|
Post by Andrew on Sept 29, 2013 4:19:06 GMT
It always amazes me that astronomers will identify stars with planetary systems by detecting a doppler shift due to the star's 'wobble' caused by the star actually orbiting a barycenter not just spinning on its own axis -- yet those same astronomers will deny that the Sun has any wobble, no epitrrochoid motion, no change in AM. It's almost a Ptolemy like hangover - that the Sun is special not like those other downmarket stars that wobble. I have actually pointed out the journal papers where they describe finding extra-solar-system planets and said surely the same effect is seen in the Sun? Almost got banned from some blogs doing that. What point are you making? According to Wiki and NASA, the Sun does wobble and if all the planets were aligned exactly on the same side of the Sun the centre of mass would be 500,000 kilometres outside the surface of the Sun. This diagram shows centre of mass positions from 1944, where the centre of mass is most distance around 1983. The center of mass of the Sun Jupiter system behaves approximately like the following, with the barycentre very near the surface of the Sun. spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 29, 2013 9:40:17 GMT
Those who cannot employ the SAS requirements will never - and I mean ever - be able to forecast. As Isaac Newton once said, that whole point of science is the ability to predict. So, until those who want to forecast are able to drop their egos, opinions, ideology and personal sentiments, all they will do is to opine endlessly, usually on petty matters, but they will never come any closer to the actual ability to be able to forecast the climate accurately. This is absolutely right. Near as I can tell is after years of climate science telling us CO2 was responsible for all the warming since the beginning of the industrial age and that it had accelerated to .2degC/decade; today that are telling us that they are even more sure that CO2 is responsible for at least half the .12degC warming since 1951 (hardly the start of the industrial age) No mention is now made of the "start of the industrial age". So it seems that in the view of climate science because Mother Nature showed some of the more uncertain aspects of feedback have turned out fundamentally wrong, they can be more sure of what they are saying today. LOL! Only in the world where the people who both gain the benefits of the funding and control the message does failure lead to more assurance. It looks to me as if the other shoe is now poised to drop. No doubt most of these IPCC clowns will be happy if they can extract another 6 years of vacations to exotic locations out of the taxpayers. Seems to me the best strategy would be to put the idea of another report on hold for a few years and instead watch that other shoe drop. Using their own minimum performance measure. . . .warming beyond 1997 with at least a 1.5 degreeC/century warming rate should be the minimum benchmark before even considering continuing funding of this boondoggle. If that doesn't happen obviously these guys are not going to be any help whatsoever! All the recent report has done is reported they are below their absolute minimum in the previous report and that the previous report was completely useless despite costing millions of dollars.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 29, 2013 14:03:27 GMT
And that is why we NEED a new radiation model. The one being used currently is not producing results that are within normal scientific error.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 29, 2013 15:57:50 GMT
And that is why we NEED a new radiation model. The one being used currently is not producing results that are within normal scientific error. Error bars 'in science' will always be unacceptably large (for the experimenter) when the result depends upon a very large number of separate results with small error bars. In any case, almost no computer model aiming to model reality, can produce perfect results so that products can be constructed without trial and error modification, which is not say the basic physics is wrong within the limits of a humans ability to create a 'correct' result. A lay persons assumption is that science is founded in laws. In reality they are approximations because nature is not bounded by law but is rather full of exceptions that no law based, assumption based system can predict.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 30, 2013 0:20:18 GMT
It always amazes me that astronomers will identify stars with planetary systems by detecting a doppler shift due to the star's 'wobble' caused by the star actually orbiting a barycenter not just spinning on its own axis -- yet those same astronomers will deny that the Sun has any wobble, no epitrrochoid motion, no change in AM. It's almost a Ptolemy like hangover - that the Sun is special not like those other downmarket stars that wobble. I have actually pointed out the journal papers where they describe finding extra-solar-system planets and said surely the same effect is seen in the Sun? Almost got banned from some blogs doing that. What point are you making? According to Wiki and NASA, the Sun does wobble and if all the planets were aligned exactly on the same side of the Sun the centre of mass would be 500,000 kilometres outside the surface of the Sun. This diagram shows centre of mass positions from 1944, where the centre of mass is most distance around 1983. The center of mass of the Sun Jupiter system behaves approximately like the following, with the barycentre very near the surface of the Sun. spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/I hate to give you a rude shock Andrew - but I agree with you. However, there are those (and Leif Svalgaard is one) that shout this down and state that it untrue and that planets can at most pull tides of a few centimeters at most etc etc. I asked them in that case how does a binary star system work and got no answer. This is why there is surprise that Geoff Sharp got published past the gate keepers who call Theodore Landscheidt an astrologer.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2013 3:48:06 GMT
