John Dodds: Planetary-gravitational explanation for cyclic warming on Earth

Posted: September 22, 2010 by Rog Tallbloke in solar system dynamics

The original Arrhenius 1896 scientific paper is scientifically incorrect and a fraudulent basis for the California law AB32 which mandated the reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) or CO2 emissions, and for the IPCC report (AR4, WG1, Ch1, p116). Adding more GHGs does NOT result in more warming. It is also noted that mandating the use of 25 or 33% renewable energy at 3 to 5 times the cost of fossil fuels(in Ca) results in doubling the cost of energy to the consumer/voters and in excessive inflation to all users such as transporters and manufacturers.

The Arrhenius justification for “more GHG emissions means more warming” (see Wikipedia for “Arrhenius” & ref 3 for the paper) or Delta_F=a*ln(C/Co), or the rise in temperature is proportional to the concentration of the GHGs, FAILS in the evening when the temperature decreases while the concentration is constant or increasing slightly due to mankind’s CO2 emissions. It FAILS in the morning when the temperature increases dramatically even thought the concentration is constant or increasing slightly. It FAILS when the concentration of Water Vapor, the most potent GHG, increases when the humidity increases when it rains, but the temperature does NOT increase.

The reason the Arrhenius Law fails is because it incorrectly uses the concentration of the GHG or CO2 in the air instead of the concentration of the GHG “IN USE” for the Greenhouse Effect. (GHE). More properly it should use the number of energy photons IN USE for the GHE since it is this added energy that causes the warming, and for every photon absorbed there must be a GHG to absorb it. Adding a GHG can NOT increase the warming unless an added photon of energy is also used in the GHE.

Arrhenius improperly assumed (in Sec 5) that whenever there is more CO2 then it is used for an increasing GHE. The reality is that there is an excess of GHGs in the air over the number of absorbable photons, and hence the GHE warming is limited by the available energy, not by the available GHGs. Every night when the available energy coming in decreases, then the number of GHGs in use also decreases and these unused GHGs are then “released ” to the air to become more excess GHGs. Whenever man generates more GHGs they are simply added to the unused excess GHGs in the air. They do not add to the GHE because there are no available photons to combine with the excess GHGs. It is obvious that there are more GHGs than photons, because if it was the other way round with more photons than GHGs, then the photons would just continue to increase the very real Greenhouse warming effect until all the GHGs (CO2 and water vapor) in the ocean were in use and vaporized and the oceans had dried up.

The idea of excess GHGs available also raises the question of the validity of water vapor feedback mechanisms in the models. If an added photon comes in why would it pass up the opportunity to get absorbed by a readily available excess water vapor molecule, when it could wait for man to generate more CO2 to increase the temperature to then result in more available excess water vapor molecules to cause the feedback warming effect? Mother Nature usually does things in the most efficient method possible. This then eliminates the concept of AGW, or anthropogenic, man caused global warming, and puts the burden back on natural mother nature, and it means that man’s geo-engineering can not control the temperature unless it can reverse the effects of gravitational potential energy.- ie by inventing anti-gravity!

Given that the increasing energy causes the increasing GHE and warming, and that the incoming solar insolation, the sole source of energy used by the models and IPCC, has been essentially constant since the 1970s while the globe has been warming, then it is necessary to identify another source of cyclic energy on Earth to account for the cooling and warming. Papers are available at called Gravity causes Climate Changes. and to explain how gravity causes eccentricity which causes warming and cooling cycles as Earth’s energy goes from potential energy to kinetic energy like a pendulum. These gravity cycles correspond to the measured 12 and 60 year (1880. 1940, 1998…) Earth temperature cycles and to the longer cycles identified in GISP2 ice cores. The gravitational effects of Jupiter in causing the thousands of kilometers of eccentricity in the Earths orbit and hence the cyclic variation in Earth-Jupiter distance and gravitational potential energy far exceed the effects which solar insolation have on the Earth. The increased kinetic energy from the potential energy results in warmer ground temperatures which then radiate more absorbable energy photons. These effects have not been considered in the Models, IPCC reports or the Ca AB32 regulations.
It is the coincident current nearest approach by both Jupiter, Uranus and Venus that is causing the minimization of potential energy and maximization of kinetic or heat energy and the current 2009/2010 peak in Earth warming. This is mostly caused by the 12 year Jupiter orbital cycle which last approached this peak , coincident with Venus, during the 1998 warming peak. It is the increase in available kinetic energy from primarily the decreased gravitational potential energy due to nearness of Jupiter and Venus in the last half of 2010, that has enabled the weather extremes of increased Atlantic hurricanes, the movement of Hurricane Earl in Sept as far north as Nova Scotia in Canada, the appearance of a tornado in New York in Brooklyn and Queens in Sept 2010 etc.

In summary cyclic Earth eccentricity causes Earth cooling and warming, not the availability of excess Greenhouse gases.

John’s full paper is here:

and there is a 16 page sumary here:

  1. tallbloke says:

    John, have you done any calculations to back up your assertion that
    “The gravitational effects of Jupiter in causing the thousands of kilometers of eccentricity in the Earths orbit and hence the cyclic variation in Earth-Jupiter distance and gravitational potential energy far exceed the effects which solar insolation have on the Earth. ”

    I’m assuming you mean it exceeds the historically recorded variation in solar activity measured in terms of sunspot numbers, which correlate well with TSI?

    Do you believe the Earth gets dragged around with the sun as it wobbles it’s way around the solar system barycentre, or do you believe it shifts radically in eccentricity as Jupiter counteracts the sun’s position?

  2. P.G. Sharrow says:

    The earths’ orbital eccentricity and the suns changes in solar wind move the earths relative position in the “Goldy Locks” zone of the solar system. This changes both the amount of energy lost as well as recieved. In a balanced system very small changes can be quite appearant as they accumulate. It is a good thing the hydrological system works well at returning the system to balance by storeing and then pumping out the energy into space. pg

  3. John Dodds says:

    TallBloke: No extra calculations specifically to prove that gravity is stronger than solar insolation.. The Normal planetary eccentricity & Sun movement around the barycenter is commonly thought to be caused by the gravitational effects of the planets. This is the basis for the JPL Horizons et al ephemeris codes.
    The point I was trying to make is that the the eccentricity caused by gravity (mostly Jupiter which varies from 4 to 6.5 AU (half an AU due to eccentricity Jupiter and Earth eccentricity), but a smaller influenvce by other planets is much much larger in effects than the simple little push provided by solar insolation. I always thought it was obvious that gravity has more energy impact than insolation, but some have questioned this. Just look at what a planetary flyby does to the speed of a satelite probe, whereas it takes years for solar insolation to get the same effect. It always struck me as strange that Man can calculate the impact of Nuclear (strong)Forces in producing energy (in Nuclear power plants), then can calculate the also trivial (weak) chemical forces (burning coal & oil etc, and then can calculate the E/M forces (solar insolation) but completely ignore the last of the 4 known forces- gravity. It is very easy for gravity forces to be converted to E/M & kinetic forces- a pendulum does it all the time. Even if only a small fraction is converted to heat it still dwarfs the solar insolation. AND it is a known fact that lunar & solar gravity causes tides in the ocean & the liquid core which causes friction and heat- so why is it ignored in global warming calcs?
    What I HAVE doen is use the standard ephemeris code results to calculate forces over time based on F=G*M1*M2/r^2 to determine WHEN the variations occur & which dominates when, and have found that the calculated variations in the forces coincide exactly with the variations in Earthly temperature both for Hadley measured temps and for GISP2 ice core calculated temperatures for thousands of years. These calculation are documented in the 150+ page “John Dodds Wobble Theory of global warming” paper at

    The major point of this summary is that Arrhenius blew it when he did his calculation, and CO2 can NOT create more energy to cause warming. Besides CO2 can NOT explain cooling. The energy comes from the delay & absorbtion of the photon. and therefore variations in Earth temperature are due to variations in the number of photons, and gravity is the obviously ignored source of this energy. When gravity warms the Earth the Earth radiated more photons, so not only does gravity create warming it also creates more of the Greenhouse effect by increasing the number of absorbable photons.

  4. John Dodds says:

    To PG Sharrow:
    Sorry but gravity from Jupiter etc pulls Earth out into the eccentric orbit. When Jupiter is on the opposite side the suns gravity pulls the Earth back in. Hence predictable eccentricity.The solar wind is unpredictable and trivial, due to flares etc. Since gravity is predictable, then the scientists at NASA Jet Propulsion Lab can calculate when & where planets an moons will be and how to get probes out to them.
    As for the Earth Energy balance, it is the Stefan Boltzmann Law that maintians the balance. When it gets warmer the Law says higher temps radiate more energy out. If it gets colder lower temps radiate less energy out to space to maintain the equilibrium balance of energy in equals energy out. The Hyrological system, while providing a place to store energy & moving it around by heat transfer and conduction/convection is NOT capable or sending energy to outer space.

  5. tallbloke says:

    Hi John, thanks fo rthe reply. I’ll take a look at your document on scribd. The magnitude of the gravitationally induced heating of Earth’s core is a bit of a mystery, but the rate at which heat escapes from below the crust on land is known to be pretty small. The ocean bed is thinner though, and there are a lot of volcanos underwater.

    Regarding your response to PG on the hydrological cycle; don’t you think the varying humodity will modulate the level of outgoing radiation?

  6. Tenuc says:

    Interesting that the borehole data, from 500 or so sites across the globe, confirms that the crust is heating:-

    Average temp increased 0.4K in the 20th century. Current average temp is 0.8K warmer than 500y ago. An estimated 75% of this 500y change has occurred since 1800.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Tenuc, do the scientists doing the borehole work think the crust is heating from the top down, or the bottom up?

  8. Joe Lalonde says:

    We seem to forget that water in it’s natural form is a two gases combined. So through rotation and pressure build-up, water is pressurized gases with stored energy of trying to go back to being a gas.
    Life on this planet and the evaporation cycle are not in natural states but in a pressurized state.
    What makes water more interesting is it has picked up elements that we drink and our bodies need to function such as iron. We NEED the energy water carries to fuction.
    Electro-magnetics makes a more complex system as the planets energy through centrifugal force gives us more complex life. If not, the pressure and electro-magnetics would keep us pools of chemicals, so centrifiugal force is nedded as well.

  9. John Dodds says:

    TallBloke 7:06 am:
    Re varying humidity modulating rate of heat radiation:
    Possibly some impact BUT you still have the Stefan Boltzmann Law applying. This dictates how much heat or radiation is radiated to space. If the humidity slows down some of the convection/conduction pathway to maintain a warmer than equilibrium temperature then the warmer temp will still result in more radiated and more conducted heat until you reach equilibrium. This will only affect the time for the transient until you get to equilibrium temperatures. In the case of energy raditated to space apparently we are talking about microseconds for the entire GHE transit from ground to space. This means that the daily temp increase due to increasing solar insolation (& the trivial change due to gravity) is going to dictate what the equilibrium temp is. Underground it is not just conduction convection, there is also heat radiation (altho more difficult due to the higher density of the materials.) ALSO remember that we have temperature cycles, daily we go from warm to cold by 15 degrees or so at the surface & by lesser amounts underground. In the case of Jupiter’s gravity effect we have a yearly cycle as Earth goes round the sun & from 4AU to 6+ AU from Jupiter, ( and we have a yearly change in the solar insoaltion as the Earth goes from .98 AU to 1.02 AU from the sun) then the next year Jupiter will get a little further out until in 6 years (half a 12 year Jupiter orbit it )may be at 6.5 AU, thus changing the gravity effect. The yearly cycle temperature changes are “hidden” in the Earth annual temperature changes as part of the annual summer winter cycle. The whole global warming increase is supposed to be 0.8 degrees over a century. A creeping warming due to gravity (from the sun, jupiter & the other planets)& eccentricity is just barely noticable. (& later cooling in the next half of the cycle)
    As for the question of which way the Earth is heating and cooling. It is probably impossible to tell. Gravity heating is going to apply to the entire globe. The Earth rotation has the core rotating faster than the liquid core & the mantle rotating even slower still & the winds rotating even slower all of this induces friction & heat transfer. My guess (with no geology background) is that they all heat up at about the same rates, so we are probably pretty much at a moving equilibrium at most times.

  10. tallbloke says:

    John, I haven’t read your paper yet but if you don’t mind, could you clarify a couple of points in brief summary for us.

    Is the gravitational heating you are referring to due primarily to friction of a ‘squeezing and relaxing’ caused by the proximity and distance of Jupiter over its 11.86 year orbit?

    The annual eccentricity from 0.98Au to 1.02Au causes a change in TSI of around 20w/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere according to Leif Svalgaard (If I remember correctly). What is the approximate magnitude of the variation due to gravity in your hypothesis and does it have a centennial component due to the motion of the other gas giants?


  11. tallbloke says:
    September 23, 2010 at 4:56 pm
    The “buffered zone”, a “double layer” above our heads, working as an osmosis membrane (as our body’s skin) prevents the earth of sudden and catastrophic “pH” changes. So input and output do occur but intermediated and controlled by this “buffer zone”, called by others “ionosphere”, which btw is part of our earth emission field.

  12. John Dodds says:

    To Tallbloke 4:56pm
    You are starting to get into details that can’t be explained in a paragraph or two. You need to look at the summary “Gravity causes CLimate Change” paper “Wobble Theory “paper in to see all these variations AND graphs that address the various s and the full 150 pg sources, relative strengths, AND the periodicities of these variations
    Yes Sun is first source of energy both solar insolation and gravity and gravitational potential energy, BUT when you do annual average or monthly average temperature numbers these short term variations do not show up. eg You can’t see a daily 15C variation on a monthly average chart.- but we are trying to explain a 0.8 C/century global warming change. Since the solar insolation is basically unchanged since the 1960s how do you explain that energy input (& warming) HAS increased in the current warming cycle (once you accept that CO2 doesn’t cause it all)
    The key points are that CO2 can NOT explain the warming AND cooling because of the Arrhenius mis application of the GHE science, AND the current IPCC & computer models do NOT address gravity and gravitational potential energy as a source of energy, because they say Solar insolation is the SOLE source of incoming energy.
    The wobble theory paper has attempted to address which of these “gravity ” sources is significant and which impacts what timing cycle. The correlation to actual Earth temperature variation is astounding.
    We have a temperature of 287K on Earth on average. 32 is supposedly from the GHE (it varies depending upon the number of photons arriving). Daily Earth rotation causes daily variations, Monthly fluctuations from the Moon gravity influence contributions, (tidal energy) but if you take annual average numbers the fluctuations average out. Yearly fluctuations come form the sun & Earth eccentricity (.98 AU to 1.02 AU) account for some. Jupiter fluctuations have a 12 year periodicty due to Jupiters orbit (11.86 years) BUT Jupiters orbit also has several modes of sub-eccentricity 60 year, 900 year etc) such that the variations give rise to other periodicities. (see chart in Gravity causes Climate change paper) Jupiter’s eccentricity ALSO dictates eccentricity variation in Venus, Saturn, Uranus etc etc. This results in Venus getting closer & further away from Earth on 3yr4 month cycles, and at other longer cycles. It was the coincidence of Venus being closest and JUpiter and Saturn being closest that causes the gravity peak in 1998, AND also right now when Venus (peaks Oct 24) and Jupiter (peaked yesterday Sept 22) are at their closest points. This is why 2010 is setting records for the warmest year in history.

    Earth rotation dictates daily changes, Monthly cycles are due to Moon variations, annual cycles are due to Earth yearly eccentricity, 12 year cycles are due to JUpiter orbits, 60 year cycles (peak global warming temps of 1880, 1940, 1998, 2058? are due to the 60 year Jupiter Saturn resonance orbit of near repeating orbital positions, 900-1000 year cycles are also longer term Jupiter eccentricity related- these correspond to Earth warming peaks in the Ice Core temperature- eg Roman peak in 100BC, Viking peak near 900-1000AD, current warming peak in 1998 etc (see chart included in the paper)
    Given that there is such a thing as gravity caused warming due to distance variations of ALL the gravity sources then it is possible to identify which variation is caused by which gravity source.
    The key understanding is that you admit that gravity & gravitic potential energy can cause the variation. & that these are NOT addressed by IPCC etc. If the variation is the Earth temperature caused by the Sun is relatively constant (year over year) then smaller variation due to 12 year JUpiter cycles can cause temperature variations that are only a small fraction of the total sun caused temperature. ie the cooling after 1998 and the warming now (12 years later) is MOSTLY Jupiter induced.
    As you can see the theory is in its infancy. It needs lots of fleshing out. (eg what is the magnitude of solar insolation vs gravitic potential energy over a 1 year or 12 year cycle etc). My gut feel is that since solar insolation and solar wind barely moved the massive Earth, (they are constantly forcing it OUT- they can’t account for the movement back in towards the sun) but gravity causes an eccentricity of half a million miles towards Jupiter then gravity is much much larger.

  13. “Friction” could be understood differently if we imagine a conductive object crossing the alternate current called ionosphere or “double layer”,(a reentry into the atmosphere), its crossing short circuits it generating heat.

  14. Tenuc says:

    Adolfo Giurfa says:
    September 23, 2010 at 6:47 pm
    ““Friction” could be understood differently if we imagine a conductive object crossing the alternate current called ionosphere or “double layer”,(a reentry into the atmosphere), its crossing short circuits it generating heat.”

    I can buy that Adolfo. We had an electric cooker which had induction hobs a few years back, and very effective it was too – with the correct sort of pan.

    There is evidence for a multitude of different energy sources effecting the Earth and our sister planets, none of which are well understood. Luckily our planet seems to have an efficient governor, which allows life to thrive on it’s wafer thin skin. despite short/medium/long term changes to energy input!

  15. tallbloke says:

    Tenuc, yes, the water cooling/heating system seems to keep it well balanced.

    John, I’ve put the links to your paper and summary paper at the bottom of the main article for anyone interested. If you have a look back through the archives on this blog you’ll find some discussions about planetary motions which coincide with the same periods you have identified, plus longer cycles around 2,300 years and 4,600 years.

    Generally the line of thinking we’ve been working through is that planetary motions affect the Sun’s output, and this is what accounts for the ‘coincidence’ between planetary alignment cycles and Earth’s climate change. I note your comment that solar output hasn’t changed much since the ’60′s, but this isn’t really true. Although amplitudes have fallen, cycles have been shorter, so the average sunspot number has been well above the long term average right up to 2003. My thinking is that the Earth’s oceans gain heat when the sunspot number/TSI is above average, so I use a cumulative count of sunspots departing from that average as a proxy for ocean heat content. This seems to fit the historical data quite well.

    We are aiming to understand the solar system as a true system, including the planetary feedbacks which affect the Sun, and hence the Earth and planets in turn.

  16. John Dodds says:

    TallBloke at 8:41 pm, thanks for the links. I was not aware of your planetary/Sun oriented interest.
    You may wish to look at an obscure paper by G J Sharp called “Are Uranus and Neptune responsible for Solar Grand Maxima…” Google the name to get a pdf copy. It gives some interesting data and perspectives on planetary impacts. & the history of the theory.
    Yes I agree that changes in cycle duration etc will change the amount of energy coming in. Hadn’t thought of that.
    I also found that there is a major varying difference in when the Sunspot cycle peaks and when the Earth peak temperature peaks. ie When jupiter Uranus Neptune etc collectively are at their “closest” collective point to maximize the gravity force on the sun (& hence impact sunspots) is different from the point in time when the planets are at their closest point to Earth (ie 1998 or now 2010 for Jupiter and Venus etc) so the the timing for sunspots vs Earth temp MAY be different since we are talking about different locations where the gravity is having its impact. eg Earth is peaking now (cooling is expcted for the next 6 years if you wish to add a prediction to your collection) sunspots are due to peak in a year or so (I think- I am not a sunspot expert by any means), This also goes to my thoughts that gravity is much larger in magnitude than (sunspot induced) solar insolation and solar wind energy. Our Earth temp peaks in 1880, 1940 1998, wheras sunspots do not. They are close but not exact.
    Finally I also noticed in my Ephemeris plots of orbital locations vs time (see Wobble Theory paper) that because the 11.86 year Jupiter orbit and the 29.45 Saturn orbit and the 1.00 year Earth orbit are not exact multiples that you get a very regular rotation of the sum or total of the energy cycle durations, which can account for the “ABOUT” 11 year sunspot cycle. ie sometmes it is 9 or11, or 12 or 13 years etc as the planetary orbits “catch up” and “skip” an orbit in the longer term cycles.

  17. John Dodds says:

    AHa! I see from the blog roll that you already know about Geoff Sharp.

  18. Tim Channon says:

    Are there non-scribd copies of the cited documents? Is so, where?

  19. John Dodds says:

    Sorrry Tim, Only on my PC.
    I am truing to get rich by selling copies thru scribd.
    What are you trying to do? Maybe I can help?

  20. Michele says:


    Hi tallbloke

    Do you remember ?
    I am Michele

    A my new article:

    Correlations seismic volcanoes astronomical
    June – July – August 2010

    ( In Italian !! )

    Bye bye

  21. tallbloke says:

    Hi Michele,
    yes, I remember that you linked to my blog and I visited Daltonsminima. Can you get a friend to help translate your article? I’d like to post it here for all the English speakers.

    John, yes, Geoff and I are in email contact on a semi-regular basis. He posts in comments here from time to time too.

  22. Michele says:

    @ tallbloke

    I have no friends to speak good English…
    This is the problem !
    Do you know Italian people for “translation” in your blog ?
    other no problem !!

  23. Michele says:
    September 24, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    It looks to be an interesting work to read. The “pebbles universe” believers would say you are a Strega. :-)

  24. Tim Channon says:

    I just want to read it.

    Adobe Flash poses problems which has nothing to do with this place, Accessibility matter.

    A couple of days ago I had a dig and found a text blog of sorts to do with scribd where they were discussing an announcement of ditching Flash by moving to html 5. The mentioned rapid conversion of content does not seem to have happened yet.

    Whether that would solve anything is unknown.

  25. Michele says:

    @ Adolfo Giurfa

    A small OT !
    Do you know “the mister X” of my Avatar ?

  26. Joe Lalonde says:

    John Dodds,
    The wobble you refer to in rotation is the different mass distribution on this planet water is a big factor to the unbalanced of distributed weight.
    In motion and rotation, the density of mass can be changed. This is compressing and storing of energy. There are many examples to show how this works.

    In rotation, the center of balance of a circle is 2/3 from the axis, in a non-motion state.
    This is the mass on each side is balanced and when motion is added, this center of balance shifts away from the axis. The faster the rotation, the more compression and stored energy.

  27. John Dodds says:

    Thanks for the idea. When I named it Wobble Theory I was thinking of the wobbles induced in a circular orbit (see p 73 for the Earth orbit variations. in the long paper)
    What you have just identified is an additional source of variable energy that ALSO has not been addressed by IPCC etc. Definitely worth looking into. – thanks

    Tim, did you get access? TallBloke added links to the big papers above. I have never had problems accessing thru Scribd. When I added the files it was before they made the changes you have identified. Not sure what they actually did. If you are still having problems send me an email & I will send copies. Can’t send the big paaper above since it is over 10MB & the email systems reject it as too large.

  28. Joe Lalonde says:

    John, Thanks! Very few people actually read what I have to say or even understand it in rotational studies.

    Here is something else not considered in the wobble theory.
    This is the Solar systems speed and movement through space.
    I believe the number is 300km/sec in one direction. The suns massive mass does not change in it’s speed BUT the planet moving around the sun get closer as it is in front of the sun and further at the opposite end. Our suns massive size protects our planet totally from stray objects for about 4 months of the year.

  29. Joe Lalonde says:

    One more point and this can show how Ice Ages can have a timeline of occurrances.

    Most of the suns heat occurs at the equator of the sun due to it’s shape of being round and it being the closest point.
    Since we can see the top of the suns pole, we are north of the suns equator. We are not attached or teathered to the sun except through rotation and magnetic field. The sun is of massive size to this planet so we have the ability to drift from pole to pole through the suns equator. This can explain a timeline for planet cooling and heating if this effect takes 12,000 years at each maximum drift.

  30. Tenuc says:

    Joe Lalonde says:
    September 25, 2010 at 11:49 am

    “…Most of the suns heat occurs at the equator of the sun due to it’s shape of being round and it being the closest point.
    Since we can see the top of the suns pole, we are north of the suns equator. We are not attached or teathered to the sun except through rotation and magnetic field. The sun is of massive size to this planet so we have the ability to drift from pole to pole through the suns equator. This can explain a timeline for planet cooling and heating if this effect takes 12,000 years at each maximum drift.”

    Sorry Joe, but I don’t understand what your trying to say?

    I thought that solar axis is tilted c 7.5 deg to the ecliptic. So there is one day of the year when the sun’s north pole appears tipped most Earthwards (end 1st week in Sept). Then 1/2 a year later, at end of the 1st week in March the Sun’s South Pole appears tilted most Earthward – (the sun’s N & S poles, viewed from Earth, don’t appear to tilt in June/December).

    Any asymmetric heating would thus average out over the course of a year???

  31. Tim Channon says:

    JD has kindly emailed the documents.

  32. IR emission (energy) follows the Plank´s equation:

    E=h* frequency (needed the possibility of symbol fonts here!);
    Where we have found that:
    h=sin y + cos y;
    E=(sin y+ cos y)*(c/wave length)
    Then you can find the necessary combination or ratio between the two forces of the polar field to increase/decrease IR.

  33. To simplify it: A short circuit producing heat. Now, when does this short circuiting happens?; it usually happens in a leak condenser, but when does this short circuiting increase?
    Gravity is a neutral resultant force when the two polar fields recach 90°, or about 90°, where the difference is the emission field; thus the question raises: When does the emission field increase by emitting IR radiation?. If this increases then gravity acceleration (sin y + cos y) will decrease proportionally, or we could find a variation in the (electro)magnetic field (which is the same), as our friend Vukcevic has found:

  34. Tim Channon says:

    Been silent because I am busy. My hair seems to survive a lot of tearing. Would be an advantage having none.

    Okay, if we lose the politics, CO2 etc., I agree on the basis of past investigation of gravitational forces a shape similar to earth temperature can be unearthed, if looking very different in detail from what JD shows. This is no surprise given the different methodology.

    Does the earth change orbit? Not so far as I know. Sun-earth distance is normal.

    The whole matter revolves around shape match, now what is the actual mechanism which would provide physical linkage of effect?

    I do have a definite idea, not for public airing. This would link in with a number of other datasets and effects. Proving magnitude etc. is likely to be tough, all an ongoing work.

    The reason for hair tearing is linked, novel software enhancement where how to do it is undocumented, not even mentioned as possible. I am very close but the mental gymnastics is ghastly. Crazy things happening, got to be finger trouble.

  35. John Dodds says:

    re Tim: Does the Earth change orbits?
    YES. It is called eccentricity. On a single orbit it goes from 0.98 AU (93million miles) to 1.02 AU.- ie current eccentricity is about 0.02 heading towards near zero in 25000 years or so.. This is why we get annual temperature cycles. The distance changes. Then there are longer eccentricities. over the last 5 million years it has gone from near zero to .06. (google “Laskar”)This is the basis for the change in solar insolation that Milankovitch assumes causes ice ages, except that the change in energy in is several orders of magnitude too small, BUT if you add in the energy changes due to gravity & potential energy then voila you get cycles that correspond to Earth temperatures.- see paper referenced at top .
    ALSO the distance from Jupiter to Earth changes. In one year it goes from 4 to 6AU,
    & Jupiter has an eccentricity also, so in 6 years (half an orbit)it goes from 4 to 6.5AU. SO the gravoty is always changing, & hence the energy coming in is always changing, and the Potential energy is always changing. and so the Earth temperature/climate is always changing.
    It seems that the Jupiter 12 year orbit corresponds to the 12 years cycles that show up in Earth temperatures (1998, 2010). Then there is a Jupiter Saturn 60 years resonance orbit. It seems that this 60 year cycle is what shows up as the Earth 60 year temperature cycle (1880, 1940, 1998, 2058…), Then there is a longer nomimal 1000+/- year eccentricity to Jupiters Obrbit. It seems that this is what shows up at the Earth civilization warming & coolings, (Roman warming 100BC, Viking warming 1000AD, current warming 2000 AD), then it seems that there is an even longer Jupiter eccentricity cycle that apparently corresponds to ice age cycles- hence Milankovotch theory and if you add in gravity & potential energy- you get John Dodds Wobble theory of climate change- see paper above.

  36. John Dodds says:

    OOPs. ! AU is 93million miles. The Earth goes in & out from that nominal value.

