are interesting but are confined to a gravitational universe.
There is a simpler alternative – http://www.electric-cosmos.org/ based on empirical science, not imaginative constructs.
Ian Wilson’s paper seems to be on more traditional gravity grounds in terms of many things being tugged and pulled this way or that however imo Ian has his first big lend of our imagination with slope of that final blue negative line on the global temp anomaly.
Undue bias mate.
The second tug comes with that convenient digitization of PDO 1660-2000 AD. Looks like GSM hey. I doubt measurements 1660 > are that good as a trigger indicator.
Thirdly; accuracy of LOD records for the same period requires quite a stretch in the creative to become religion regarding climate change.
I don’t mind the solar system tide bit in dumping lumpy masses of different temperatures round the globe.
Gavin,
The blue line that you refer to is a prediction based on scientific evidence not
“undue bias” as you claim.
In my paper I compare the temperature sensative PDO (D’Arrigo et al 2001) proxy obtained from tree-ring width and densities from the Pacific North-West Coast to sea surface temperatures obtained from Sr/Ca isotopic ratios derived from corals in Rarotonga in the South Pacific. Hence, I believe that the PDO index is probably a good indicator over the period claimed.
Finally, the LOD data from two centuries after 1660 are determined by observing the meridian transits of ten’s of thousands of stars. Each individual star measurement may have error
of a 1/2 second or so, however, if all the observatories take an average of say 10,000 observations (~ 60 per night if observing time is reduced to 50 %) per year you will find that this error is reduced by the square root of 10,000 or 100. That is the error is 0.005 seconds or ~ 50 ms.
Gavin,
Of course that should be ~ 5 milliseconds.
Ian: Thanks for your considered response. I don’t accept that there is no bias in your illustrations but it’s only a minor point in the presentation. What you are up against with the whole thing is “common” logic. After I briefly outlined your theory, the sleepy one said before her first cuppa “ It’s still worthwhile cleaning up all the sh@t we put into the atmosphere” regardless and that’s a big point for me too.
We both have technical backgrounds and have become somewhat cynical about our collective ability to fix the environment one way or another. Sleepy is pedantic regarding cleanliness in our endeavours whereas I’m only loosely concerned with details like you need in accounting.
BTW I gave up using calculations in industry a long time ago when seeking the bottom line in our awareness. Moving away from stats is my kind of freedom. My brother on the other hand made his career in IT after chasing gallons of fuel round the country for years.
It’s too easy to put our faults back into the universe. Nobody it seems wants to total our combined impact on the nearest and dearest bit of real-estate so we get a lot of hollow science filled with excuses. I do however get excited with some of it.
A brief report tucked away in Sunday’s Canberra “Times Laser targets waste of space” foreshadows an article in “Science” on accurate measurements “down to one tenth of a nanometre” using TWO lasers instead of one. Seems researchers at ANU also like precision.
Ian: I harbour grave doubts about the precision of any data using tree rings as apposed to say dipping ordinary thermometers in the briny.
Ian Wilson said…”Transfers of angular momemntum from the Earth to the atmosphere have been shown to affect wind and circulation patterns in the atmosphere and oceans [and vice versa]”.
Ian…I find that a stretch. Momentum is simply mv. The Earth’s mass is not going to change and neither is it’s angular velocity, without it speeding up or slowing down. Anyway, according to any good atmopheric physicists I have read, winds, etc., are entirely due to differences in heat. How do you transfer momentum to the atmosphere and vice versa?
With respect to your CM of the solar system, it seems reasonable, but what happened to Kepler’s laws? I did not study astrophysics in-depth but the little I studied infered that the Earth’s orbit was influenced by the Sun, due to it’s size and proximity. The orbit is an ellipse, which I doubt it would be if other significant forces were involved.
If that was the case, our year would be varying, wouldn’t it? I know of know significant variation in our year over the centuries.
I realize there are tidal forces on land and in the ocean due to the Moon, and that the Earth is shaped more like a pumpkin due to the gravitational force of the Sun on it, but it would seem to me that gravitational effects that could pull the Sun off the CM would play havoc with Earth’s orbit. The Earth’s crust is always flexing due to the tidal forces and possibly there’s a low-frequency vibration of some kind happening. Just a theory. 🙂
The argument about tidal forces wreaking havoc when all the planets line up has produced no results. If those forces had any legitimate effect, they’d swerve the Earth into a resultant orbit, which could be interesting if not scary.