What point are you making? According to Wiki and NASA, the Sun does wobble and if all the planets were aligned exactly on the same side of the Sun the centre of mass would be 500,000 kilometres outside the surface of the Sun. This diagram shows centre of mass positions from 1944, where the centre of mass is most distance around 1983. The center of mass of the Sun Jupiter system behaves approximately like the following, with the barycentre very near the surface of the Sun. spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/I hate to give you a rude shock Andrew - but I agree with you. However, there are those (and Leif Svalgaard is one) that shout this down and state that it untrue and that planets can at most pull tides of a few centimeters at most etc etc. I asked them in that case how does a binary star system work and got no answer. This is why there is surprise that Geoff Sharp got published past the gate keepers who call Theodore Landscheidt an astrologer. There is no way that Leif is going to dispute what NASA says about barycentres. A Solar tide created by Jupiter requires a weaker gravitational force to be present on the far side of the Sun at the same moment in time as a stronger force is present on the side nearest to Jupiter, where gravity declines at a square of the distance and Jupiter is 778M km from the 1.5M KM wide Sun. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.html "The tidal influence on a close object is greater because the inverse square law drop in gravitational force gives a greater ratio of the force on the near side of the object to that on the far side. As shown below, the tidal ratio of the force per unit mass on the near side compared to that on the far side is much larger for the closer object." articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1927PASP...39..228L&db_key=AST&page_ind=2&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YESThe relative difference in Solar tide creating ability of the planets is Jupiter 2.30, Venus 2.16. Mercury 1.24, Earth 1.0, Saturn 0.11, Mars 0.03, Uranus 0.019,Neptune 0.001. The tidal effect of all the planets combined, is one thirty-thousandth that of the Moon on the Earth.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Oct 1, 2013 9:54:51 GMT
Mal Wedd is a physicist who wishes upon a star that the IPCC’s latest report was full of science and devoid of post-modern assertion. He explains why increased CO2 has a trivial effect upon climate: See: hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/physicist-explains-why-increased-co2.htmlExtract: CO2 absorbs only in a small proportion of the wavelengths at which this heat is trying to escape. Only the green peak (CO2 absorption spectrum) on the right above actually does any work, and much of that overlaps with water vapour (blue line). Furthermore, most of its work is done when the concentration of CO2 is only 10% of what it is today. __________________________________________________________ He closes his blog entry with the following words: "The sun is about 4.5 billion years old and while we have been observing it for thousands of years, we have only in the last few years had the tools available to study it seriously. Now that we have the tools, every few months a new discovery is made and our superficial understanding of the sun takes one baby-step towards maturity. The IPCC may wish upon a star that our nearby star does not contribute significantly to our climate, but that is so fanciful that even Disney would not buy it."
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 1, 2013 12:34:36 GMT
Good read Cutty. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 1, 2013 13:05:18 GMT
I hate to give you a rude shock Andrew - but I agree with you. However, there are those (and Leif Svalgaard is one) that shout this down and state that it untrue and that planets can at most pull tides of a few centimeters at most etc etc. I asked them in that case how does a binary star system work and got no answer. This is why there is surprise that Geoff Sharp got published past the gate keepers who call Theodore Landscheidt an astrologer. There is no way that Leif is going to dispute what NASA says about barycentres. A Solar tide created by Jupiter requires a weaker gravitational force to be present on the far side of the Sun at the same moment in time as a stronger force is present on the side nearest to Jupiter, where gravity declines at a square of the distance and Jupiter is 778M km from the 1.5M KM wide Sun. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.html "The tidal influence on a close object is greater because the inverse square law drop in gravitational force gives a greater ratio of the force on the near side of the object to that on the far side. As shown below, the tidal ratio of the force per unit mass on the near side compared to that on the far side is much larger for the closer object." articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1927PASP...39..228L&db_key=AST&page_ind=2&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YESThe relative difference in Solar tide creating ability of the planets is Jupiter 2.30, Venus 2.16. Mercury 1.24, Earth 1.0, Saturn 0.11, Mars 0.03, Uranus 0.019,Neptune 0.001. The tidal effect of all the planets combined, is one thirty-thousandth that of the Moon on the Earth. Actually Leif _does_ dispute anything about the Barycenter -- read this post and the subsequent comments
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 1, 2013 18:59:20 GMT
There is no way that Leif is going to dispute what NASA says about barycentres. A Solar tide created by Jupiter requires a weaker gravitational force to be present on the far side of the Sun at the same moment in time as a stronger force is present on the side nearest to Jupiter, where gravity declines at a square of the distance and Jupiter is 778M km from the 1.5M KM wide Sun. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.html "The tidal influence on a close object is greater because the inverse square law drop in gravitational force gives a greater ratio of the force on the near side of the object to that on the far side. As shown below, the tidal ratio of the force per unit mass on the near side compared to that on the far side is much larger for the closer object." articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1927PASP...39..228L&db_key=AST&page_ind=2&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YESThe relative difference in Solar tide creating ability of the planets is Jupiter 2.30, Venus 2.16. Mercury 1.24, Earth 1.0, Saturn 0.11, Mars 0.03, Uranus 0.019,Neptune 0.001. The tidal effect of all the planets combined, is one thirty-thousandth that of the Moon on the Earth. Actually Leif _does_ dispute anything about the Barycenter -- read this post and the subsequent commentsYou are muddled up. Leif does not dispute the barycenter exists. The fact is if you doubled the diameter of Jupiters orbit the barycenter would be 700KM outside the Suns surface but the gravitational impact upon the Suns surface would be enormously reduced even further.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 1, 2013 21:04:58 GMT
You are muddled up. Leif does not dispute the barycenter exists. The fact is if you doubled the diameter of Jupiters orbit the barycenter would be 700KM outside the Suns surface but the gravitational impact upon the Suns surface would be enormously reduced even further. You as usual are the only one muddled up. Where did you get the wrong idea that Leif was exclusively referring to the total positive gravitational impact? The article isn't even about that. Which orifice did you pull that idea out of?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 2, 2013 4:49:44 GMT
New paper says ‘No evidence of planetary influence on solar activity’ Posted on September 7, 2013 by Anthony Watts
Still no effect: Motion of Barycenter of the solar system relative to the Sun. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
“Barycentric” influence of the planets on the sun is just statistically insignificant
They find no evidence of any planetary effect on solar activity.
