The Cure For Global Warming

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 65
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » April 30th, 2018, 9:52 am

Barry Sears wrote:
April 30th, 2018, 7:31 am
If you are sitting in the back seat, applying the brake is not an option. If your attempts to resolve the inevitable outcome by communication with the driver of the motor vehicle wasn't successful, then taking action to jump would be necessary.
You are not big on metaphor, are you? They guy in the back seat does have a brake pedal, but the braking is a cumulative effect of everybody in the car. The driver has more powerful controls.
What is the point of posting this graph? It shows 40 years of data for the difference between temperature measured on the surface vs. that measured from satellite, the difference between two different thermometers measuring the same thing. For the most part, they agree, but sometimes differ by as much as half a degree. How is this relevant to the discussion?

Here is one from the same site I found that actually plots over time the average temperature and also CO2 levels.
http://climate4you.com/images/AllCompar ... AndCO2.gif

I could not paste the image itself since it is 60% wider than the forum likes, and compressing it renders it pretty unreadable as you seem to have discovered. Thanks for the url to it.
The graph I linked goes back only 60 years. I found others on the site that predate the industrial revolution, and show essentially a flat slope ending around 1910. One of them is this, which plots temperature and also length of day. Why those two belong in the same image seems inexplicable, but we've been discussing both.
http://climate4you.com/images/LOD%20and ... ngMean.gif
Temperature has no average slope until 1910, then about a degree per century until recently when the slope starts snowballing to the current rates.
The length of day plot shows less than 86400 seconds prior to 1890, and greater than that since then, although the current day length has dropped to nearly the standard time, having peaked at around 1905. I'm just impressed that they have measurements of it down to the millisecond as far back as 1850.
Mind you, it is measured by year, so a matter of seconds, not milliseconds. And a year on Earth is not one orbit like it is defined for the other planets.
It is a calendar year, measured from the onset of spring to the next spring. One orbit is about 20 minutes longer than a calendar year. Sorry. I digress....

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » May 1st, 2018, 12:57 am

So I thought you were sitting in the back, are you actually driving the car or are you sitting in the passenger seat, what control do you have in this ?
You quote "You are not big on metaphor, are you?" Like this line your metaphor is probably the issue
I posted the graph because it is from a good data set and is an indication of how variations exist between different temperature averages. You have shown different things being measured one being air temperature and UAH being satellite temperature. Do you know where the data was obtained from and what is actually being measured for your favourite graph from "A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language site"?
The graph I posted is showing the surface temperature verses satellite readings.
Please remember as quoted by the IERS when doing calculations over vast periods of time not all figures can be considered constant. Lets imagine two dots a meter apart. One generates heat and the other is moving towards it. For the first half a meter moving closer to the heat source has no effect or causes any temperature change. Only when the dots get closer does the heat source have an effect on temperature changes of the moving dot, at first tiny and then an increasing effect.
Another perspective that can be focused from the cited slowing trend is that--even though Earth's rotation is experiencing a slowing trend--the magnitude of the change is very small. It seems that modern measurements and ancient eclipse records alike indicate that the length of the day in the past, as well as the length of the day in the modern era, completes in about the same relative amount of time (86,400 seconds). The indicated increase (a total of .07 seconds in 4,000 years) then tends to reflect a rotating Earth that is remarkably stable. On a scale of the prior 4,000 years, the tiny magnitude of Earth's rotational slow-down tends to prove that the Earth has continued to spin at a functional rate. Essentially, the length of the day is proven to remain adequately uniform--even across thousands of years. Quoted by IERS

Erribert
Posts: 27
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 11:37 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Erribert » May 1st, 2018, 1:49 am

I am all for living like the Amish and getting out of this rat race! I don’t think my family would like it though...life brings responsibilities. Actually, my dream is to retire to a beach in the tropics and hang out living off the land. Always moving inward as the beach goes away. :-)

Apparently the earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for a long time, if one believes anymore what scientists are proclaiming. My bet is on a cooling earth due to sun cycles and sun activity. I would like to hear solutions to a cooling of the earth, an oncoming ice age as the cycles seem to suggest. My physical chemistry training tells me there is no way that carbon dioxide could heat the earth. In fact, it protects us from the heat of the sun. I am one of those 90% of scientists that did not know if man is making the earth warmer. Yes, I went carefully through the surveys and their statistics to see what the true consensus was. Besides, it hasn’t gotten warmer for quite some time now...Yay, this is good news y’all!

But, whatever, the inversion of the poles appears to be accelerating and both the sun and the earth appear to be losing their magnetic fields that protect us from cosmic dust. Besides, the solar system is traveling out of some galactic cloud, and is crossing the through the galactic plain as it does in cycles, whatever that means. Then we are about due for another large meteor shower (one enormous one just passed the earth closer than the moon. Problems, problems, all reported by scientists, NASA, etc.

However, “be safe everyone, eyes open, no fear” as Ben says at the end of his daily YouTube update of the sun on Suspicious Observers.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers/videos

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » May 1st, 2018, 7:31 am

Greetings Erribert,
Welcome to the site. I do believe it is only a recent change in numbers, now more people live in cities verses rural areas. I have moved to a small town after living many years on a life style block, growing all fruit and veggies, having stock, pets and chickens. With two children also a town or city offers so many opportunities as well as easily accessible schooling and global connections. As easy as it is to move into an urban lifestyle so too can one move to the rural zones. I guess the difficult aspect is satisfying the complete families desires. With a campervan and living in New Zealand we do create plenty of opportunities for time with nature. I do cringe with modern packaging and petrol but believe conscious awareness and personal steps produce changes. Environmental footprints are new teachings. Here in New Zealand we are working towards protective zones of planted regions, protecting all waterways. Carbon credits apply to all areas here as farming is everywhere. It is definitely built into the structure of regions and nationally that green zones and natural bush zones are managed or protected.
Why is it that so much attention is given to the biblical notion of the end of the World? I think we are paranoid about the population destroying itself but this is not a World ending. We may argue and fight but this seems to be mellowing as international doors open and global relationships grow. The World will keep rotating, the World will keep spinning and we will adapt and change to the different conditions and changes with time. We will prepare with space stations and store and stash reserves away but it is time to release the World of the paranoia of the World ending.
As we discover the Earth is on a journey a life-cycle process with Worlds to follow. The Earth began and the Earth will end in millions of relative years cremated by the sun as attempted to be explained biblically (As the source of the paranoia) but on a scientific time frame more realistic and true.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 65
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » May 1st, 2018, 5:07 pm

Barry Sears wrote:
May 1st, 2018, 12:57 am
So I thought you were sitting in the back, are you actually driving the car or are you sitting in the passenger seat, what control do you have in this ?
Like I said, the metaphor seems lost on you. The car is our environment, and jumping out isn't an option if there isn't a spare one to jump into. How much control does one individual have? Not much, but you've indicated actions such as protected zones and carbon credits, which serve to back off a bit on the accelerator but not actual application of the brakes. There are ways to apply the brakes, but nobody even suggests them, not even those that acknowledge the danger. We are bound by our 2nd-gilded age morality which has only the present time in mind, not the future.
No, I don't think climate change is the looming calamity. There's a bigger one, and the environmental collapse will just make it harder for those that remain. The Earth has been warmer before when the carbon levels were even higher. Life (different life) flourished, and is actually what formed all the fossil fuel deposits. Once all that carbon was buried, the ice ages began their wax and wane cycle. Humans may survive, but I don't think it will be by technology.

[/quote]
I posted the graph because it is from a good data set and is an indication of how variations exist between different temperature averages. You have shown different things being measured one being air temperature and UAH being satellite temperature.[/quote]They both measure air temperature at the ground, just using different tools. The satellite temperature is not that of the satellite, which differs from ground temperature by hundreds of degrees.
Do you know where the data was obtained from and what is actually being measured for your favourite graph from "A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language site"?
Sources quoted: "Reconstructions are from Shakun (2012) and Marcott (2013), scaled to Annan+Hargreaves (2013) estimate for the last glacial period". It says this at the same place the data limits are described, at about 16000 BC.
The graph I posted is showing the surface temperature verses satellite readings.
But not surface temperature vs. different years. They compare the two readings to each other and report the difference, from which an assessment of accuracy can be drawn. Warming or cooling would not show up at all on such a graph. So I found some on the same site that actually did show that.
Please remember as quoted by the IERS when doing calculations over vast periods of time not all figures can be considered constant. Lets imagine two dots a meter apart. One generates heat and the other is moving towards it. For the first half a meter moving closer to the heat source has no effect or causes any temperature change. Only when the dots get closer does the heat source have an effect on temperature changes of the moving dot, at first tiny and then an increasing effect.
Still wouldn't be abrupt (on the order of 400000x) if it had no measurable effect before. But yes, the curve would be inverse-squared, not linear, so the part about life forming at sub-kelvin temperatures is unfair. Pluto is cold, but not sub-kelvin.
The indicated increase (a total of .07 seconds in 4,000 years) then tends to reflect a rotating Earth that is remarkably stable. On a scale of the prior 4,000 years, the tiny magnitude of Earth's rotational slow-down tends to prove that the Earth has continued to spin at a functional rate. Essentially, the length of the day is proven to remain adequately uniform--even across thousands of years. Quoted by IERS
The number I got from multiple sites was 2.3 msec/day/century. https://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html. 4000 years is 40 centuries, so about .09 sec in that time, pretty close to the .07 you found. Hardly uniform in the long run.
Let's say 2msec/day (.08 seconds in 4000 years). A million centuries ago the day would be 2000 seconds shorter, and 8.5 more days would fit in a year, assuming the year length didn't change. 421 days is 55 more than now, so there would be 421 days per year about 650 million years ago. That's why I asked the age of the coral sample.

