Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Earth's Wobble Blamed For Climate Change

  1. Oct 13, 2006 #1
    Is it the Earth's wobble that is responsible for all of our global warming debates?! Can it be completely ruled out as a major contributor?

    http://www.physorg.com/news79791441.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 17, 2006 #2
    The sun is also to blame for global warming (fairly obvious) according to the "principle of Occum" (simplest explaination being usually correct). This writer points to an "8000 year high" of which I was unaware. This whole blog, linked below, has some very insightful links and contributions.

    http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/09/29/the-lyman-et-al-paper-recent-cooling-in-the-upper-ocean-has-been-published/ [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  4. Oct 17, 2006 #3
    Nice work, the other week I calculated the "black body" temperature of Earth http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/insolation-seasonal.GIF [Broken].

    Especially the summer insolation on the Northern Hemisphere appears to be an important factor. Nevertheless the matter is much to complicated to blame those extinctions on wobbles only.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  5. Oct 17, 2006 #4
    Evidently we are currently heading for a slightly colder period so it cannot explain current warming events.
  6. Oct 17, 2006 #5
    Yes Andre, I wondered if you had or had not added to this compilation of entries I have linked.

    About the "Speed Bump"

    This excerpt is from the same link in the second post of this thread

    http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.ed...een-published/ [Broken]

    Using the Occam principle I would start with the Milankovitch cycles as the most likely overall cause for anything that happens on our planet. Generally, when there is a Russian or Baltic name associated with a study or theory it is usually ignored or lamblasted.:wink:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  7. Oct 18, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    recent news article saying the opposite...
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/15/global.warming.sun.reut/index.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  8. Oct 18, 2006 #7
    CNN has dumped that page you linked.

    Here's an article that says

    This study is from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research so it has some good merit as a response to a study sited by CNN. Link below.


    However, most of these temp. studies rely on isotope analysis of ancient trees and Andre has shown some resistance to this with substantial evidence to back his position.

    Other than the use of isotope analysis I don't know of any historic figures that have been measuring the temperature of the sun over the last 1000 years. Possibly in China where we (westerners) hold little knowledge of their scientific history and/or achievements. So, how do we claim to know what the sun has been doing for the last 1000 or 10,000 years. What is certain is that we have been in the same orbit(s) for longer than that (and that they are repetitious).

    Here's a quote from the same source

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  9. Oct 20, 2006 #8


    User Avatar

    Somehow I don't trust so much a Dr. Veizer. https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1057512&postcount=158
    Somehow I don't trust CNN either :biggrin: I haven't looked at the blog yet, but considering nannoh's view on it, and the blog just being about this topic, I would give much more credit than CNN. I am really not impressed with them at all on science. Associated Press is worse.

    Link than anybody?

    Nope, don't trust their thousand-year-old "scientific" records anyway. They probably marked down novas and eclipses, but not radiation intensity.
    This cites Schaefer, BE. (1997). Sunspots that changed the world. Sky & Telescope, May: Pp. 34-38.
    This goes back about 500,000 years!

    Where does it come from? I don't know but perhaps somebody that does know can verify or show me up on my guessing.
    Pages 13, 14, and 17 most interested me. I asked myself what information could we have that would tell us the intensity of solar radiation for 500,000 years(!). On page 13 it hits the Earth's orbit and states that "Kepler’s Laws states that planet orbits are elliptical with the Sun at one foci. The parameters of an orbit include its eccentricity (see Figure 10) which is given by <equation> where a and b are the distance from the Sun to the perihelion (point of closest approach) and aphelion (point of maximum distance). The present eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit is 0.017, but as we shall see it can vary from 0.000483 to 0.060791 with a period of 110,000 years (see figure below)."

    Ah ha. What other data could we possibly have? This seems prone to error, but is very beautiful.

    So we ask the astrophysicists about Kepler's Laws and where the foci are, and all we need to know until we can model the Earth's orbit eccentricity. This should correspond to the intensity laid upon us!

    Sure enough, the New Zealand organization's graph correspond's to the Sun-Earth distance/time (Precession) on page 17. I'm guessing this is how it is done. The graph on the last page looks just like the sunspot number in the yellow graph.

    What else but eccentricity in the sun's output would mess us up? :rofl: I think we forgot a vital part.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. Oct 20, 2006 #9
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  11. Oct 21, 2006 #10
    Whilst this is obviously very clear, we must understand that we are dealing with two things, (1) the highly complicated physical / chemical processes on a solar system level at least, which steer climate and
    (2) the way how to manage the increasing pressure on Earth's resources

    The question is if it is morally justified to merge the two in the anthropogenic catastrophic runaway greenhouse fairy tale, misusing the positive feedback loop of scaremongering and the need to be scared of the public, to accomplish the desired effect.

    We are likely to find out soon, within a decade or two or so, that this trick will have an adverse effect, if we don't stop it soon enough. Ultimately the emissions will reduce drastically, but not because we have managed to convert to renewables, but because wrongs "facts" leads to wrong decisions and the policy decision making guidance by the scareremongering mechanisms may be heading for disaster.

    And climate won't hardly change a bit altogether.
  12. Oct 21, 2006 #11


    User Avatar

    In response to my post? If so I am confused. I was just trying to figure out how solar intensity over time is inferred. I didn't say anything about the sun's effect on the Earth at all.
  13. Oct 23, 2006 #12
    MK. Sorry, I mixed my response to you with what appears to be an election campaign speech.:yuck:

    Andre, scaremongering really only belongs to the politicians and the politically/monetarily motivated corporates. It is a tactic that doesn't work in the long term and our response to climate change needs a solution that is a long term solution.

    Our response may be learning to live underground where, it is rumored, most of N.Korea's modernized cities are now situated. As fewer and fewer environs provide sustainablility to humans, we'll have to make our own environments and become troglodytes. We'll become a bit like astronauts on our own planet.
  14. Oct 23, 2006 #13
    I don't think so. Scaremongering is inherent to our needs. We need an evil enemy, be it dragons devils, huns, commies or whatever.

    Perhaps it helps to read this:


    against my habit I copy paste in total, because of it's excellence:

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  15. Oct 24, 2006 #14
    This is a very good article. When I submitted this thread about the earth's wobble affecting the earth's climate cycles I thought the idea would show that some demons, devils, dragons etc are insurmountable and uneffected by our rather insignificant efforts to stop change.

    What the article is suggesting is that scientists who are new to the industry of research and grants etc will resort to making up a problem so that they can get research grants to study it, make a name for themselves and pay their rent. This allegation can extend beyond the "global warming" nemisis to cancer, diabetes, AIDS and a host of other "perceived" challenges to the well being of humans. How do we determine what is a real threat and what is a Trojan Horse that offers the entry of ambitious researchers into the treasury coffers of the public trust?
  16. Oct 25, 2006 #15
    Staying on the topic of this thread I thought I'd provide a link that has very good graphics explaining the earth's eccentricity and "wobbles". Its a little strange that most references to the Milankovitch cycles exclusively site them as the cause of cooling (as in Ice Ages). It seems logical that the same cycles could be shown to cause warming (as in "Global Warming") on the earth.

    http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes08.jsp [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook