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.
The Solar System Does Not Effect Climate A Whole Lot
Jupiter and Venus's orbits might have some *slight* effects but are nothing compared to the billions of smoke stacks spewing carbon into the air.
You forget about that big yellow thing up in the sky?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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.
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.
It's the quantities that make the poison. Especially in complex systems like our climate or biological life you often can't simply reduce things to 'this is always good' or 'this is always bad'.
For example you can also argue that water is essential to life. And indeed all life we know requires water as a solvent and carrier for other essential molecules.
But there's instances where there can be too much water. And I'm not even talking about things like floods here.
There's phenomenons like hyperhydration, when a person drinks so much water for example. It can dilute the electrolytes in your system so far that your neutrons can't function properly any more. And it's potentially fatal.
Not sure about the bottles, but lots of candy bar wrappers are indeed from Mars.
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.""
Of course it doesn't. But it helps to explain why, *hundreds of years ago when science barely existed*, intelligent people could take astrology seriously.
The sun has a massive effect on us, the moon too (light, tides). So why couldn't the other heavenly bodies effect us?
And they do effect us. But since then, science has managed to quantify that effect. And that effect, it turns out, consists of gravity and pretty much nothing else. Very occasionally, like in this study, that gravity has noticeable effects on our lives.
Challenge to your assertion: have, in the past, been periods with much higher concentrations of CO2 and simultaneously a thriving ecosystem?
(The answer is 'yes')
Challenge to your assertion: did that ecosystem have 10 billion humans in it, largely living in the places which were flooded back then but not now?
(The answer is 'no')
That was a different eco system. Mostly trees and plants. Most of the animals were in the water.
Also these changes took thousands of years to take place. While we are expecting changes in under a hundred years.
Will man made climate change kill all life? No but much of its diversity will be killed because it is changing faster then they can adapt.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So is chlorine, but it's still a poison.
So is iodine, but it's still a poison
So is sodium, but it's still able to be a poison.
Just because something is essential in trace amounts doesn't mean we should flood the air or water with it. The quantities matter, and it doesn't take much to turn the air unbreathable.
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."
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.
Climate skeptics more eco-friendly than global-warming alarmists: study
"A study by Cornell and the University of Michigan researchers found that those “highly concerned” about climate change were less likely to engage in recycling and other eco-friendly behaviors than global-warming skeptics."
LOL!
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.
Natural climate changes takes hundreds of thousands of years, about the amount of time it took for humans to become distinctly humans. Given another 400,000 years of climate change, I'm sure we could change again. The issue is what normally takes 400,000 years is taking 1-2 centuries. The only times this has happened was during mass extinction events. Maybe this time is different.
Please explain. Who is attempting to ruin whose economy? Who is taxing what that would attain such a goal? More to the point, who *specifically* stands to profit? Please note that "the government" is not an acceptable answer, especially to the last one. Are specific actors in the US government seeking to ruin the US economy? Are there members of the UN seeking to ruin the global economy? To what end?
Now lets look at the mirror image of your conspiracy theory. We know there are parties who stand to gain financially from continuing to produce fossil fuels for as long as possible. We know that they would see cheap solar or nuclear power (or worse, a general decrease in energy usage) as a business-threatening proposition. We know in the past, these same corporations have done horrible things to the environment in the name of profit (leaded gas, anyone?). So why wouldn't it make more sense that these parties, with a well-known profit motive, are actually the ones spreading FUD?
Also, a 25 foot rise in sea level would be a big deal to those living on the coast. I don't think telling them just to "adapt" will soothe their worries, especially for those who live on an island. Some current projections put us beating the Eemian temperatures within my lifespan, and being 2 degreesC above that during my children's life. In the next century we could be seeing average temperatures not seen on this planet in the last 5 million years. Just because 3 or 4 degrees C sounds like a small number doesn't mean that the effects won't be catastrophic.
Natural climate changes takes hundreds of thousands of years, about the amount of time it took for humans to become distinctly humans.
They do? Ice covered most of the Northern US just 12,000 years ago, during the last glacial period. Oceans were ~100 meters lower back then, too... Now we're being warned about maybe a meter over 100 years (about the same rate of change as we've seen since the last glacial period) and that it's doomsday!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!