Erribert
Posts: 27
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 11:37 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Erribert » May 2nd, 2018, 12:08 am

Hi Barry,
I am not much one for disaster predictions. I think it is great what New Zeeland is doing. Too often has paradise been paved with a parking lot. Me, I live in Southern California, although I prefer to call it the central coast. I live far enough North from the dreaded Los Angeles, that it is mainly farming and low mountains.

I do tire of the climate change battle. I am not sure what all the fuss is about. Humans survived the last ice age and they will survive any polar melting. If they do melt. The only disaster that will result will be those who are not smart enough to move above sea level. This is assuming the worst case prediction of global warming. I forget who’s model that one is. Besides, the error bars overwhelm the degrees measured every day.

Personally I have a great interest in such warming, because I would then be able to explore Antarctica. The final frontier. I certainly hope that Antarctica melts enough during my lifetime to be able to do that. But, I am not getting any younger. Fortunately there is a huge hot spot under Western Antarctica. This explains why the West is melting while the ice in the East is increasing. This hotspot has been likened by NASA to the huge volcano lying under Yellowstone in the US, ready to explode any day now... This Antarctic hotspot is actually fortunate (so long as it doesn’t create some enormous tsunami up the Atlantic) because my guess is that Western Antarctica will be very interesting if one looks at the actual ground maps depicted by radar.

Alas, my fear is that the earth is not warming fast enough, if at all. The Earth’s temperature is extremely difficult to measure, if even possible with any degree :-) of accuracy. So, I will have to wait and see. I am sure there are many many explorers hoping Antarctica will melt. Unfortunately I don’t think that man alone can disrupt the homeostasis of the earth or the control the sun has on earth’s temperatures.

So, I will sit and wait and hope for the best.

Cheers

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » May 2nd, 2018, 6:49 am

Hi Halc,
You quote "Let's say 2msec/day"
The length of the solar day (LOD) is defined to be 24 hours long (or also 86,000 seconds in length). In the last half of the Twentieth Century, the length of the solar day was very accurately measured for the first time using atomic clocks. These very accurate measurements show an increase in the length of the day of 0.0017 seconds (or 1.7 milliseconds) for the century. It is here significant that these measurements additionally show Earth's rotation is changing at a variable rate. Essentially, the measurements do not reflect that Earth's rotation changes at any constant rate. Quote IERS
Halc I do respect your tone, you have the maturity to communicate with polite and patient manners. I believe your honest nature is a reflection of your generation. I am assuming here as I wrote about electronic devises and you replied with mobile devices and with your patient polite nature you are of an older generation. I am approaching 50 and wish to pay my respects to your manner. I have been describing my teachings for many years and have been exposed to negative, impatient comments being a reflection of the personalities of the writers and so thank you for your contribution. The internet and specifically sites like these are wonderful addictive tools of communication that help us share our beliefs and understandings.
As I have looped back to an earlier quote I feel I need to express that I have had some unbelievable inspirational educational experiences that have helped me formulate my knowledge and understanding of life. I will remain loyal to my experiences and teachings in attempting to introduce people to the body of the World as seen in my picture. My depth of this comprehension is the process of evolution of terrestrial life correlated to the evolution or planetary life-cycle of the World formation itself over vast periods of time. This includes the environmental changes specifically global warming and additionally the variation of time acting and influencing terrestrial evolutionary changes. I do have a website explaining some of these alternative observations but when discussing scientific details I usually don't refer to this. http://thenewperspective21.wix.com/anewworld

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 65
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » May 2nd, 2018, 8:07 am

Barry Sears wrote:
May 2nd, 2018, 6:49 am
Hi Halc,
You quote "Let's say 2msec/day"
I missed the per-century in the units there, even thought I said it earlier, and of course that is the only part of my post that you quote. NASA reports 0.0023 seconds per day per century (see link above). 2msec was a rounded average between the two figures.

Were my calculations incorrect in coming to the 421 day year 650 million years ago? .0023 says the 421 days was about 580 MY ago, and .0017 makes it closer to 720 MY ago. Did you actually follow my numbers? You didn't post different numbers or point out any errors.
It is here significant that these measurements additionally show Earth's rotation is changing at a variable rate. Essentially, the measurements do not reflect that Earth's rotation changes at any constant rate. Quote IERS
Correct. The rate quoted is an average rate over a long time and does not reflect the change for any particular year or century. The best measurement of the long term spin rate comes not from atomic clocks, but from measured increase of the average distance to the moon (nearly 4cm/year), which is far more uniform, not being a function of variable mass distribution on Earth.
The current average drag rate is higher due to resonance with the size of the Pacific ocean, something that was different half a billion years ago, but also lower since the drag would be higher in the past due to faster spin and stronger gravitational effect on the tides. The effect, like the distance/warming curve, is not linear, but over only have a billion years, it is close to linear. Calculations would have to be adjusted to compute the spin rate way back around the Theia event when the spin was probably at a maximum.

None of the length-of-day changes are abrupt, and none of the long term theories has any bearing on the abrupt change to the environment. You've not addressed that point, nor gave the age of the coral sample from which 421 was derived. These are things brought up multiple times.
Halc I do respect your tone, you have the maturity to communicate with polite and patient manners. I believe your honest nature is a reflection of your generation. I am assuming here as I wrote about electronic devises and you replied with mobile devices and with your patient polite nature you are of an older generation. I am approaching 50 and wish to pay my respects to your manner.
I'm a single digit of years from that. Your tone seems to be even better than mine, including a greeting for instance. So Hi Barry!

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » May 6th, 2018, 5:02 am

Another problem with the fossilized growth records is the inherent uncertainty concerning the time when a respective bivalve mollusk was living. For example, a fossil dug out of a rock bed may indicate a prior synodic month of say 29.5 days but the time when the fossil once lived must ultimately be estimated. (The estimations are based upon certain assumptions).

Even though fossil growth records are difficult to interpret, it is ultimately evident from the previous table that the definition of the lunar-month cycle appears to have changed over the previous millions of years. It appears that bivalves now living show a synodic month of 29.5 days, and it appears that fossil bivalves living many million years ago (those from Carboniferous Era) show a synodic month of 30 days. The higher count of days in the ancient lunar month is rather apparent in the older geologic eras (from the Cretaceous Age and older).

The fossil record then does indicate the Earth-Moon was once configured rather differently from the modern system. The fossils show that the synodic month of the distant past did contain a higher number of days (more than 29.5 days).

Researchers ultimately attribute the cited different day count to the spin rate of the Earth (relative to the orbital rate of the Moon). It is believed that the relative rate of the rotation of the Earth was once faster. From this premise, it is assumed that the indicated change in the spin-orbital configuration came about on a gradual time-change basis.

While it is certainly possible to interpret that a slowing trend has existed throughout many prior millions of years, this respective interpretation doesn't seem to well agree with the cited fossil record. For example, it is clear that the easiest to interpret bivalve samples are among the younger samples. The young samples (those younger than the Eocene Age) happen to indicate a synodic month that either is equivalent (or possibly a bit less) than 29.5 days. Essentially, the younger fossils do not indicate any change has recently occurred in the defintion of the synodic month.

Thus, fossil samples (those younger than the Eocene) tend to indicate that the interpretation of a gradual change in the definition of the synodic month may not be correct. It seems that throughout the recent geologic past (for some 50-million years) the definition of the synodic month hasn't appreciably changed. Throughout this stretch of geologic history the defintion of the synodic month has remained at about 29.5 days. (Bivalves now living show a synodic month of 29.5 days, and it appears that fossil bivalves interpreted to have lived as far back as the Eocene also indicate a synodic month of about 29.5 days).

The following table illustrates that the younger fossil samples indicate an unchanged definition of the synodic month. It appears that the synodic month has averaged 29.5 days throughout--at least--the prior 54 million years:


Carefully note (based upon fossils interpreted to be younger than 54 million years): the definition of the synodic month has a long-term average of 29.5 days.

If the defintion of the synodic month has remained unchanged for what could be up into the many millions of years then indicated change in the synodic month may have occurred in a more distant geologic age.

The previously cited table of fossil records shows that old fossils--those older than the Eocene Age--generally have a higher count of days in each synodic month. (All 31 of the older fossil samples when averaged together show a synodic month of 30 days).
What is then significant from the cited fossil samples is that for a time-span of millions of years into the past it does not appear that the rotation of the Earth has slowed relative to the Moon. Rather, it would appear that the definition of the synodic month (29.5 days) has long remained remarkably uniform and unchanged.
So if we have a think about some of the facts in evaluation of your calculations, then by being aware that the synodic period has not changed for 50 million years then what impact does this have on the new idea the Earth is slowing in it's rotation. This suggests the moon is also changing relatively to determine no change in 50 million years. I assume you also used sidereal years in your calculations.

If you imagine the moon rotating around the Earth and place them at a distance much further from the sun, the motion is similar, relative changes probably occur but now imagine them much closer. Due to the increase in the revolution around the sun and the increase in the seasons the number of days per year increases as the distance from the sun increases and a year becomes longer.

The study of the new perspective focus on the environmental variations caused by planetary motion that has assisted with terrestrial evolution. This same process of a changing period of time or longer seasons, the longer year and cooler temperatures is the ideal model considering all the facts allowing the process of terrestrial evolution to change to the past when much larger, cumbersome dinosaurs roamed.

If we assuming the days were once much shorter and the year was the same, this doesn't provide a varying situation that suits larger life forms. This situation would produce smaller faster species.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 65
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » May 6th, 2018, 8:22 am

Barry Sears wrote:
May 6th, 2018, 5:02 am
So if we have a think about some of the facts in evaluation of your calculations, then by being aware that the synodic period has not changed for 50 million years then what impact does this have on the new idea the Earth is slowing in it's rotation. This suggests the moon is also changing relatively to determine no change in 50 million years. I assume you also used sidereal years in your calculations.
I did not calculate anything month-related. I simply extrapolated the measured delta spin rate back millions of years. At a slowing rate of .0017 ms/day/century, the day would be 14 minutes shorter 50 million years ago. The month was not computed since the distance to the moon is not necessarily fixed. I did not use sidereal years, and neither does the fossil record. Sidereal is only used for other planets. I mentioned that above.
If you imagine the moon rotating around the Earth and place them at a distance much further from the sun, the motion is similar, relative changes probably occur but now imagine them much closer. Due to the increase in the revolution around the sun and the increase in the seasons the number of days per year increases as the distance from the sun increases and a year becomes longer.
I can imagine this, but I don't see force that makes this change. Wouldn't the same mystery-force bring the moon closer to Earth over time? Or are we discarding Newtons laws of motion here?

The point about this theory not explaining the current abrupt change is one again ignored. So for about the 7th time, how is any of this relevant to the topic at hand?

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » May 14th, 2018, 3:09 am

Greeting Halc,
Perhaps you missed my answer several times, I'll try again. The precise motion of the Earth is developing and becoming more detailed. Is is still however only theoretical concepts that try and establish the true motion based on observations and years of thought and calculations. You mentioned earlier that you hadn't seen any information on the Earth's varying orbit. You will obviously be familiar with the precessional movements but what is the cause of the tropical year getting shorter by 20 minutes every year compared to a sidereal year. The fact is that a year is getting shorter is basic knowledge. Understanding it is theoretical. I have pre-mentioned in detail the cosmic drag theory that resolves current theoretical errors.

Here is another motion which you may be familiar with but most will not. This is the Milankovitch cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles. This explains how we are currently in a phases moving towards the sun in a warming phase.

