This abstract has been posted in suggestions. I don’t give links to commercial sites generally, but if you want to see their take on the same forcings we’ve been studying here, and sharing our results for free, I’m sure you’ll find them through google. Frank tells me in email that the paper will be available to Talkshop regulars at a spectacular discount so let us know in comments if you are interested in finding out more about this theory.
UPDATE 12-10: Frank and Joachim have made their paper available for free for the purpose of open peer review. It can be downloaded at this page. Steve McIntyre has also posted Frank and Joachim’s announcement here for those who want to visit Climate Audit.
Five climate-forcing mechanisms govern 20,000 years of climate change
By Joachim Seifert and Frank Lemke
Published on: October 8, 2012
Abstract
We identify five macro-climatic mechanisms in our study that govern a long time span of 20,000 years. The state of the art in climate-forcing mechanism analysis is that presently available General Circulation Models (GCMs) underperform substantially in terms of predictive power. It is evaluated in the literature that all GCMs perform well for the first 500 years backwards from the present, but then lack skill for the previous 9,500 Holocene years. It is critical for climate models, however, that they also show their validity on time frames of more than 1,000 years.
The presented climate-forcing study proceeds with the selection of 10,000 years of the entire Holocene interglacial and, for comparison, of another 10,000 years of a purely glacial time span (37,000-27,000 BP) from the GISP2 data. It considers the effects of Milankovitch cycles, atmospheric CO2-concentrations, Solar Inertial Motions (SIM), the retrograde tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle, and of two major mechanisms, the Earth Orbit Oscillation (EOO) and the Cosmic Impact Oscillation (CIO). Detailed mechanisms for both oscillations are provided; their calculation methods are pointed out.
Concluding the study, we zoom in onto EOO and CIO forcing of the past 3,000 years and provide an outlook onto forcing mechanisms, which are expected to act within the future 500 years. The GISP2 proxy temperature curve and macro-forcing mechanisms are compared to the Hockey Stick temperature evolution pattern.
Details of demonstrated astro-climatic relations are as of today, 2012, new and original climate change knowledge. The IPCC has not been able to provide supplementary data on cycle mechanics. The identification of 5 macro-climatic drivers, missing in current GCMs, unmistakably proves that climate science is not settled yet. One missing driver may be excused, but not five. The notion of “The science is settled”, upheld since the days of Galileo, is a spiritual relict of the past. All GCMs will be rectified soon.
few more details here:
http://knowledgeminer.eu/beta/pdf/preview.pdf
Frank has contacted me by email, I’ll update with more soon.
Would they agree tha,t whatever the netted out forcing of all relevant factors combined, the climate response would be negative via a change in the air circulation, a shift in the climate zones and a change in the rate at which energy is lost to space ?
As Tallbloke reminded me on Saturday, correalation does not necessarily imply causation.
The hypothesis linking cosmic rays, solar variations and climate, as proposed by Svensmark, remains highly speculative.
It would be premature to even talk of including unproven effects of cosmic rays in GCMs until the hypothesis is confirmed or falsified. This may be clarified when the results of the Kirkby CLOUD experiment at CERN are available in five years time.
OK. Frank sent me a copy of the paper. It’s mostly an attempt to rationalize the ups and downs and timings of the spikes in the GISP2 ice core results with a speculative theory on impacts from space, which disturb a ‘cycle’ which lengthens throughout the holocene. The principles on which the maths can (allegedly) be worked out are in another book by the authors which is available on Amazon.de…
Batycentric motion is mentioned in passing in a non-mathematical way. Again we are referred to the other book. The authors say they’ll be doing some more calculations to be revealed next year.
See you next year then guys.
TB.
The paper mentioned is beginning to sound like an advertisement for the book. Is it ‘usual’ for an accepted paper to use the author’s ‘book’ references instead of ‘other individual’s published papers’?
As an engineer I accept book references, but how does science view this practise?
Best regards, Ray.
Hi Rog: Quote: “is mostly an attempt to rationalize” the temperature evolution over 10,000 years
of Holocene…. This is what all Holocene-GCMs do, interpretating the Holocene, and miserably fail, see model-data comparison quotes in the paper. Our study achieves an unrivalled accuracy of Holocene reconstruction……the best on the market…Rog: Name us a better Holocene-GCM please, which beats ours! Go ahead please and STICK WITH THE BEST!.
…..Our macro-forcings are all visible/quantificable in paleo-ice core records…. “IF” our forcings
were based on false assumptions, than please falsify what is false….
…..Identification of the 556 years ++ slowly growing astronomical cycle: Detection methods are described in detail… Those who never heard of cycle detection need to enhance their level….
….. The impact oscillation is done with graphics…if the oscillation were wrong, please show ONLY ONE single cosmic impact, without or with a DIFFERENT Impact pattern….
…… All existing Holocene-GCMs (see quotes, and there are 100s more) are unable to prove their
microforcings with calculations….they are full of conjunctives from top to bottom+ speculations wholesale……..
…….To reference to the author’s book: The paper demonstrates climatic effects, which are
interesting to everyone on the blog. The paper is already very long with 20 pages…. Those few, who urgently need calculations ADDITIONALLY to our graphics, may consult the book. But those persons are only a handful. Our paper graphics present essentially the same and is written that everyone can follow our graphics…what is the point of filling the text with additional astronomical matters, for a few guys who can consult us anyday per Email? Our graphics on the cycles stand as a rock, unless a person were able to falsify our identified cosmic impacts patterns…. Rog, I know you are able to do it without chickening out, you have the knowledge….
Do it and thanks you, while we await
…. Author JSei.
To Tim Channon: Tim, we presented the absolutely best Holocene paper, which is
unmatched by any Holocene GCM (General Circulation Model) available, 11 of which
we enumerate…..there is nothing better on the market and here you have the best in your hands
Most unfair is that Rog, WITHOUT reading it, and in the WORST AGW-tradition
gets negative…. and typically IPCC ATTITUDE: NO reasons given, some “volcano’-mumblings….
and “see you later next year”….
This after just days on you blog asking about fresh ideas, new papers, what would peope like to read…….here, .we hand in the most accurate Holocene temp. reconstruction and
have to read about “missing volcanoes” and other such stuff, which NASA GISS classified already as short-timers, 10 year max effect… a micro/nano-forcing.only….
Rog for some reason, aires that some GCMs must be better stuff of Holocene reconstruction,
but is unable to point to which is/are the one an only…..
Dear Tim, please make an effort and read it…better still, the bloggers may read it and
…this is what blogging is all about: EVERYBODY can learn and participate in a qualified
manner….we thought of presenting the paper for free as sweety for all your blog readers…
but Rog is unapproachable….
. see you around next year, as Rog says…?? JS, paper author
[Reply] Hi Joachim, I did read it, from start to finish. I will give further analysis on why I think it needs more work here or by email as I have time. – Rog
Given current circumstances that is beyond me, sorry.
Hi Rog, good to hear you will go into details of our paper….don’t forget
to check the 8 graphics. You can compare the accuracy to GCM’s on the
market. We comment in the introduction on Gavin Schmidt’s model (there are
version v.1.0 and version v.1.1) 2011/2012, referred to and free on the internet….
Check as well the last reference [41] on the end of the glacial ….. see the
conjunctives in GCM Holocene speculations….and tell us, which is much better
science…..
You have a phobie on “COMMERCIAL” papers…. which we can understand…
in our case, we would have shared the paper for FREE with all your bloggers
for free discussion…
One thing to add: We, the authors, do not count with climate salaries,pensions, grants,
…….NOT ONE single penny or cent reached our pockets, whereas, you can see, after
READING text and graphs, month’s and years of good work went into the paper….
And now comes you, strung up on “Commercial papers”….Tell us, why should we
hand our paper for the whole world for FREE? Only handout and give-away to
the world is good?? Is this what you want?
The alarmist crowd hands out 4,000 EU per day for one person’s congress participation, just
to sit in, doing nothing…I read last year…. We try to cover part of our expenses
(“COMMERCIAL!”) and you get uptight….
Our paper is 18 pages, full of info, not just dublicated and regourged from other
authors….all originary research….
Tell me, how could we have fitted the 60-year Scafetta cycle, which requires a full
paper itself, into the paper, …the SIM movement also needs long explanation, the same
is true for the EOO-calculation, for which we applied the graphical method which everybody
is able to check with a ruler….
How long should our paper be to include all you desires?.All for free, of course……
Rog, I am scratching my head…Cheers JS
Hi Joachim,
Don’t be angry. I think there might be some insight in your ideas. But you need to support them with more than newly minted acronyms like EOO. What orbital factor explains the gradually lengthening period of this oscillation throughout the holocene? You have based your discussion on GISP2, but what do the other ice cores tell us if not that the timings of temperatures turning points vary from location to location?
I try to make constructive criticism, but if you take it as insult, there can be no meeting of minds.
Rog, we are pleased you took our paper a second time into your hands.
Let us assure you, there is no other Holocene GMC on the market which
achieves such an temperature reconstruction accuracy as our paper.
Please read the introduction chapter carefully and go to the GMC quotes
which we (the ultimate state of art in Holocen science) included…all those
papers are free on the internet and all those are nothing more than second
rate and will not match your expectations…..
Please find one, which we enumerate, which is a match to our paper….
Tell us the name please…..
To falsification: Please try it out, there are plenty opportunities on 18 pages,
we took utmost care to be consistent. Please find ONE inconsistency in
our paper….thanks….
Our paper contains a lot of info, which you never heard of….This
always happens when NEW information gets on the market….
Many times, I heard this ‘argumentum ignorantum” (more or less in Grammar):
especially from professors: “”"I have NEVER heard about it”"” AND THEREFORE “this
does “NOT EXIST or MUST BE WRONG”… This argument always come from
people who orbit in their own bad smell and cannot look beyond….! I have no
sympathy whatsoever for this attitude…..
If you read our paper from top to bottom, you will realize that we cannot omit a single
paragraph, it is all very concise , since all 5 forcing mechanism overlap and are
interconnected.
The GISP2 has the highest sample density of all proxy-records, and the highest accuracy,
If someone likes compare to GRIP, Dye 3 or paleo-proxies…. fine for us…no problem,
go ahead, but the resolution of all others is significant lower and flatten out important
details…..see the hockey stick….
We decided to put the paper up 2 weeks for free download for all your blogging community,
lets say, up to Oct 25, …check on our website…….this is what blogging is all about….a platform where all can have a say about NEW knowledge and insights….not constantly regourging AGW….
Lets discuss the paper by all bloggers, put (if any) critizism into categories and
we will clarify all points as desired…. this is a true open access peer review…..
and not AGW simulant papers being peer reviewed by fellow AGW GCM-simulants….
Lets see how qualified your bloggers are in reviewing our paper…
We are anxious to see how they do….
Cheers
JSei
Rog, Frank informed me that the download is free for two weeks or so….
Please present the paper for discussion, we would like to see, what an open
tallbloke peer review looks like…..you thus may check upon the qualified
comments of your peers….. some trolls will also surface, but never mind, this
is part of the game…..
You may completely stay out of the discussion and just do a resume after
5 days, when everything had been said, there is no need that you pre-digest
the paper for your peers.
This is what peer review means to us…..
Well then, our peers, get up from your couch and do some reading of new
horizons, awaiting your review…….The authors.
Thanks Joachim, I’ve updated the post at the top with the link to the page where the paper can be downloaded.
http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/store/eoo_paper.html
Just for the record, I didn’t ” take [your] paper a second time into [my] hands”. I read it from start to finish when Frank sent it to me. I see that Steve McIntyre has posted it at climate audit, and I anticipate you will have your hands full there for a few days. I am away over the weekend, so I will review discussion here on my return.
All the best – Rog
[Edit to add] It looks like Steve has unposted it, the url is getting a ‘not found’ now.
Thanks Rog, we aim at open blogger participation and review, which
is a new approach….. It is also called ‘peer review’ and we believe that
there are our peers out there on your blog….
To be fair to every side, we aim to present the paper to Real Climate
as well, in two weeks time, for nobody may assume we exclude specific blogs…
Cheers and lets see how my peers are doing until your return
JSei.
Joachim Seifert says: October 12, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Many thanks for making your paper available JS, it’s hard to comment on something that you can’t read.
After a ‘first skim’ through the paper, it looks as though you are trying to ‘explain’ any ‘noise’ by correlation to known past events to improve ‘climate definition’. I’ve a problem with this. ‘Noise’ can be excluded in ‘hindsight’ for known attractors after the event, but this doesn’t help with a ‘forecast’ (the ‘noise’ actuators are ‘unknown’ because they are not there yet).
Having said that, the uncorrupted ‘climate signal’ is really important for any possible ‘forecast’ accuracy (whatever the future ‘noise’).
I’ll post more as and when I understand your paper more (I’m not up to speed yet on your 5 details).
Best regards, Ray.
Reply to suricat: Identification of 5 macro -climate drivers cannot be based on ”noise”.
We do not want noise…..our study is based on GISP2, which is called HIGH RESOLUTION
proxy….. those values are EXACT without containing noise. … if you get the true NOAA data set
you can identify even the short 60-year Scafetta-cycle….put vertical lines of 60 year distances over GISP2 and you will see the GISP2 exactness……JS
Leif S wasted no time in expressing his perhaps predictable opinion on this – see first comment here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/12/claim-five-climate-forcing-mechanisms-govern-20000-years-of-climate-change/
Joachim Seifert says: October 13, 2012 at 2:58 pm
My apologies Joachim, I should have explained more clearly.
My reference to ‘noise’ on the ‘climate signal’ is an indicator to ‘one off’ ‘unpredictable’ events, such as asteroid strikes and the like, that can’t be ‘predicted’ for, but for which events known to us can be accounted for within the ‘climate signal’ history.
I’m currently in the North of England on family business, but should be at home, in Essex, by the middle of this week when I hope to read your paper in depth.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat: Fine, we present a lot of info and how to reconstruct the Holocene
where all GCMs utterly fail…. a novum in climate science…read with
patience, the graphs itself contain a good part of explication Cheers JS
oldbrew says: October 13, 2012 at 6:46 pm
We know that Leif is in denial of the correlation between sunspot activity and planetary alignments, but I’m not.
We observe an altering tidal influence on Earth from the varying Earth/Sun/Moon alignments (though amplified by relative sizes and proximities) and I don’t see how Sol can be divorced from this same system.
I don’t understand how Sol’s planets don’t cause tidal influences on Sol and I don’t understand why a tidal influence on Sol wouldn’t stimulate gaseous mixing. Thus, I don’t understand how gaseous mixing of Sol’s atmosphere can’t result in an anomaly that we call a ‘sun spot’ (just don’t expect me to explain how gas mixing results in a sun spot
).
An important point here is that ‘UV’ [a,b & c] (ultraviolet a, b & c spectra) emanates from sun spots and, also important, UV can throw a biasing switch between the upper atmosphere and the lower atmosphere that affects global climate. TSI isn’t what it’s all about.
I guess my ignorance makes it OK for me to comment in this thread.
Best regards, Ray Dart.
UV is a highly complex matter. An atmospheric window passes A and to a degree B (~250nm upwards) and so does sea water but even that is far from simple. (eg. Norwegian study showing fjord water is relatively opaque, open sea is not). Varies anyway with time of year and latitude. Cloud, ozone, angle of incidence, goodness knows what. Sun is pretty variable.
Perhaps the critical question is whether the energy involved merits attention.
This paper strikes me as unsupported, as no details are given regarding the computations. Mostly, it seems to be based on the extraction of Cyclical patterns, of the sort one might do using Fourier transforms, and explaining away the discrepancies as the results of impacts. It might be good, but the paper needs strong backing for its claims regarding the postulated impacts. Moreover, no references are provided regarding those impacts, and many of them are absent from the quoted Earth Impact Database.
For example, the Helike disappearance is most often attributed to an earthquake, and I could not find any mention of an impact.
The santorini event ALSO is most often described simply as a volcanic explosion. Why is this activity attributed to a collision? Similarly , Sirente is not listed as a proven/probable impact site.
The MAhuika crater is claimed by this paper to have caused the disappearance of a Chinese fleet near New Zealand at 1443. What is the documental evidence for the presence of that fleet in New Zealand and its disappearance?
Signals from some small impacts are claimed to be visible in the data (like Kaali, Estonia, claimed to be 2500 yrs old, whereas http://tsun.sscc.ru shows it to be 4000 yrs old). The Expert Database on Earth Impact Structures (EDEIS, http://tsun.sscc.ru) lists 28 impacts (proven or probable) in the last 10000 yrs with larger magnitude than Kaali. Shouldn’t they all be visible in the data?
Over on WUWT’s discussion of the paper Joachim defended his idea of impactors causing a deviation in Earth’s orbit big enough to account for cooling due to a change in Earth’s orbit, to which I have responded.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm
The “wobble”-term sounds good to describe the impact effect!
For example: The Earth gets impacted by a [Holocene type small] flying object,
which CANNOT displace Earth with ONE STRIKE, lets say by 150,000 km to one
side, [as LEIF in his impact calculation, which are not applicable, DOES.] BUT the
strike only deviates slightly the angle of the flying direction by a few yards. This
happens, say in July. The planet continues with this deviated angle until Oct, 4,
which are about 200 Million km further along the road, when the minor axis is
reached…. and finds itself now sideward deviated by 150,000 km from the
undisturbed orbital path….This way, the temporary length of the semi-minor axis
increases by 150, 000 km. This amounts to 1,000th of the orbit radius,thus very
little and is absolutely feasible:
tallbloke says:
October 15, 2012 at 3:36 am
We can test this claim quite simply, without going into orbital mechanics. Consider an Earth like object flying in a straight line through free space at Earth-like velocity. It is impacted from the side at right angles to its trajectory by a big meteor travelling at a similar speed. All of the impact energy is converted to KE for the purpose of the argument (in reality, much of the energy would be dissipated as heat). How big would the object need to be to produce the 150,000km deviation from the 200 Million Km path that the undisturbed Earth-like object would have taken that Joachim Siefert estimates?
200,000,000/150,000=1333.3
1/1333.3*8=0.006 degrees deviation from the undisturbed course
sin(0.006)=1*10^-4
The velocities of the objects are the same so the mass of the impactor therefore has to be 0.1% that of Earth.
That pretty much agrees with Leif’s calculation of an object half the size of Ceres producing a 100,000km deviation in the size of half the minor axis of Earth’s orbit.
As I told Joachim in email early last week, this hypothesis isn’t yet ready for prime time. It was given as friendly advice.
To me, the more interesting question is what the effect would be of an impactor punching a hole through the Earth’s crust sending shockwaves through the mantle. I would guess (and it’s only a guess), that there would be immediate planet wide cooling due to volcagenic albedo, followed by warming due to increased atmospheric mass due to the resulting widespread volcanic activity. That would (I guess) then be followed by cooling due to increased biomass-atmosphere chemical interaction and the resultant drawdown of excess atmospheric gases.
______________________________________________
Just to spell it out, I’m offering a tentative alternative explanation of the cooling-warming-cooling, ‘z’ shaped Earth temperature response to an impact that Joachim’s orbital hyothesis isn’t adequate to explain.
In stable orbit there is one free plane. If the body is kicked exactly there it will shift the orbit but no effect on the orbital energy.
The question is what restorative mechanism is there which roughly aligns the orbital planets in the same plane?
To Pedro S.: I am pleased that you read our paper. Concerning the impact list:
Various list also contain all sorts of meteorite impacts, which leave a smallish
crater of less than 1 km in diameter…. either these smallish structures do not
show in in GISP2 due to unsufficient force to move the orbit or if so, the resolution
of the proxy must be higher…. You FOUND 28 impacts for the 10,000 year
Holocene with larger craters than Kaali.. Then they must be visible in GISP2
Great news … Wonderful, I urgently need impact dates and sizes to include them
additionally in the paper. Pedro, well done, and help with your findings…..
The loss of the Chinese fleet: I put: “Historians claim…” -not me, it would not make
a difference to the paper….whether they survived……
Since the impact science is new science, they have plenty of exact dating to do…
There is still a lot open. I am not happy with impact dating and measuring….a hope
there will be progress in the impact research…..The same concerns the two
Mediterranean impacts…. The advantage for those two is their exact dating by historical
sources. A massive temperature drop, rebounce in COMBINATION with TP-shift can
only be produced by a cosmic impact event: Volcano eruption, Earthquakes cannot shift
TPs of the orbit, which makes the difference in event identification.
This is all demonstrated further down in the paper. JS.
To Tallbloke: You were skeptical that this astronomical impact “claim” could be correct….
…..In order to prove your point, you did a mass/velocity/KA/path angle deviation calculation.
We will hand your example calculation to physicists who would confirm/not confirm the
accuracy. One objection: you let both impacting objects travel along STRAIGHT lines.
The impactor, lets say, agreed, but the other one, the Earth, must travel on a circle circumspherence to stay close to real conditions. To me, it seems more plausible, that the
deviating angle of 0.006 degrees, continuing straight ahead, while Earth completes a
90 degree quarter circle flight around the Sun would easily achieve a 150,000 km
distance change into the cold, away from the Sun. We will come up with numbers for it…
Meanwhile, put a tangent line to the orbit circle and see where it comes out 90 degrees
later…..
……. We assume, you stand by the correctness of your calculations.
Question: If we were able to refute your calculations for the real circular Earth motion,
would you give up opposing our claim or start to do invent new calculations?…And finally
join our line? Keenly awaiting your considerations and remain…, JS
Joachim said:
the Earth, must travel on a circle circumspherence to stay close to real conditions. To me, it seems more plausible, that the
deviating angle of 0.006 degrees, continuing straight ahead, while Earth completes a
90 degree quarter circle flight around the Sun would easily achieve a 150,000 km
distance change into the cold, away from the Sun.
Hi Joachim. I gave the simplified example to show that it comes up with the same answer Leif Svalgaard did. You may know that Leif and I disagree about many things, but I think he is correct in this case. A planet in freefall around a star is no different to a body travelling in a straight line in freefall in open space for the purpose of this approximate calculation.
The 0.006 degree deviation will indeed bring about a 150,000km distance change. The problem for your hypothesis is that for an impacting body to create a 0.006 degree deviation, it would have to be:
1) Travelling at around the same speed as Earth
2) Impacting from the Sunward side at around 90 degrees to Earth’s orbit
3) Around half the size of Ceres, the biggest asteroid in the solar system. (or a quarter the size, but travelling twice as fast etc)
4) Translating all it’s impact force into kinetic energy as one rigid body hitting another does, rather than plunging through the Earth’s crust and having the impact energy soaked up in shock waves and turned to heat by the plastic deformation of Earth’s mantle as the imacting body decelerates. This is a big problem for your hypothesis, because anything big and fast will punch through the crust.
5) Leaving a small crater behind – not likely with a half-Ceres sized body.
Question: If we were able to refute your calculations for the real circular Earth motion,
would you give up opposing our claim or start to do invent new calculations?
Leif has already demonstrated the calculation as it applies to a (nearly) circular orbit, but I will be happy to reconsider anything you get from qualified physicists (or anyone else) who can show the maths to be in serious error.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 11:33 am
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 10:40 am
Fine, whether your high mass requirement were correctly calculated, we may resolve with the aid of other astronomical experts…. JS.
This you should have done beforehand.
But we do not need “other astronomical experts”. You can do the calculation yourself [and readers can follow along] without fancy mathematics. It goes like this:
A body in orbit has a certain kinetic energy [KE] in the framework of the solar system. The basic formula for KE is KE = 1/2 * mass * speed squared [we can omit the factor of 1/2 for order of magnitude calculations]. The Earth’s speed is about 30 km/sec. If you move the Earth to a different orbit its speed is different. How different? Here is a website that shows you the speed of different planets and their distances: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm
You can see that the speed goes [inversely] with the square root of the distance. So the KE is now mass * square (square root(distance)) or just mass * distance. If you change the distance by 100,000 km [=0.07% of the Earth's distance (1 AU) from the Sun], the resulting distance is 1.0007 so the KE changes by 0.0007 or 0.07%. since the mass has not changed appreciably. Assuming that the impactor on average has a speed comparable to that of the Earth and that all the kinetic energy of the impactor goes into changing the orbit, the KE of the impactor would be 0.07% of that of the Earth and since the speeds were assumed to be the same, the mass of the impactor would have to be 0.07% that of the Earth. The mass of Ceres is 9×10^20 kg, that of the Earth is 6×10^24 kg, so Ceres has a mass 0.015% of the Earth, so the impactor would have a mass 0.5 times that of Ceres for a change in distance of 100,000 km, or 5 times that of Ceres for the upper range of the distance change you claim, 1,000,000 km.
Now, this calculation is what is called a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation and only gives a rough indication of reality. One thing that is certainly wrong with it is the assumption that ALL the KE of the impactor goes into changing the Earth’s orbit. Most of the KE goes into vaporizing the impactor and the ground at the impact site, so our estimate of the mass of the impactor is only a lower limit, the real mass must be considerably larger. We also ignore things like the angle of impact, all of which make little difference to the overall argument.
tchannon says:
October 15, 2012 at 4:50 pm
In stable orbit there is one free plane. If the body is kicked exactly there it will shift the orbit but no effect on the orbital energy.
The question is what restorative mechanism is there which roughly aligns the orbital planets in the same plane?
Gravity would tend to pull the disturbed planet back into rough alignment, unless there was some rhythmic effect pushing it out of alignment. I suspect that is the case with Pluto.
Rog, great, let’ join, you retract your original argument….I have
physics professors at hand who will give you the numbers….
The impact calculation is not only interesting for you, but for me
as well. I will get the numbers, its important even for including them
in the paper.
Additionally as our paper prove empirically: ALL those frequent cosmic
impacts on Earth (sizable) produce the (1) Z-shaped temp pattern
(2) the cosmic cycle TP-shift, which any terrestrial cause can never
produce and (3), a statistical relation
of crater size to temperature “”Z”"”-size (cold-warm-middle-T-swing).
You point to Leif as the crown witness….. but mind, he ONLY is
the SOLAR expert – and I would NEVER dare to argue against
him in solar matters….. but ALL he says about the Earth’s orbit
is straight for the waste basket, because he belongs to the
orbit stiff-liners and only tries paper obstruction with rudimentary
orbit knowledge and argument-of-authority…..
He is good for Solar problems only and for Christmas….JS
I think this is a small event producing a large orbital inclination change. The present orbit suggests this hasn’t happened or it happens but gets cancelled.
to Tchannon: This topic of cosmic impact and the detailed movement of
an impacted planet, the dynamics/time/gravity/centrifugal
energy — even the loss of a planet by a Sun, by kicking it out into space
possible or not?– is highly interesting….
Our study observes and empirically proves that even events with1-30 km-diameter
craters are engraved and visible in paleo-temp records, with the effects are (1)+(2)+(3),
as pointed out, see my previous comment to Rog…..
People with simplistic KE-scribbelings are trying to confuse, even
critical people such as Willis get taken and fall over…..The, now I will call it
“orbital sensitivity” to impacts is very high…you can see it, take the Tuettensee
207 BC impact, the total impact mass was not much and desintegrated in many pieces
(sum up all craters on the impact field…..)
Leifs rigid Hoola-Hoop, stiff line orbit only to be dented by
star/asteroid-sized masses, according to his quote “simplistic” calculations…you
can put you where….. Give it a though, the empirical evidence is overwhelming…
The paper is first class……No other GCM/climate reconstruction such as this
on the market….Cheers….. JS
@ Suricat / Ray Dart
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king
Solar system collisions tool here:
http://janus.astro.umd.edu/astro/impact/
Warning: for entertainment purposes only – probably.
Here’s the Imperial College version of the above:
http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/
Produces a mini-report of the result of an imaginary impact, based on the chosen parameters.
Joachim says:
The, now I will call it
“orbital sensitivity” to impacts is very high…
You can call it what you like, but until you produce some “KE scribbelings” which back up your hand waving, it’s not worth anything. Don’t be afraid, quantitative work on the cosmos has been going on for a long time. Aristarchus of Samos calculated that the Sun was 18-20 times further away than the Moon (and therefore 18-20 times bigger) in around 310 BC. He was at least correct that the Sun was at the centre of the (local) cosmos, which put him ahead of Ptolemy.
Tim says:
I think this is a small event producing a large orbital inclination change.
I’m not sure why you think a small force could produce a big orbital inclination change. The Earth’s inertial mass is the same sideways or upwards, so if half a Ceres is required to push Earth 100,000km sideways, then half a Ceres would be required to push Earth 100,000 km upwards too..
Joachim says:
The GISP2 has the highest sample density of all proxy-records, and the highest accuracy,
If someone likes compare to GRIP, Dye 3 or paleo-proxies…. fine for us…no problem,
go ahead, but the resolution of all others is significant lower and flatten out important
details…..see the hockey stick….
The resolution of the other ice core records might not be as high as GISP2, but is easily high enough to pick up turning points on the 1000 year timescale, if they exist globally, rather then locally to the GISP2 location.
Rog, good idea, to see what GRIP shows…. there even is a time span around 1,000 BC,
where some sort of ice melt of the GISP2 samples was noted and GRIP has better values….
GRIP, I believe, has a 20 or 25 year sampling spacing and the Z-type impact patterns should
also show…I never downloaded this series…..
Four Greenland ice cores agree well enough over a couple of hundred years here, though wiggles in some might be considered turning points in others. Not an easy thing to classify:
The graphs are most interesting and present the coldest and most impact- disturbed time span (6460 BC Impact – until end of the Z-type impact pattern at 5,700 BC )of the Holocene.
Here we have specific numbers for 250 years, the 6,000 to 6,250 BC time span- a little less
than 1/2 cycle.
The EOO-cycle is 556 year plus about 18 years growing in length and (in impact undisturbed
conditions) one TP, which is set to 6,250 BC should be visible…..Comparing the 4 graphs shows the absolute temp bottom at 6,180 BC, which is the product of the impact of 6,460 BC (Storegga)
….which is one separate forcing mechanism of its own (one of five forcings) which, due to its force,
overrides/ masks the ongoing EOO-process and deforms the clean EOO-cycle….To demonstrate this overriding/masking, we INCLUDED THE 27-37 ka TIME STRETCH as graph into the paper, due to the advantage of containing one sole impact in it…
.You can see in the 27-37 ka picture, how the 31 ka impact corrupts/changes/masks/knocks down the FOLLOWING two TP-positions, the same as does the BC 6,460 impact event, which corrupts the ensuing BC 6,250 TP by knocking it stochasticly into a position, completely unrelated to the regular EOO-wave line…..
What the four graphs above show, is the bottom spike of the “impact-Z-pattern” [thanks for your term proposal, it sounds better than mine present impact symbol term ..... and, thanks again, I will
need the four graphs for my 2013 paper concerning the 59,57 year Jup/Sat Scafetta-cycle.
The dates of this tri-synodic cycle (Geoff Sharp is competent on this, we might ask for his help) can
retrospectively be set and we can add to above 4 graphs all resulting 59,57 year vertical distance lines, if you have the means to do it.....[Our program just allows decadal- variation-lines] and we will, I am certain, can thus put numbers onto this short decadal cycle……[it was hotly disputed back in Jan to Mar over at the other side and Scafetta missed the Holocene demonstration, which can easily be supplied with the regular GISP2 data set….
Long enough now…..Have a look on all this…JS
Rog: Concerning the 4 graphs above:
They leave out the IMPACT date! The impact was, GISP2 showing, 6460 BC = 8460 BP……
and the 4 above start only at 8300 BP, while the action was 160 years earlier, therefore left out
…..Is there some way to get the 4 graph comparisons by say 250 years extended into the past to cover the impact date?….
(1) We would be able then to specify the exact impact year, (2) would shed light onto the impact dynamics and (3) how the Z-type impact pattern starts and maybe see (4) how the orbit path deviation would develop over the first 5 impact years…..here we might get a clue from high-resolution data…….I am very optimistic that we are able to draw new knowledge by focussing on 8460 BP…….. if you could come up with similiar quality graphs I would do an impact analysis
for all of this particular event…..right here…..JS
Sorry for my tardiness Joachim, but when I got to the NE of England my ‘family’ had a heavy ‘head cold’. When I got back to Essex, I had/have a heavy ‘head cold’.
However, I have read your paper to the point of ‘bullet 7′ (exclusive of “7. EOO AMPLITUDES AND THEIR DEFORMATION BY COSMIC IMPACTS”) and it’s obvious that English isn’t your first (native) language. I’ve never heard of an ‘Earth collision’ referred to as a ‘Cosmic Impact’, only as an ‘Earth Impact’. I’m not criticising this point, per se, other than it makes the paper harder to read (I think a reader would probably be able to follow your logic anyhow).
I think the paper includes acronym anomalies as well:
“Additional% novelty% is% the % two% EEO+cycle % limit%
lines:%The %EOO+cycle %has%not% only% steadily% growing%
periods,% but,% at% the % same % time,% steadily% growing%
amplitudes.%On%the%left%hand%side%of%figure%E,%we%can%
see% the% 556+year% period,% around% 7000% BC,% and,%
moving% to% the% right,% increasing% vertical% EOO%
amplitude%heights.%” (please excuse any cut/n/paste anomalies from your paper, but this is the only true method to quote your paper).
The “EEO+cycle” is what? Do you mean the ‘EOO+cycle’?
TBH, the ‘termination shock’ of any ‘Earth Collision’ has many attractors for the energy resulting from the collision. If we just assume an ‘orbital displacement’ scenario for now, we need to involve any ‘damping’ action to the displacement. AFAIK, there are three main attractors that provide a ‘damping’ action to any change in the normal orbit of Earth around Sol. Solar wind pressure, electromagnetic/electrostatic influence and the Lunar Orbit.
I’d put the Lunar Orbit as the most influential simply because the Moon is ~1/3 the mass of the Earth and enjoys a gravitational teleconnection with its orbital ‘C of G’ (centre of gravity [Barry-centre]). Have you included this ‘damper’ forcing in your analysis?
Your thoughts?
Best regards, Ray.
To Suricat Ray: If you google “cosmic impact” it will come up as term for
the impact science….. the EOO is the Earth Orbit Oscillation which takes
place over centuries, very slow, 556 years and growing, the Earth does not stay
on the same path over the centuries… the picture for the 27-37 ka BP period
shows the EOO almost undisturbed from cosmic impact deformation….The damping is
indeed there, since each impact produce a dampening impact pattern Z-shaped,
or Zorro-shaped or high voltage symbol shaped…..How the dampening forces
actually function, is left open, important is, the dampening pattern can always
be identified in the GISP2 temp proxy or other high resolution proxy. There is a
new, high resolution proxy on the market from Christopher Bronk Ramsay based
on C14 and lake layers at Suigetsu……The orbital displacement results from
a tiny flight angle change which adds up over the million km long flight distance….
The EEO-cycle is the EOO-cycle….prove-reading mistake. If the English has
certain shortcomings, well, thats life, some people can do it better, I assume, the
context provides explanations sufficiently…..Cheers JS.
TBH, I’ve not read the rest of your paper in depth, but IMHO you’re ‘solid’. Just get an interpreter that has the requisite scientific credentials.
Best regards, Ray.
Rog, lets take an impartial reader, who is interested in climate. In our paper,
he will get 5 cosmic cycles which govern 20,000 years of climate and can be
clearly identified out of paleo-temp data.
Now, the paper is up for discussion and as Leif claims, the paper can be
debunked with first grade physics. And he delivers 4 lines of first grade physics.
…A impartial reader must wonder whether a paper can really be debunked
so easily, drawing simple calculations with kinetic energy, speed and mass,….
Rog, let me tell you: We all do not get anywhere with simplistic Newtonian
calculations of mass, speed and kinetic energy. What we have to include,
(and this is where the solution lies), are the particularities of the Earth’s orbit.
Simple calculations are leaving orbital details out completely, or describing
them or assuming the as being a stiff-curved line around the Sun.
The simple Newtonian equations use a stiff-line (2-D) motion of a cosmic
body, (here Earth). But, for describing real conditions, a 3-D picture must be
used and the motion of the Earth around the Sun does not proceed along a
stiff line (the simplistic approach).
The real path of the Earth around the Sun is a spiral, which winds around the
stiff elliptical flight line or in other words, winding around the mean progressive
path. This Earth flight spiral, on top of it, itself is, additionally, not stiff, but
flexible and slowly turns sideward, as nothing remains in fixed position in the
solar system.
These orbital features have to be integrated into the cosmic impact analysis
and are missing in the simplistic approach. It was unfortunate that over at the
other blog, stiff-liners and mental flat-earthers not only opined, as
one should always do, but tried to dominate without reading the paper. JS
Hi Joachim.
You said:
“This Earth flight spiral, on top of it, itself is, additionally, not stiff, but
flexible and slowly turns sideward, as nothing remains in fixed position in the
solar system.
These orbital features have to be integrated into the cosmic impact analysis
and are missing in the simplistic approach”
The flight path of the Earth can certainly be considered as a spiral, depending on the frame of reference. However, nothing in your comment addresses the concerns of Leif, Willis, or myself, that there is no evidence of Earth having been hit by an object big enough to knock it off course since whatever event caused the formation of the Moon several billion years ago.
You can’t escape basic kinematics by appealing to the observation of Earth’s motion from a different frame of reference, because it makes no difference to the laws of motion, but only to the effect they appear to have from the perspective of the observer, these are mathematically translatable from one frame of reference to another.
Also, you have still not addressed my objection that most of the energy of an impact is dissipated via heat, rather than translated into kinetic energy knocking the Earth off course, because any big enough impact will penetrate the crust and decelerate in the mantle rather than having a ‘colliding billiard balls’ type effect. Plastic deformation, rather than elastic rebound will be the result.
