Slashdot Mirror
Orbits of Jupiter and Venus Affect Earth's Climate, Says Study (usatoday.com)
According to a new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, gravitational tugs from the planets Jupiter and Venus gradually affect Earth's climate and life forms. The phenomenon occurs every 405,000 years and has been going on for at least 215 million years. USA Today reports: Jupiter and Venus are such strong influences because of their size and proximity. Venus is the nearest planet to us -- at its farthest, only about 162 million miles -- and roughly similar in mass. Jupiter is much farther away, but is the Solar System's largest planet. The study says that every 405,000 years, due to wobbles in our orbit caused by the gravitational pulls of the two planets, seasonal differences here on Earth become more intense. Summers are hotter and winters colder; dry times drier, wet times wetter. At the height of the cycle, more rain falls in the tropics, allowing lakes there to fill up. This compares to the other end of the cycle, when seasonal rains in the tropics "are less and lakes have much less of a tendency to become as full," [study lead author Dennis] Kent said. The results showed that the 405,000-year cycle is the most regular astronomical pattern linked to the Earth's annual turn around the sun, he said. Right now, we are in the middle of the cycle, as the most recent peak was around 200,000 years ago.
In 3. 2. 1.
when global warming has a much greater impact on our climate and messes with the other planet's effect on us this go-around.
Carbondioxide affects the climate? People with commoner sense knew all along that was Deep State bullshit.
Look who is laughing now? You?
Signed,
Captain Obvious
No wonder Obama's EPA was burying that research. The results blow away their entire narrative!
See! See! This validates all of astrology!
Study funded by big carbon producing corporations...
The tobacco lobby all over again. Except with waaaaaay more money and influence. We are all well and truly fucked ever since birth.
If I understood well, we are on a cycle which has two extreme ends. "We are in the middle of the cycle now" means we are not at either extreme, but says nothing about the direction we are going to: if we are in the middle of half-cycle going towards more pronounced seasons or in the middle of the half-cycle going towards more dry tropics?
So if other planets are responsible for climate change on Earth, what can we little humans do?
So they finally found the correlation that makes it look all cyclic. Do we no also get to accuse them of p-hacking?
It's white males fault.
Venus and Jupier are social constructs of the Patriarchy.
Posters who date from the Usenet era may remember Alexander Abian, known for "VENUS MUST BE MOVED INTO AN EARTH-LIKE ORBIT" and other kookery. If there's an afterlife, I imagine he's capering and kicking his heels high at the moment.
The science is long settled. Moreover, Europe says climate change is caused by humans and especially the US. Anyone denying that or propagating alternative theories should be arrested. No debate. The argument is closed.
What, do you think the presence of Venus a few score million miles away means that our fossi fuels don't burn down to CO2 and that this anthropogenic CO2 teleports across intererplanetary space to deposit itself in Venus,while Venus is putting CO2 in us?
Daily caller.... Right. No, the claim is a load of bollocks.
What? You want more? You never used the information available to find this nugget of "wisdom", why should I do work you want to ignore anyway?
See subject
You mean that thing which has such a consistent output that we refer to the "solar constant"? The thing that varies less than .1% over 11 years? Is that "big yellow thing" you're talking about? What exactly do you think you know about this topic?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Because THAT science can't be settled either (no science can be settled!), and the presence of an effect from planets could mean that the electrons are being pulled by jupiter, not ane lectric field like those self-proclaimed experts say!!!!
Or you're a fucking moron.
Yeah, the latter.
"I don't like your source, so I'm going to claim your site is bigoted and a load of bollocks, instead of factually responding."
For those who didn't RTFA - No this doesn't disprove global warming as a result of emissions. quote from the end of the article
"The climate impact from the planets pales when compared to how humans are affecting the planet from burning fossil fuels, for example. "It's pretty far down on the list of so many other things that can affect climate on times scales that matter to us," Kent said.
"All the carbon dioxide we're pouring into the air right now is the obvious big enchilada. That's having an effect we can measure right now. The planetary cycle is a little more subtle.""
The reason why the jobs are disappearing is because Neptune is nearing an exit from pluto's location, meaning that its gravity is pulling all the jobs away too. Stop blaming eh mexicans, jews and middle east immigrants, the problem is NEPTUNE, not people!
Keep cutting those trees down in your cities.
Also a recent study showed climate change deniers actually had far beter ecofriendly habits than those who touted climate change.
Daily caller is a pretty well known joke among educated people.
Using it in a science discussion is like using mad magazine as a political text book. Yeah, they briefly touch on some parts, but they're still so over simplified or twisted that the kernel of truth they may have has become entirely unrecognizable unless you were the actual individual who wrote the article/comic strip.
Now that will show those gravitational tugs deniers!
We should attack those planets quickly before they grow even stronger. No sissy treaties or agreement.
Whatever
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/07/01/0442203/study-claims-discarded-solar-panels-create-more-toxic-waste-than-nuclear-plants
...whenever there is a discovery such as this one, we're 'in the middle" of the cycle.