  37. @ John Dodds says:
    October 26, 2010 at 7:24 pm
    I have corrected my spreadsheet. Now it’s Ok. With change of eccentricity changes the emission field. Here on earth, changes in LOD= changes in temperature, changes in magnetic fields, changes in gravity acceleration.
    Anyone asking why the earth is it inclined 23 degrees on the ecliptic and not 40 degrees or whatever:

  38. Wow this really is a jump the shark moment for your blog Tallbloke. I mean if I said I was skeptical of John Dodds I think I’d be understating things by a country mile. I especially like the way John Dodds describes his work as a ‘paper’ thereby making pretensions to scientific legitimacy. John Dodds describes himself as a scientist, but what kind of scientist, any qualifications? Anyhow count me skeptical of this one.

  39. John Dodds says:

    Mr. McStone
    You are entitled to your opinion, as am I . Do you also believe in the tooth fairy and a flat earth?
    The basis for the statement that the 1896 Arrhenius paper is incorrect is that every night Mother Nature reduces the amount of energy (photons) input into a nighttime point on Earth . (due to Earth Rotation). This results in a reduction in the (local) energy photons available, which results in a reduction in the Greenhouse effect, which releases more GHGs back to the environs where they are excess and available to absorb more photons of energy. In addition Man generates more CO2 GHGs by burning fossil fuels,. As a result we have less energy available in the air for the Greenhouse effect, the temperature goes down, while the concentration of CO2 or GHGs goes UP. This directly contradicts the Arrhenius paper conclusion. Mother Nature PROVES every night that “more GHGs do NOT cause more warming.” as stated by Arrhenius & IPCC It reinforces the conventional observation that when the concentration of the GHG Water Vapor increases when it rains, we do not see an increase in the temperature.
    The second point is that as the Earth goes from its furthest annual point at 1.02AU & drops to its nearest point to the sun at .98AU it loses some of its potential energy relative to the sun. Presumably this energy reverts to kinetic energy or temperature, or it reverts to greater angular momentum which causes more friction which causes warming. A similar thing happens as the Earth moves in its 60 year cycle relative to the center of mass of the Jupiter/Saturn resonance entity, and as the moon & Earth interact etc. Both ways there are cyclical variations in the amount of energy resident on/in Earth as kinetic energy or temperature. The referenced paper “Gravity Causes (cyclic) Climate Change” at identifies these changes and how they correlate to measured and ice core values of Earthly temperature for thousands of years. This is a conventional application of the Laws of Physics which should be obvious to anyone with a basic Physics education.
    The conventional IPCC CO2 causes warming theory, does NOT acknowledge that potential energy and gravity effects even exist, let alone try to quantify their effects, on warming. The CO2 theory is vastly inferior and incomplete as well as violating several Laws of Physics including conservation of Energy.

    Now having shown that more CO2 can NOT create the energy required for warming and that orbital gravitational variations do correlate to the observed variations using conventional accepted Laws of Physics, just what is your scientific justification to prove otherwise? This theory identifies what can cause global warming and cooling or cyclical climate change, where as the CO2 theory can not account for cooling cycles.
    John Dodds

  40. hengistmcstone says:

    Hi John Dodds, I wont pretend to understand everything you say but one thing intrigues me. “…Presumably this energy reverts to kinetic energy or temperature, or it reverts to greater angular momentum which causes more friction which causes warming.” The friction is caused by what against what exactly? The Earth is in Space and there is no friction involved in it’s travels through the vacuum of space.

    No I don’t believe in the tooth fairy or a flat earth. Is that necessary ?

    Salutations Hengist McStone

  41. John Dodds says:

    HI Hengist,
    The friction is caused by the solid Earth core rotating at a different rate than the liquid earth core which is different than the Earth Mantle which is different than the ocean & the Earth tectonic plates and the wind. Visualize an ice skater rotating with arms in or out.
    The Dodds Paper above is the first source for an explanation. The second is PA SEMI’s explanation of Orbital Resonances and Solar Cycles (Only about 69 pages) available at which proposes that planetary cycles & orbital eccentricity are responsible for sunspot variations. Both papers are completely independant and just happen to be in Tallblokes’s workshop. I n sum I believe they provide a nice rational explanation of global warming.