I’m not comfortable with your claims about transfers of momentum. The Earth is in orbit around the Sun because it somehow has a momentum tangential to the radial force put on it from the Sun. I know about the theories about how the solar system formed from dust clouds, but I’m not buying them. As a good engineer, I think the Earth was captured, but the ultimate engineer, God, isn’t making it easy on us mortals with regard to understanding the how’s.
If that G-force was turned off somehow, the Earth would shoot straight off on a tangent to the normal. Because of the G-force, the Earth follows a resultant path, which is it’s elliptical orbit. There’s no known ‘transfer’ of energy between the Earth and anything else. The Earth receives energy from various sources, but it doesn’t transmit anything but reflected light and heat.
If you know of anything else it would be interesting, but I think your dabbling in wishful thinking more than anything. No offence intended.
Gordon,
I do not know how to say this without offending.
It is difficult to argue against most of what you have posted for the simple reason that most of is completely devoid of most of the basic principles of Physics.
No offense, but can I suggest that you enrol
in a high school physics course. Most high school physics students woud have no trouble recognising the the flaws in your arguements.
Ian, I do not know how to say this without offending, but sorry, your reply above was a dash rude…
Gordon, I think that Ian is NOT talking about the Earth’s ORBITAL variations, but rather, its ROTATIONAL variations – i.e. the Length Of Day. Three types of torque operate between the solid Earth and its fluid envelope (the atmosphere and oceans): pressure, gravitational and frictional torques. Large scale changes in Atmospheric (winds) and Oceanic (currents) movements (such as the decrease in Trade Wind speed (and in extreme cases direction) from a La Nina to an El Nino phase change invoke exchanges of angular momentum among the Earth system components in such a way that the total angular momentum is conserved – and the solid Earth’s rotation varies slightly as a result.
I however admit that what Ian has identified – being the apparent correlation between the LOD and the suns barycentric eccentricities – is new to me…
Gordon, I’d be happy to explain the basic physics to you if you wish. I have some reservations about Ian’s ideas, but my reservations are only with fine details — the basics of his ideas are quite sound.
Ian: this new concept of yours is hard to swallow on other grounds. The thermal lag after warming – cooling cycles every 12 hours has not been accounted for yet (a least to my satisfaction).
I guess the real question is, how does it go down with your peers in the long run?
My compliments to you Ian for an excellent presentation. Gavin is just trying to muddy the waters, again.
One point that jumped out in the discussion of the 150km wide oceanic bands with variations in sea level was where these bands sat in relation to the 12 Pacific Ocean measurement stations that CSIRO claim to show significant sea level rise over the past half century.
For a start this sample is no-where near adequate, is highly contaminated by coral subsidence and is not evenly distributed. So is there any chance of doing an overlay to determine if these bands are also influencing the result?
Ian Wilson said “No offense, but can I suggest that you enrol in a high school physics course. Most high school physics students woud have no trouble recognising the the flaws in your arguements”.
I was thoroughly trained in the basics of physics as an undergraduate engineer (applied science). If you have any problem with what I have said, I think you should be specific. I’m beginning to wonder if you haven’t gotten yourself caught in a theoretical void.
Engineers can’t mess around with theoretical physics and rely largely on Newtonian Mechanics. Orbital motion can be perfectly explained by Newtonian Mechanics, but there are theories in theoretical physics that are so far out I doubt if they will ever find proofs.
David Bohm was a theoretical physicist admired by Einstein. Bohm tried to integrate the human mind into physics and had long dialogs with Jiddu Krishnamurti. I recall Bohm claiming once that Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics were parallel to each other and that each had come to an end.
He thought the problem was our dependence on the parameter of time, and that we would have to re-examine phenomenon with a new parameter that will have to be discovered. When Newton devised his second law, he thought time was an absolute quantity, but Einstein proved that wrong. Bohm seems to have been saying that we need the exact relationship between force and mass, that causes it to accelerate, and is responsible for momentum and inertia, rather than the artifical man-made parameter of time.