I wonder if this has to do anythibg with Eutopa (planet, not continent) and why we are not allowed to go there.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
And Jupiter aligns with Mars Then peace will guide the planets And love will steer the stars
Do you google? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/11/industry-giants-fail-to-tackle-child-labour-allegations-in-cobalt-battery-supply-chains/
More justifications for sticking my head in the sand like a selfish baby-boomer cunt.
however the gullible ones believing in climate will assert change can still only be fixed by bigger government. That's been their answer to everything no matter the "cause".
If we are right in the middle between two points of maximum seasonal differences it must be the point of minimum differences.
Voting for Republicans is the most eco-unfriendly habit a person can have.
Look it up and then ask yourself what you are going to foam at the mouth about next.
So, Uranus may also have a climate change effect?
While I'm not an astrophysicist, I know the orbits of Venus and Jupiter have to align with Earth more often than every 405,000 years or just have Jupiter on the far side of the Sun and Earth and Venus on the same side, which might bring the Earth a little closer to the Sun. But, that should happen more often than hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe they are talking about a perfect alignment, but even a close alignment should happen once every few years. (Jupiter will be on the far side of the Sun to Earth every year and 1/12, Venus's gravitational pull will always be towards the Sun, but might be only closest to earth every third year (225 days compared to 365 days))
Have gnu, will travel.
Right now, we are in the middle of the cycle, as the most recent peak [of the 405,000 year cycle] was around 200,000 years ago.
Aren't the middle and the peak the same fucking thing?
Looking at a bell curve, it would appear we are at one of the ends.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
If you carefully read the description it says that these are roughly 400,000 year cycles and we're currently in the middle of a cycle at about 200,000 years, not at a peak. Rapid rise in temperatures has been seen in the last 200 years or so which means this cycle can't explain why we're in the middle of a climate disaster now. It might explain why the climate was a bit weird 200,000 years ago before human civilization even existed. Now consider this, if Jupiter and Venus can affect the climate despite being so far away we can't even feel when it's up in the sky, then why wouldn't burning billions of tonnes of fossil fuels also have an impact on the climate? After all humans can move mountains, why wouldn't everything that we do have an impact on climate.
"Source hates science, so I'm going to claim my site is the bestest in the world and everything's Tippy Toppy, instead of factually responding."
FTFY
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Whatever
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/07/01/0442203/study-claims-discarded-solar-panels-create-more-toxic-waste-than-nuclear-plants
They only figuratively stacked the solar panels and spent fuel rods in a tower, and compared hight. They didn't compare toxicity, let alone radioactivity. That would be a bullshit report if they actually provided numbers instead of comparing the Tower of Pisa to the Mt. Everest.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Assuming that this hypothetical cycle looks anything like a sine cycle ...
Also: Assuming it looks like a sine the middle is where the rate of change is the greatest.
This is one of the Milankovich cycles, which have been known and studied (by people other than Milankovitch) since at least 1941 and part of any reasonable long-term computer-supported climatic model since such were practical.
What's new here is they found physical evidence to validate the connection between this cycle and climate, and push the connection back from 50 million to 215 million years.
= = = =
I wonder how this ties in with another work not long ago.
Notice, in the Orbital Forcing wikipedia article, the shape of the Vostok Petit data graphs of temperature during the interglacials: A sharp spike (typically to a bit warmer than we are now), followed immediately by a ramp back into the next ice age. Notice, also, how the latest one deviates: Its trendline levels out, with the temperature hanging in there rather than taking the usual dive.
A couple years back there was an article in Scientific American (NOT a hotbed of "climate-change deniers", but more of a marching band in the anthropogenic climate change parade). The authors had compared their computations of the expected effect of the Milankovitch cycles to the climate record available at the time and got a nice match, ending with exactly that deviation.
Then they tried attributing the deviation to greenhouse warming from human fossil carbon burning and cranked out a good match to the deviation: The rise of humans corresponded to a remarkable levelling of the temperature curve, which "should have been" bending down in an accelerating dive into the next ice age. (This sounds to me like a feedback process you'd expect: Colder winters, more fuel burning, making the next winters milder. With the rise of human population roughly tracking the accelerating curve into the ice age, the net result might be level enough for this feedback to become an effective regulator as people went from a few plains apes to populous farming and metalworking civilizations.)
The "level" period extended roughly to the industrial revolution (mod some "short-term" tweaks like the mideival warm period), after which the temperature went up a bit. (What you'd expect from the extra coal and oil burning.) So then they projected forward, with a range of assumptions on the rate of burning of fossil carbon and the amount of fossil carbon reserves.