Here is a reference to the wiki talk forum helping formulate and desrcibe some of the ideas. This is an indication of how young this motion is. Bit of reading especially with the links but it gives you a better comprehension of where we are at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axial_precession

Here are a few quotes also from additional discussions on the subject.
However, former biological clock studies seldom considered the possibility that the ancient Earth’s revolution could be studied by fossil measurements. These studies simply suggested a constant year length in the discussion of the variation in the day length. In fact, presumption of a constant Earth orbit is unreasonable

So, what other possibility exists that would make the length of a year become incrementally shorter while the length of a 'day' remains constant? Answer.... The Earth is moving closer to the Sun (shrinking orbit).

You have stated the current belief regarding precession but it does not account for the incrementally shrinking year (time).
About AD 200, the length of a tropical year was 365.2423 SI days, and was near 365.2422 SI days by AD 2000.
Nor does it (present consensus opinion) account for slight 'seasonal shifts' (and Global Warming).

There is no 'hideous mis-information' just an application of theorhetical orbital mechanics based upon simple arithmetic (3.14 seconds of time a day).


The 'Orbital Variance' can be measured by a daily difference (time wise) of 3.14 seconds (yes, Pi!).
Over a period of 72 years the 3.14 daily (mean) seconds amounts to one degree (a day or 'presently' [at this stage in the variance] about 22.94 hours) which is the precessional rate (1 degree every 72 years).
Presently the Earth's orbit is in a 'contracting' phase and the result is Global Warming.
The theory also provides a theoretical answer to the true cause of Precession of The Equinox, being, rhythmic (cadenced) variances in the Earth's solar orbit.


The period between two successive vernal equinoxes,the time the earth takes to complete one orbit around the sun relative to the first point of Aries. Its length was365 days 5 h 48 min and 45.19 s in 2000, and it is changing by 0.00000006162 x y days (y in Julian years from 2000), or about 5 milliseconds/year. The tropical year differs from the solar year by 1 part in 26,000,since this is the period of the earth's precession about its rotational axis combined with the precession of the perihelion of the earth's orbit. Also called an astronomical, equinoctial, natural, or solar year. It contains one complete cycle of seasons.


The first edition of The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1771 (Astronomy, page 453) records the length of the solar year as 365.2564 days and the Earth's mean distance from the Sun at 94,725,840 miles. The astronomical measurements from 1771 are greater than our present calculations (365.2422 and 93,000,000+/-) and indicate (presuming accuracy) that our orbit is presently in a contracting phase with global warming as a natural result.
The tropical year, upon which our calendar is based, is the interval between 2 consecutive returns of the Sun to the vernal equinox (1st day of Spring). The tropical year, in 1900, consisted of 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds. The length of the tropical year has been decreasing (ever so slightly) since (and was decreasing before then but our measurement devices were not sophisticated enough to detect the very slight difference). These measurements, at least, support the theory that the orbit of the Earth is contracting thus making the Earth's journey around the Sun a bit faster. A contracting orbit results in the planet's average mean temperature rising (because we are closer to the Sun and the temperature increase has a cumulative effect) to create the condition of global warming, which is exacerbated by carbon emissions creating a greenhouse effect.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 65
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » May 14th, 2018, 8:55 am

Barry Sears wrote:
May 14th, 2018, 3:09 am
Perhaps you missed my answer several times, I'll try again.
You seem to have missed my primary answer, which is that any hypothesis about a gradual change such as Earth spinning closer to the sun fails to explain the abrupt climate change seen recently, and the unprecedented warming pace currently being measured.
The rest of this post seems to concern the validity of that hypothesis, but not the main point that it doesn't explain abrupt climate change.

You will obviously be familiar with the precessional movements but what is the cause of the tropical year getting shorter by 20 minutes every year compared to a sidereal year. The fact is that a year is getting shorter is basic knowledge.
And your confirmation bias leaps from the page. The tropical year does not 'get shorter' by 20 minutes each year. It IS shorter (than the sidereal year), and is not something that changes from year to year.
The fact that a year is getting shorter is not basic knowledge at all. I could find no references to it. I found no cosmic-drag theory in my searches. It does not seem to be sufficiently accepted or even referenced to get hit in my search attempts. All the searches turn up answers that say the year is actually getting longer, but by trivial amounts (not a significant difference in even 4 billion years). There are known forces to account for Earth receding from the sun, and these are greater than the known forces reducing the orbital radius, but all of them are fairly trivial over billions of years.
'Cosmic drag' is not a known force. Where is the reaction to this action, or is this a rewrite of all physics that discards even Newton's third law of motion?
Here is another motion which you may be familiar with but most will not. This is the Milankovitch cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles. This explains how we are currently in a phases moving towards the sun in a warming phase.
These are regular cycles in tilt and orbital eccentricity. It explains the ice age cycles, but not an abrupt change. I found zero mention of Earth moving towards the sun in the article, except that it on average absorbs a bit more solar radiation during periods when the orbit is less eccentric. These are cycles and have no cumulative effect beyond tens of thousands of years.
Here is a reference to the wiki talk forum helping formulate and desrcibe some of the ideas. This is an indication of how young this motion is. Bit of reading especially with the links but it gives you a better comprehension of where we are at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axial_precession
Seems to be a Q&A on the same subjects as the Milankovitch cycles. All cycles, and no questions concerning cumulative changes to the length of the year. I do see a question about the 20 minute difference between tropical year and sidereal year.
Here are a few quotes also from additional discussions on the subject.
Links? I have no context for these. Measuring a year length by days is useless if the day length is not known to be constant. Doing it by hours or seconds would be more useful.