Arnost tried to come to my defence by claiming “Gordon, I think that Ian is NOT talking about the Earth’s ORBITAL variations, but rather, its ROTATIONAL variations….”.
Thanks Arnost. I am perfectly aware of what Ian is saying, but he has made a claim that the Sun is moved away from the Solar System’s centre of mass (CM) by the gravitational pull of the Jovian planets. I asked him what happened to Kepler’s laws, but instead of answering the question, he advised me to get a course in physics.
When I studied astrophysics as a minor, we had to calculate the orbital period of the Earth based on it’s mass and Kepler’s laws. There were no parameters added for the gravitational effects of the Jovian planets, presumably because their gravitational effect is minimal. If I want to calculate the Earth’s period about the Sun (~365 1/4 days)I don’t need to include the effects of the Jovian planets on the Earth, so why should they influence a much larger mass like the Sun?
I’d like Ian to explain why a Ph.D in astrophysics taught me that, yet he claims I don’t understand physics.
Arnost said “Three types of torque operate between the solid Earth and its fluid envelope (the atmosphere and oceans): pressure, gravitational and frictional torques”.
Arnost…thanks for explanation. If you draw a freebody diagram of the Earths as it rotates on it’s axis and revolves in it’s orbit, there are only two significant forces on it. One is the gravitational force from the Sun and the other is the gravitational force of the Moon.
Even though the Moon causes the oceans to rise on Earth due to it’s gravitatiojnal effect on us, it does not slow the Earth’s angular velocity. Neither does the G-force from the Sun. The Earth will continue to spin at its current velocity because there is no external force acting on it tangentially.
I am aware of the forces you talk about, that act internally, but they do not affect rotational speed or orbital speed. If they did, the Earth would be slowing down and speeding up in both. The angular velocity of the Earth’s rotation is constant because there are no external frictional forces acting on it. If there was, it would slow down.
The atmosphere and oceans travel with the Earth because they are bound to it by gravity. The Earth is not moving through them. Any torques occuring within the system are not going to affect the system itself in it’s rotation or it’s orbit. If you were turning on a merry-go-round, you could press as hard as you want against the device, in a direction opposite it’s rotation, and nothing would happen.
The merry-go-round slows eventually due to friction in its bearings and wind resistance from the atmosphere. But it is turning ‘in’ the atmosphere, the Earth is not. Think about it for a minute. The Earth’s angular velocty is about 1000 miles per hour at the equator. If the Earth was traveling through the atmosphere, we’d be faced with a 1000 mile per hour wind. We feel no wind from that rotation. Wind comes from differences in heat potentials, an internal process.
Linear momentum is defined as a mass times a velocity. Newton tells us that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by a force. Conversely, a body in motion will remain in motion until acted on by a force. If the torques you mention were significant, the Earth would be wobbling, but nothing will change it’s momentum till you apply an external force to change either the angular velocity of it’s rotation or the velocity of it’s orbit.
Take for example a child’s toy that is a sphere with marbles in it. If you roll the ball, the torques from the marbles moving inside may cause the ball to rotate sideways, but it is the friction on the floor that causes it to slow down. If that ball was moving through a frictionless space, it would never slow down unless another force acted on it. The internal torques don’t reduce the momentum.
Gordon, thanks for the replies…
This is my take on things:
Any two gravitationally bound bodies ALWAYS orbit around the combined centre of mass of the entire system – the barycentre. If two orbiting bodies are of the same mass, the centre of mass will be half way between the two. If the bodies differ in mass, the centre of mass may be within the larger. See the following orbital representations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass#Animations
The solar system is a multi-body system. If the planets are evenly distributed around the sun, the combined centre of mass would be deep within the sun. If all the planets were aligned on the same side of the Sun, the combined center of mass would lie about 500,000 km above the Sun’s surface. This is a representation of the position of the solar barycentre with respect to the centre of the sun:
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w45/CarlSmith_2007/Sun%20SSB/ssb-orbit-col.gif
And every day is a slightly different length by a few microseconds – sometimes longer, and sometimes shorter – and this is measured as the Length-of Day (LOD).
http://geology.about.com/od/tectonicsdeepearth/a/lodresearch.htm
Variations of the atmospheric angular momentum (the AAM) is thought to be responsible for almost all of the LOD variation on time scales from several days to several years. The variations in ENSO and Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) phases drive the AAM and so can explain LOD variations. Google [QBO ENSO LOD]…
Now Ian tells us that the suns wobbles around the solar system barycentre and the earths LOD are correlated… Hmmm… IF there is a CAUSAL correlation, I’m pretty much well of the opinion that gravity will have very little to do with this. Even though the Jovian planets are pretty massive, because gravity follows the inverse square law, their influence on the sun will be quite low… Venus probably will have a larger gravitational effect on the Sun than Jupiter (or at least Saturn). So what else is there…?
