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.
See! See! This validates all of astrology!
No, it doesn't. What it does is show amazingly well how desperately some people will cling to anything in order to explain away things they don't want to take responsibility for with some ridiculously irrelevant theory rather than deal with the facts which demands a change in behaviour.
The mere idea that these planets would have greater influence than us pumping the atmosphere full of known greenhouse gasses is outright moronic. But of course people like you jump for it, because you get to say "the dog ate my homework!", or in this case "it was all the planets fault, we can't do anything about it so let's party and forget about the whole thing." Because that's the kind of retard you are.
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.
CO2 in it self isn't a problem. But the volume of it which we add to it is a huge problem because that in turn leads to other, worse problems.
Saying that CO2 isn't a problem is just showing that you either failed high school physics and don't understand the greenhouse effect, or that you are wilfully ignoring the problem.
What it boils down to is what we can do. We can't stop the ice caps from melting when we reach that point, we can't stop the acidification of the oceans. But we can at least limit how much CO2 we add to the atmosphere, which will help with those issues.
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," 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.
I'd say they mean the peak is when it's the hottest hot, wettest wet. So now we are at the minimum? Coldest hot, driest wet. So things shoudl be getting hotter and wetter again.
Climate deniers are going to love this.
Feel free to correct me, or wait a few thousand years and check to be sure.
"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.""
Because it's one of the frequent stances among those who don't like the idea of human involvement and responsibility. Like most groups who think alike in some respects they're not as united as you'd make them out to be so you may use it as your 'not true Scotsman'. There can be quite diverse opinions if you're interested in the details. I'll give three examples of the spectrum, while this is certainly not an exhaustive list. Deniers can range from:
Complete denial where people claim that climate simply isn't changing. And there's no sustainable evidence for change. That kind of type will argue that our measuring methods are flawed, that the data is fudged, the conclusions are wrong and so forth.
Claims of it being totally natural for whatever reason. So nobody bears any responsibility since we both can neither do anything about it nor should we do anything about it, because we may make it worse.
And on the other end of the spectrum there are even those who think and say that the change may be or is man made but, argue that it's actually a good thing. And therefore nothing should be attempted to stop or reverse it.
Again the list is not exhaustive.
You are omitting the possibilities that he wilfully failed physics or does not understand anything at all. There may even be other explanations, such as "the aliens made me do it"
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Because only deniers are desperately looking for any excuse to continue being deniers.
Scientists love extra data to put into their models so they can be more accurate in the future. But they don't feel the need to make shit up like deniers do.
But scientists now have to waste extra time explaining to deniers like yourself, it wastes their time for doing actual science, they don't like that.
Therefore deniers like it more.
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.
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?
You cherry-picking piece of shit.
Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
...
One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.
Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. "One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system ... is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific."
... some people will cling to anything in order to explain away things they don't want to take responsibility for ...
Hang on, stop right there. Here is the biggest reason I can't stand eco-nazis. I am NOT responsible. You are using the wrong words, either on purpose or through ignorance, to emotionally charge your argument.
The responsibility lies with the past dozen or so generations that built up and caused this problem. I inherit this problem, I own this problem, I must be one of the many that suffer to fix the problem. But stop with the bullshit that we, alive now, CAUSED this and bear responsibility for it. All we get to do is choose to make it better or make it worse.
Instead, you call people that don't like your attitude retards. You are not actually convincing anyone to agree with you this way. Do you think having a prius or other electric car helps? Wrong. Get a bicycle. Have you ever traveled by air? Not helping. Eat foods from all over the world that aren't locally in season? Your fault too. Now please shut up with the alarmist eco-nazi bullshit unless you are actually setting a good example. Oh, you use computers and the internet? Wasteful...
It says a 405k cycle that last peaked 200k years ago, so we're heading for the minimum (since it referenced extremes, that seems to mean less-full lakes and less extreme weather.)
And Jupiter aligns with Mars Then peace will guide the planets And love will steer the stars
If we are right in the middle between two points of maximum seasonal differences it must be the point of minimum differences.
Moronic? Your reply was. To disregard the influence of the other planets, surrounding the sun, is moronic
Moronic is attempting to use this research to explain a maxima. Since we're 200,000 years from this effect's maxima.
I inherit this problem, I own this problem, I must be one of the many that suffer to fix the problem
"Responsible" does not only mean "caused".
As in, adoptive parents become responsible for the children they adopt, despite not causing those children to exist.
You (and I) are responsible for climate change in that we have to fix it or suffer the consequences. Doesn't mean we created it. It means we are taking responsibility from the careless generations before us.
The last maxima from this effect was about 200,000 years ago, and the next one will be 200,000 years from now. It can not be causing the climate change we currently see, because that is happening too rapidly for this to be the cause.
Well said, person!
-- Cheers!
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?
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.
Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined)
Which is irrelevant. Just because there are even smaller sources of heat, doesn't make the 0.1% swings any more important.
Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more
Whatever this effect is, it can't be big on a global scale, because we don't see any significant 11-year period in the Earth's global temperature. And, actually, since the 1980's, the output of the Sun has been decreasing a tiny bit, while surface temperatures have gone up to create new record highs. The correlation just isn't there.
"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.
An 11 year cycle is not the cause of a century long warming sudden warming trend. And while the amount of energy added to a system is important, equally important is the amount of energy removed from the system. That 11 year cycle is a constant that hasn't changed in any meaningful way as long as we've been measuring it. What has changed is the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that trap heat that otherwise would be removed from the system.
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.
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.
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.
Pluto is a dwarf planet, although I guess in our hyper-sensitized culture we should call it a little planet.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No, if the cycle is 400K years, we're half-way though the cycle. We're at the "dry" end of things, we're heading towards the next wetter peak. In geometric terms, we're at 180 degrees of a cosine wave - in the trough between peaks.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We're halfway from the last peak and they defined the peak as the wetter time.
we're heading for the minimum (since it referenced extremes, that seems to mean less-full lakes and less extreme weather.)
Which is the opposite of what you say now... We are headed to wetter, more extreme weather at the maximum - not the minimum.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Actually we are still headed to the trough for the next 2.5k years. So the warming and trending up will arrive in about the 45 00's. Hmm maybe there are shorter term climate problems we should deal with first...
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.
Halfway from == we just had. We're heading toward the minimum.
... 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.
Infantile humor, alternative facts, and flamebait: the new Republican Slashdot.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Except the variations we see now are larger than have ever occurred. Which means it can't be a periodic "wobble" that happens every so often.
Yet you can't quite manage to articulate that succinct option.....
Unless you have a time machine, it's going to be unfair. Complaining about it being unfair doesn't do anything besides take up effort better used at fixing it.
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 ?