--------------------------------------------
Ie there is no evidence that the man with the smoking gun right in front of our eyes called a barycenter is responsible for changing activity on the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 3, 2013 3:35:59 GMT
New paper says ‘No evidence of planetary influence on solar activity’ Posted on September 7, 2013 by Anthony Watts Still no effect: Motion of Barycenter of the solar system relative to the Sun. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) “Barycentric” influence of the planets on the sun is just statistically insignificant They find no evidence of any planetary effect on solar activity. -------------------------------------------- Ie there is no evidence that the man with the smoking gun right in front of our eyes called a barycenter is responsible for changing activity on the Sun. WUWT did not cover this, nor did the "statistical analysis" article that LS was given h/t for. Richard Willson was the principle developer of the ACRIM satellite program. hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/new-paper-supports-planetary-theory-of.htmlMaybe LS should put it up for a vote and settle the issue. He counts as 1000 votes of course. LS has a history of confirmation bias. I've read his stuff from 2007 at CA; he basically thinks the sun is an incandescent light bulb that has no influence on weather or climate. He burned himself pretty bad on this one however, after jumping in head first thinking he found an error. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/spot-the-science-error/
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Oct 7, 2013 11:44:50 GMT
New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate The Schtick reports: "A paper published today in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs climate of the central Alps over the past 10,000 years and finds precipitation and floods were driven by changes in solar activity. The authors propose variations in solar activity and insolation cause widening and shrinking of the Hadley cell, and influence on the North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO] and Intertropical Convergence Zone [ITCZ]. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications finding solar amplification mechanisms by which small changes in solar activity have large effects on climate.
The authors also find floods and heavy precipitation were more common during cold periods such as the Little Ice Age than during warm periods such as the Medieval Warm Period, the opposite of claims that warming increases precipitation and floods from increased atmospheric water vapor."Stacked flood records for the N- and S-Alps (100-year low-pass filtered) spanning (a) the past 10 kyr and (b) the past 2 kyr. Both representations show strong decadal- to millennial-scale fluctuations in flood activity. In a), gray areas and gray arrows mark periods with increased flood activity. In b), important historic and climatic periods characterized by rather high/low flood occurrence are marked with dark/light areas. LIA: Little Ice Age; MCA: Medieval Climate Anomaly; MP: Migration Period; RE: Roman Empire. Comparison of the Alpine flood reconstruction to records reflecting solar forcing, as well as to other climate proxy records and reconstructions: a) 30°N summer insolation (Berger and Loutre, 1991); Holocene cold events reported by (b) Wanner et al. (2011) (short gray bars) and (c) Bond et al. (1997) (with numbers 0–6); d) variations in TSI (Steinhilber et al., 2009) (50-year running mean with 100-year smooth); flood activity in the (e) N-Alps and (f) S-Alps (100-year low-pass filtered), on the right: arrow indicates state of the NAO based on S-Alpine flood frequency; g) global glacier advances (Denton and Karlén, 1973); h) NAO reconstruction from Greenland (Olsen et al., 2012); i) precipitation record from the Cariaco Basin (Haug et al., 2001); j) NAO reconstructions covering the past 1000 years (Trouet et al., 2009); k) ssNa concentrations from the GISP2 ice core (56 and 57) (100-year low-pass filtered); l) storminess (0–1) record from the NE United States (Noren et al., 2002). Gray shaded areas and gray arrows mark periods with enhanced flood activity in the Alpine realm. Blue arrows mark periods in the N-Alps that show an opposite flood activity than the S-Alps. Elevated flood activity in the S-Alps is an indicator for a more southerly positioned Atlantic circulation system and a tendency towards lower NAO indices. Paper link: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113003387Schtick link: hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/new-paper-finds-another-amplification.html
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Oct 7, 2013 13:24:49 GMT
|
|