Gordon Robertson,
I am deeply sorry for lashing out at you in my post. I apologise for what I said.
I misunderstood your original post and my words were those of someone who was tired and dispirated. The words I used were unexcusable and I wish that I could withdraw them.
I am very tired right now but I will try to answer your questions in a day or so.
Arnost,
My 2009 Russian paper tries to explain why there might be an apparent conection between the motion of the Sun about the Barycentre of the Solar System and the Earth’s rotation.
I assert that there is no physical connection between the two phenomena. They just appear to related to each other because each shares a common driving mechanism.
The motion of the Sun about the Barycentre is just a reflection combined gravitational effects of the Jovian planets upon the Sun.
Hence, the synchronization that we observe between the Sun motion and the Earth’s rotation suggest that phenomenon that is driving the changes in the Earth’s rotation must be synchronized with the motion of the Jovian planets (unlikley as this may be).
The only reasonable explanation that I could come up with goes roughly along these lines:
[before anyone jumps on this explanation please realize that I beieve that this is NOT the only possible explanation].
“We know that the strongest planetary tidal forces acting on the lunar orbit come from the planets Venus, Mars and Jupiter. In addition, we known that, over the last 4.6 billion years, the Moon has slowly receded from the Earth. During the course of this lunar recession, there have been times when the orbital periods of Venus, Mars and Jupiter have been in resonance(s) with the precession rate for the line-of-nodes the lunar orbit. When these resonances have occurred, they would have greatly amplified the effects of the planetary tidal forces upon the lunar orbit. Hence, the observed synchronization between the precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the orbital periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter, could simply be a cumulative fossil record left behind by these historical resonances.”
“At first glance, there does not appear to be an obvious physical phenomenon that would link the Sun’s motion about the Solar System’s CM to the Earth’s rotation rate. However, such a link could occur if the rate of precession of the line-of-nodes of the Moon’s orbit were synchronized with orbital periods of Terrestrial planets and Jupiter, which in turn would have to be synchronized with the orbital periods of the three remaining Jovian planets. In this case, the orbital periods of the Jovian planets, which cause the asymmetries in the Sun’s motion about the CM, would be synchronized with a phenomenon that is known to cause variations in the Earth’s rotation rate, namely the long term lunar tides.”
Ian Wilson…don’t worry about it, I didn’t take any offense.
I don’t have anywhere near the qualifications you have and I wasn’t trying to infer you are wrong. I was merely questioning something that didn’t make sense to me. That wouldn’t be the first time either. I usually speak up when something doesn’t seem right to me. I have the habit of raising questions by making inferences, a quality that doesn’t appeal to many people, and is often misunderstood.
Arnost said…”If all the planets were aligned on the same side of the Sun, the combined center of mass would lie about 500,000 km above the Sun’s surface”.
Thanks for reply, Arnost. I have a pretty decent understanding of CM from engineering math (washer regions, etc.)and binary stars in astrophysics. I also know that CM has a significance, but in the case of all the planets lining up on one side of the Sun, we’ve approached that haven’t we? Don’t you think a CM at 500,000 km would create a distinct wobble?
I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s humour with regard to the Mississipi River. As you know, it’s a meandering river and is subject to shortening as ox-bows in the river are breached by floods. Twain said:
“In the space of one hundred and seventy six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-pole. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo [Illinois] and New Orleans will have joined their streets together and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact”.
I like his comment at the end about science:
“One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact”.
For those that are interested, you might want to have a look at a scientific article whichactualy backs my position:
“Impact of variations in solar activity on variations on hydrological decadal patterns in Northern Italy”. by Zanchettin et al. Jounal of Geophysical Research, 2008, Vol 113, D12102.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRD..11312102Z