Also, you have not addressed the objection that the orbit of the Moon will counteract any deviation of Earth from its orbit due to an impact.
We look forward to the promised mathematical treatment of the issues.
Rog, I am surprised and delighted that you still keep an eye on this
blog….. Also, all of your objections are worth to be answered.
(1) At writing our paper, we had to make a choice: Concentrate on the
climate forcing and dissecting a paleotemp-record or going into detailed
astronomy. The paper with 18 pages and temp graphs each 10,000 years
time span was already too long for most people, just go only one comment
backwards to reader suricat. Also, you cannot please all of the people
all of the time, this is what Lincoln found out…..and have to live with open
ends……
(2) The astronomical part is already available in my 15 US$ book of 108 pages.
I made the reference and said: Those, astronomical interested, see the
book. It is not that I keep information behind 7 mountains….
(3) The paper deals with 5 forcings, which govern temp evolution. The stochastic
impact forcing, during, see graph, 27-37 ka BP counted with just one impact,
is One out of Five. If the kinetics of 1 forcing is referred to another literature
does not concern the other 4, which have different mechanisms altogether….
Climate papers, and I consider our paper as climate paper, do NOT go into
astronomical details…..they point, for example to “Milankovitch” and provide
you with Milankovitch “result” numbers, but I never saw a climate paper, which
includes deriving and prove of Milankovitch numbers….. This was said before
and I felt I should repeat it again ( Willis got annoyed by general remarks, he is into
number crunching)
Now to specifics:
(4) I will start from bottom to top: The Moon: As the Moon and the Earth compose
one gravitational unit, any orbit deviation of the Earth has to “drag” the Moon
along with it and the mass of the Moon must be included….there is no doubt, as
the Moon is part of the system…. therefore, the mass of the Moon has to be
included….this point is correct….
(5) The heat release: We know, the Tungusian comet in 1908 completely dissipated
into heat ..never reached the ground and only levelled the trees for miles
in a circle.
You are right, that from a cosmic body reaching Earth, the heat losses must
be subtracted and the remaining push (“Impulse” force) is much smaller than
anticipated. There are many cosmic meteorite impact studies on this…. They
also found out additionally: A crater size on the bottom of the ocean implies
a larger object strike : “www. When a cosmic impact strikes the sea bed” saying
that a comet energy above the SS is larger than craters indicate….
(6) To the basic kinematics: Here lies the dog in the ground. And I always keep
repeating this and nobody listens: The impact does NOT deform the
stiff-line (stiff center line of the spiral) Merry-go-round elliptic line…..this
is, by simple kinetics, as above done, not possible because the question
of the missing mass….
(7) Penetrating the Earth mantle: I believe, important is the Impulse and the
penetration itself, such or such distance, might help to calculate the
strength of the impulse…..
(8) Frame of reference: This is the point: If you maintain, as Leif [he is a simplistic
merry-go-round orbital Stiffliner], then you cannot discover the relation of
cosmic impact and the GISP2 temp impact pattern, which are ALL clearly
visible in paleotemps…..
The realistic orbit is the spiral flight and its dynamics are based on a four point
osculation system [4 points 1. Earth position, 2. Sun 3. Perihelion 4. Aphelion]
In this system, 3 points permanently shift aside [perihelion shift, aphelion shift,
Earth orbit advance]
Google into “Osculation” and there are animated pictures, how the osculation
with VERy HIGH osculating point shifts functions….In those,sideward shifting
osculating points produce amazing orbital loops, but since
the Earth’s aphelion shift is only 44,000 km, the Earth orbital osculation does not
produce amazing loops but solely a spiral with a slow sideward turn [ in the
paper given as one full EOO-cycle], [the cycle is one full spiral loop around the
center elliptic stiff merry-go-round line]. A cosmic impact thus does NOT shift
this center stiff line as implied in simplistic KE pocket book calculations,
The impact rather affects/deforms the forward-backward motion of the spiral’s
osculation sideward turn, and here noticable only where the spiral has a large
diameter 3 weeks before and after the end point of the minor axis [and
none at perihelion and aphelion...both points are exact with a minimum of the
measured 1,200 to 1,500 km deviation (i.e.spiral diameter)]
An impact can be of little energy to disturb the motion of the 4 point osculating
system, thus producing the temp swings of the GISP2.
(9) Rog, you see, the orbital system is complicated…. I appreciate, if someone like
you asks: “Did you take X, Y, Z into account?” ..then fine with me. But if a like-
to-be Copernicus comes along and tries to debunk a paper, proven by 20,000
years of empirics, based on simplistic orbital merry-go-round stiff KE calculations
well…you know…… Cheers JS
Rog, what about this rebuttal of Leif’s astronomical simplicism:
(1)The orbit and impact take place in a 3-D-space,
with 3 space axes: x, y and z
(2) Earth motion is on a circular x-axis (Hale space), forming
an ecliptic plane over one year Earth velocity determines
the elliptical and ecliptical diameters.
(3) The SUN’s gravitation and the opposite, the centrifugal
forces, form the y-axis, both defining the planets mass
and holding it on course. An impact is not large enough
to change (2) and (3).
(4) The spiral osculation signifies the forces of the z-axis. They
pull the planet sideward and produce a spiral winding around
the mean progressive path. The cosmic impact strike adds
to forces along the Z-axis and increases as well (3) centrifugal
forces.
Now to the simplicity of Leif’s astronomy: He calculates forces in a
2-D-space, whereas missing is the z-dimension TOGETHER WiTH spiral
osculation forcings which determine the REAL Earth’s orbital flight conditions.
Leif’s simplistic stiff-line, merry-go round model has no virtue apart from simple
schooling purposes……Leif does not explain, why he hides the z-dimension
and stays silent on z-directional spiral osculation forces. His simplistic view
has no merits. JS
Rog, just to add: Neither solar gravity, mass and centrifugal forces act/pull/push
in the [up-down] perpendicular, third z-dimension…… maybe you know better,
how to calculate perpendicular, osculating forces and the KE which pull the planet
90 degrees up or down away from its ecliptic plane. Here is, where cosmic impacts
act…and via the planet’s position on its spiral circumspherence, the temp GISP2
impact pattern visibly results…. JS
Joachim Seifert says: October 24, 2012 at 6:06 pm
“The paper with 18 pages and temp graphs each 10,000 years time span was already too long for most people, just go only one comment backwards to reader suricat.”