What they got was not the "hockey stick" diverging into a Venus-like planet. Instead they got a rise (that looks like that at the start), followed by a crash back onto the if-humans-hadn't-happened ice-age-descent curve when the economically-useful-for-fuel fossil carbon runs out. That comes in approximately 400 years, though the time, and the height of the temperature peak, vary substantially with how fast the carbon gets burned (and how much it turns out there is).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Because the title is "Empirical evidence for stability of the 405-kiloyear Jupiter–Venus eccentricity cycle over hundreds of millions of years" as if we already know perfectly well about the cycle, and they just show that it's stable.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
And the carbon dioxide we inject into the atmosphere and water has no effect what so ever. Go sell some ice cream to the Eskimos in a blizzard.
no mention of that in the article. probably fake news.
Repeat after me, slowly: From a human point of view, any natural cycle that affects climates where we live must be handled in the same way as any manmade cause. This is why the proper response to climate change is engineering, not hysteria.
Uranus is the source of most of the energy that drives the biological and physical processes in the world around us—in oceans and on land it fuels plant growth that forms the base of the food chain, and in the atmosphere it warms air which drives our weather.
The rate of energy coming from Uranus changes slightly day to day. Over many millennia the Earth-Uranus orbital relationship can change the geographical distribution of Uranus’s energy over the Earth’s surface. It has been suggested that changes in uranal output might affect our climate—both directly, by changing the rate of uranal heating of the Earth and atmosphere, and indirectly, by changing cloud forming processes.
Over the time-scale of millions of years, the change in uranal intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). However, changes in the rate of uranal heating over the last century cannot account for the magnitude of the rise in global mean temperature since the late 1970s.
exerpts taken from "The Jornal of Nonsense"
"Uranus is the source of most of the energy that drives the biological and physical processes in the world around us—in oceans and on land it fuels plant growth that forms the base of the food chain, and in the atmosphere it warms air which drives our weather.
The rate of energy coming from Uranus changes slightly day to day. Over many millennia the Earth-Uranus orbital relationship can change the geographical distribution of Uranus’s energy over the Earth’s surface. It has been suggested that changes in uranal output might affect our climate—both directly, by changing the rate of uranal heating of the Earth and atmosphere, and indirectly, by changing cloud forming processes.
Over the time-scale of millions of years, the change in uranal intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). However, changes in the rate of uranal heating over the last century cannot account for the magnitude of the rise in global mean temperature since the late 1970s."
Saturn is the 2nd largest planet and it closer than jupiter. it MUST have some affect no?
I think you should check the masses and distances between the planets in our solar system again.
Jupiter is about 3.4 times more massive than Saturn. Relative to the sun at the centre of our solar system Jupiter is also about 1.8 times closer to the sun. This leads to an orbital period of Jupiter that is about 2.5 times shorter than that of Saturn.
Now guess which one has a larger effect on Earth no matter how small the absolute effect is.
In the middle...
The outer extremes of these swings would serve as a _stabilizing_ effect on the climate. Without their influence, the temperature is free to 'wobble' radically at minute environmental changes (man-made, jet stream path, volcanoes, etc.) like a top that slowly stops spinning (slight breeze, surface variations).
RRK
It says are half way between the maximum and minimum.
Where?
It says we are in the middle of the cycle. The is 400000 years. The last peak was 200000 years ago. A cycle is the period in which it repeats, so the next maximum is 400000 years after the last. So we are hlf way between two maxima. So we are at a minimum, assuming that the cycle is roughly symetric.
... we already have all the answers we need, ok? We know everything we need to know already about everything. Climate is changing, humans are the cause, and we have to make everything back the way it was. End of story thank you. We must make maximum efforts to roll back the clock because we have allowed our planet to change and that is not acceptable. Our species rose to prominence based on our ability to prevent change. Change is bad.
Sarcasm in case you didn't see that.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Climate change is real, but how much influence humans have on it is up for debate.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to develop better, cleaner energy, or clean the oceans of plastic, or preserve endangered species, or reduce our waste products...
And as a certain study has proven, just because you don't believe that mankind has a huge influence on climate doesn't mean you don't want to do things to be a better steward of the planet.
You are right, that is what it says, implying we are at (or near) the minimum. Seems strange to say we are in the "middle of the cycle" because who is to say the ends of the cycle are at the maximums (rather than the minimums) which is why I quickly read it to mean we are half way between them. The USA Today article uses the same wording so it is not the summary fault. I didn't pay the $10 to read the academic paper, besides it might not say. I wonder if perhaps they mangled the response from somebody to this question, I find it hard to believe that a scientic source would say "middle of the cycle" rather than "near the minimum".
It seems like we don't need to worry about that for another 200.000 years so our grand children will be just fine. And their grand children, and their grand children, and their grand chidren... how about researching something useful today? How about something that really matters to us and our grand kids?
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
Yes, I think they deliberately did not make it clear that we are at the most harmless point, because this is bad for research funding. That's why I felt I need to state that.
This might be related to the development of civilisation though. Stable conditions allowed the number of humans to increase further and further, leading to where we are today.
"Orbits of Jupiter and Venus Affect Earth's Climate, Says Study" so does Uranus, if seven billion times
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?