    THen One Doug Cotton, a physicist/businessman in Australia has a website which is explaining how the energy transport within the Earth & its atmosphere can be explained & viewed using the findings in these two papers and in the process completely invalidates the IPCC’s ” CO2 causes warming and AGW theory” and substitutes the idea that gravity & Potenial Energy from Orbital eccenticity is responsible for the varying warming cycles, AND for explaining why the planets cause the sun’s sunspot cycles and solar insolation variations. ALL at the same time. The website views the Solar Insolation as a small daily cycle that is solar insolation based & is trivial, compared to the longer term 60 year (Jupiter Sateurn Resonce cycle) and 934 year (& longer according to Dodds) that are based on the variation due to gravitational and Potential energy additions and subtractions induced by planetary eccentricity. He has a nice figure that integrates the 60 year cycle peaks of 1880, 1940, 1998 and future 2059, with Semi’s 934 year longer cycle and the associated civilization peaks & valleys.
    I John Dodds, being a nuclear engineer, and totally ignorant of sunspots do whole heartedly agree that PA Semi’s explanation is very probable, since the cycles coincide with my Wobble Theory! It would be very nice if the theories mesh because they explain an awful lot of observable Earth phenomena. El Nino, La Nina, Milankovotch Cycles, Ice Ages, 60 year Jupiter/Saturn Resonance warming and cooling cycle, and the 934 year (Angular Momentum/Civilization cycles (Roman warming, Dark ages cooling, Medieval Warming (Vikings), the Little Ice Ages cooling, the current warming where there is no increase in solar insolation from 1970s through 1998, AND they both come to the prediction that we will be cooling for the 30 years from 1998 to 2029 AND for the next 934/2= 467 years etc. comparable to the Little Ice Age. AND in agreement with the recent predictions of smaller magnitude sunspots to come.

    Both papers are very heavy on the derived data & graphs from JPL’s Horizon ephemeris, and the similar Alcyone Ephemeris program. ie they are derived from our best understanding of how the solar system interacts due to gravity etc.
    In response to one question “How can vector based gravitational forces be added in a scalar manner. I offer, the sugestion that all the force vectors result in changes to the Earth’s Angular Momentum which results in a total (scalar) energy change due to friction & Earth spin/distortion & hence temperature change on Earth.

    Bottom line, what this all means is that Arrhenius was wrong about More GHGs causing more warming, which is obvious once you look at it and see that ALL the water in the ocean is NOT at the 800C+ tempeerature of having absorbed a photon, AND the heat is not TRAPPED, which means IPCCs satement that more GHGs means more warming is not valid, which means that the whole basis for CO2 warming does not exist scientifically, which means that CAP & Trade is a pure tax with no scientific basis, which means the world is wasting money on trying to prevent or mitigate global warming, which means the EU airline tax, & (My) California & US EPA limit on CO2 emissions is worthless and a fraud.
    Be glad to answer any more questions.

  42. Mike Baker says:

    Interesting correlations, but not a believable theory. There would be no increase in torque from distant bodies as the lines of gravitational force vectors would act directly between the centres of mass of the objects. Only the moon would likely cause torque at the earth. All increases and decreases in gravitional potential energy between bodies would only result in changes in velocity of the bodies through space as per F=Ma and 1/2MV^2, not in changes in earth’s heat quantity. Also, additional photons do exist in the standard climate system, as you are looking at the wrong side of the equation, these are reflected photons that are being absorbed. And, incident photon rates may also increase depending on the dynamic of the atmospheric composition and layering.

    The science of climate change is very complicated and I don’t believe that there are good answers, yet. Otherwise, there would not be so much controversy and long term weather predictions would be much more accurate. However, the gravitational concept does not seem to be believable or a part of the answer at this time. Since the correlations in planet positioning are very interesting, perhaps there is something else at play to cause long term perturbations to the earth’s temperature. I wouldn’t know what those are.

    Mike Baker

  43. adolfogiurfa says:

    @John Dodds: Really the Unified Field it´s just a matter of semantics: wavelength=size=dimension; energy=photon=electron=etc.etc. Thus when a photon strikes a photoelectric device it slows its motion and becomes of a bigger wavelength=size, and we call it electron. Thus quasi neutral particles (if they were not energy they simply wouldn´t exist) we call neutrons, according to its size=wavelength, we can call it by several names up to planets.
    Unifed Field laws are found in every culture and evreywhere…so you are right.

  44. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Aldofo; I think that a neutron is an electron neutralized proton and a neutrino is an almost energy less electron/photon. Electrons, photons and neutrinos are the same, and will interchange during energy events, just different EMF signatures. Neutrons are miniature hydrogen and will become atomic hydrogen when freed from the heart of the atom. The things we call photons, electrons or neutrinos are actually units of Aether with specific travel and spin that give each a defined EMF signature. When that travel or spin is changed by collision we “see” a different particle. pg

  45. adolfogiurfa says:

    @P.G. Sharrow …As we see and feel the earth under our feet. Great!. The fact is that we only perceive reality accordingly to the same law of vibrations or energy level. We are about an Apocalypse (Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apokálypsis; “lifting of the veil” or “revelation”) is a disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception, i.e. the veil to be lifted ), i.e. the perception of universal laws by individuals who have reached a similar level of energy, as to resonate, at least for a while, to perceive them. (apo=from above, califis=revelation).

  46. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @ Aldolfo; So true, most can only “see” in 2 dimensions in the now. Only a few “see” in 3 dimensions plus time. Actions of energy cause effects in 3 dimensions as well as in time, before and after the event. We see with our brains. The eyes are only sensors. 8-) pg