I will comment only on the last one, since it seems to be numbers cherry-picked for a climate denial purposes. I suspect the other quotes come from similarly motivated sources.
The first edition of The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1771 (Astronomy, page 453) records the length of the solar year as 365.2564 days and the Earth's mean distance from the Sun at 94,725,840 miles. The astronomical measurements from 1771 are greater than our present calculations (365.2422 and 93,000,000+/-) and indicate (presuming accuracy) that our orbit is presently in a contracting phase with global warming as a natural result.
They measured it to 7 significant digits in 1771 and can only manage 2 digits today. Hmm...
The 365.2564 value contradicts the 365.2423 value in the other red quote above for about 8 times further back.
The figures given imply that the Earth spin is actually increasing since the length of the year has shortened considerably more (~1.3%) than has the count of days per year (~0.004%) over the same time period. Now what force would account for that?
If we've lost 1,725,000 miles in 240 years, Earth will drop into the sun in less than 13000 years. Funny that nobody seems worried about these figures.

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » May 14th, 2018, 8:56 pm

Milankovitch's theory was largely ignored until, in 1976, a study based on deep-sea sediment cores in Antarctica substantiated that changes in temperature going back 450,000 years largely conformed to changes in the Earth's orbit. Milankovitch's theory is now accepted as the best explanation of climate change "on time scales of tens of thousands of years." And the theory suggests that it is about time for Earth to begin a new long-term cooling cycle.
Image

The basic concept suggests that the orbit of the Earth changes. In an elliptical cycle as presented we are currently moving closer to the sun due to apsidal precession or orbital precession and the theory suggests we are about to move away again, hence the current temperature records. This is a very interesting model I trust you are able to grasp it my learned friend.

Newton's theorem of revolving orbits
Newton derived an early theorem which attempted to explain apsidal precession. This theorem is historically notable, but it was never widely used and it proposed forces which have been found not to exist, making the theorem invalid. This theorem of revolving orbits remained largely unknown and undeveloped for over three centuries until 1995.[10] Newton proposed that variations in the angular motion of a particle can be accounted for by the addition of a force that varies as the inverse cube of distance, without affecting the radial motion of a particle.[citation needed] Using a forerunner of the Taylor series, Newton generalized his theorem to all force laws provided that the deviations from circular orbits are small, which is valid for most planets in the Solar System.[citation needed]. However, his theorem did not account for the apsidal precession of the Moon without giving up the inverse-square law of Newton's law of universal gravitation. Additionally, the rate of apsidal precession calculated via Newton's theorem of revolving orbits is not as accurate as it is for newer methods such as by perturbation theory.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 65
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » May 15th, 2018, 10:06 am

Barry Sears wrote:
May 14th, 2018, 8:56 pm
Milankovitch's theory was largely ignored until, in 1976, a study based on deep-sea sediment cores in Antarctica substantiated that changes in temperature going back 450,000 years largely conformed to changes in the Earth's orbit. Milankovitch's theory is now accepted as the best explanation of climate change "on time scales of tens of thousands of years." And the theory suggests that it is about time for Earth to begin a new long-term cooling cycle.
Image
I disagree with none of this quote, and didn't say otherwise in my prior post. The next ice age is due after temperatures peaked about 7000 years ago and have been falling until about the 17th century when coal started replacing wood as a domestic heat source.
The maximum slope of any of the lines in your graph is about 0.13 deg/century up or down, but the current slope (which should be negative) is +4 deg/century, about 30x the worst pace in that history. The Milankovitch cycles are far too weak to cancel that effect. The impending ice age is dwarfed by the current trend.
The basic concept suggests that the orbit of the Earth changes. In an elliptical cycle as presented we are currently moving closer to the sun due to apsidal precession or orbital precession and the theory suggests we are about to move away again, hence the current temperature records.
Then you seem to be unaware of what 'procession' means. The concept concerns cycles of tilt, eccentricity, and orbital procession, none of which alter the mean orbital radius. Apsidal precession and orbital precession (terms for the same thing) do not mean cycles of moving closer to the sun and eventually away. It is a procession of the direction of the major semi-axis, with no change to mean orbital radius.
Newton's theorem of revolving orbits
Newton derived an early theorem which attempted to explain apsidal precession. This theorem is historically notable, but it was never widely used and it proposed forces which have been found not to exist, making the theorem invalid. This theorem of revolving orbits remained largely unknown and undeveloped for over three centuries until 1995.[10] Newton proposed that variations in the angular motion of a particle can be accounted for by the addition of a force that varies as the inverse cube of distance, without affecting the radial motion of a particle.[citation needed] Using a forerunner of the Taylor series, Newton generalized his theorem to all force laws provided that the deviations from circular orbits are small, which is valid for most planets in the Solar System.[citation needed]. However, his theorem did not account for the apsidal precession of the Moon without giving up the inverse-square law of Newton's law of universal gravitation. Additionally, the rate of apsidal precession calculated via Newton's theorem of revolving orbits is not as accurate as it is for newer methods such as by perturbation theory.
This quote (taken from Apsidal_precession entry) seems to concern Newton attempting to explain observed orbital precession, but better explanation aside, none of the proposals violated conservation of angular momentum with an action without reaction. The cosmic-drag hypothesis seems to violate this. I didn't find where it was addressed. That was why I brought up Newton.

If you look at your ice age graph, the spikes happen about every 110000 years, which is the period of both apsidal precession and of recent eccentricity changes. Eccentricity has more to do with the climate cycles than does the precession of the orbit, but I don't see how they necessarily come in regular cycles. The changes are from chaotic forces, not regular ones. The wiki page calls them 'cycles' implying it is a regular thing.
The 110000 year cycles is only a million years old. Ice ages before then cycled with the obliquity period, every 41000 years. Earth will probably step back into that pattern starting now as it was the prevailing pattern for a warmer environment with little to no actual ice in the cooling periods.
The tilt procession cycles are more like 26000 years and determine only which hemisphere has the more pronounced seasons. Current the southern hemisphere is more pronounced since the Earth is closer to the sun in their summer and the winter of the north.

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » May 16th, 2018, 1:10 am

Greetings Halc,
It is rather evident that patterns and trends exist with regards to changes in the Earth's temperature. I am not disagreeing with the data and evidence as the patterns are rather obvious. I also admire the movement to consider the burning of fossil fuels and consideration for the planet and sustainability for future generations. The recent improvement in technology including satellite recording systems and other new advanced and numerous measuring systems scattered globally have only now provided a stable and reliable connective measuring system. This by far gives greater accuracy than walking up to a thermometer and reading 20 no wait 21 today, or scooping a bucket of water from the sea and measuring it. I have been reading more on the temperature recording systems due to your drive and came across this report.
Brooks investigated Historical Climate Network (USHCN) sites in Indiana and assigned 16% of the sites an ‘excellent’ rating, 59% a ‘good’ rating, 12.5% a ‘fair’ rating, and 12.5% ‘poor’ rating. A study analyzed 366 U.S. surface stations; results indicate relatively few significant temperature trends, and these are generally evenly divided between warming and cooling trends. 95% of the stations displayed a warming trend after land use/land cover changes took place, and the authors noted "this does not necessarily imply that the changes are the causative factor.
I am not sure if you understand apsidal precession or orbital precession. Please excuse me if you do. If I was to try and explain it simply as I understand it, imagine a small ball on your kitchen bench representing the sun. Now place a hula hoop over this with the sun in the centre. Pick up one side of the hula hoop. This presents a change in the Earth's orbital path relative to the sun. As you lift the hula hoop the distance from Earth to the sun increases, this creates the cooling phase and as you drop the hula hoop the distance decreases and so this is the warming phase.

Post Reply