Don’t go there. I’ve read all of your paper, but only read it ‘in depth’ (trying to understand the dialogue) to the point that I described and whilst under the influence of a ‘minor viral infection’ (common cold). BTW, the Abe Lincoln comment is better expressed as one from Napoleon:
Les besoins des bien sont plus fort que les besoin des moins (It’s a statement for the ‘majority’, or ‘the consensus’, as holding greater power over the total ‘empowered’ population).
However, IMHO, your hypothesis ‘holds water’.
TB.
Don’t give up on these guys. I think we’ll be hearing from them in the future.
Best regards, Ray.
Ray, I hope that by the time they return with the promised calculations, they won’t still be trying to tell me that gravity doesn’t act in the third dimension.
Rog, now you made a strange remark, which I cannot follow: You claim
that 1.) Sun’s gravity originates in its barycenter…..2.) propagates 360 degrees
in all directions as y-axis vector and at the point of hitting the Earth’s orbit, this
gravity vector 3.) makes a 90 degree angle into the z-dimension and pulls Earth
into the z-dimension away from its x/y- ecliptic…..
I would be grateful if you could point out a paper which shows that the
gravity vector does a corner turn from the y-into the third z-dimension when
hitting the Earth planet…I am open to learn how the y-dimension gravity vector
turns 90 degrees into a z-dimension vector….
I look forward to your info about this amazing anle change course
of gravity…..JS
Joachim;
The Sun’s line of flight is at around 45 degrees to the orbital plane of invariance. If gravity wasn’t active in the z axis, the planets would be left behind as cold orphans as the Sun continued on it’s galactic path.
tallbloke says: October 25, 2012 at 7:36 am
Your post is perplexing to me (that’s why I’ve thunk on this). My engineer’s ‘hat’ tells me that gravity’s force acts as a ‘vector’ within a 3D space. That ‘vector’ may be altered by another force, an impaction force or the force from an ‘outside’ (extraneous [coming from without]) gravity field.
Also that, when a body is in an orbital scenario, the elastic nature of gravity prohibits a circular orbit (due to interfering perturbations). Thus, the orbiting body will follow the path of an ellipse of varying ‘ratio’, where the orbital ‘vector’ undergoes constant change as the body “over/under flies” its path towards the source of the gravity field.
It should be evident that if the elliptical plane is described as an ‘X,Y’ laminar, any deviation above, or below, this laminar should be represented as a +tive, or -tive, in the Z dimension. Thus, the 3D space of ‘X,Y,Z’ with the ‘vector’ of the orbiting body being ‘applied’ within these regions dependant on the applied perturbations to the orbiting body.
It should be self evident that the reason why planets orbiting Sol share ‘~the same’ Z dimension is because their gravitational ‘teleconnection’ puts them into roughly the same plane of orbit. However, when in the same ‘plane’ of orbit, it doesn’t take much to cause a near chaotic Z dimension ‘small perturbation’ to the planets within Sol’s system.
For the same reason, it’s not hard to alter Earth’s ‘X,Y’ orbital mechanic from the ‘norm’ either (the Moon just gets in the way in all scenarios). However, the ‘Z’ ordinate is ‘up for grabs’ with variant ‘Z’ values for both Earth and Moon.
I hope this makes sense TB & JS.
Best regards, Ray.
Hi Ray,
It’s certainly true that an impacting body from ‘above’ or below’ the plane of invariance would send the Earth further ‘off course’ in the z axis than one of the same size would in the x-y plane. However, this wouldn’t alter Earth’s distance from the Sun, and so couldn’t have the temperature effect Joachim hypothesises for an x-y perturbation. And the x-y impact perturbation he hypothesises wouldn’t have the temperature effect either because as you correctly state, ” the orbiting body will follow the path of an ellipse of varying ‘ratio’,”
Thus, if an impact elongated the minor axis, it would also shorten the major axis, because angular momentum is conserved, along with the total length of the orbital path, apart from the tiny change the impacting object would cause by adding mass to Earth taking it very slightly further out.
All of which is moot, because no impacting objects of the size required to alter the minor axis by 100,000km have been anywhere near Earth for a couple of billion years, so far as we know.
Hi Ray, thanks for moral and factual support concerning planetary
movements along the z-axis, after having received an impact from whatever
side in space….. the z-axis is special, because nothing pulls/brakes from the
front/back and any cosmic impact will peeter out along the z-axis due to diminishing
forces, coming to a stillstand in the z-axis on its own.
We need some more sources and formulae on the z-axis motion, in order to
combat the simplistic fraction, which has never heard of the x,y and z vector
distribution in space….JS
[Reply] Have a look at the very first article on this website Joachim.
Hi Rog, now you are sounding different with your introduction saying: “It is certainly
true…….” and an “impact WOULD send it ‘off course’ into the z-vector-dimension.
This is the first step into the right direction……
Further, temps do not go down immediately down at the impact date, because
distances to the SUN along the z-axis remains the same…..
From the planets ‘off-course position to regain its normal x/y flight takes decades,
seen as the z-pattern in GISP2…. and this is a follow up process which does not
go according to your assumptions which clearly are the “moot” dead end street…..and
which we do not uphold….
Rog, please return to the end of your first step, which is correct to this point and
wait, how the real story of the z-pattern evolves….Cheers JS
[Reply] “From the planets ‘off-course position to regain its normal x/y flight takes decades,”
This is argument by assertion with nothing to back it up.
“Rog…This is the first step into the right direction”
Joachim…You are one step closer to the door.
Rog, let’s stay with the argument…..no smoke cover please….Simple question
to you: Do you concede that the planet, after a received impact, would change
its flight angle slightly into the z-direction/dimension/vector… Yes or No?
[Reply] You are the one blowing smoke Joachim. I have provided numbers to back my argument. so now, before I answer, define ‘slightly’ for me, tell me the size of the impact crater, and the direction the impacting body is coming from.
This is the victory over the Leif-style Mini-copernikusses over at WUWT, who
remain in flat-plane, stiff-orbit, 2-D, dreaming up giant masses to change flight
angles…..
Let’s wait for your answer….JS
[Reply] You’ve already told us we’ll have to wait until next year for your numbers. come back then and we’ll be able to address the issue.
TB.
The only ‘true’ data that we have stems from the ‘Moon Landing’ from ~35 years ago. Since then, we’ve data on the ‘proximity’ of the Moon to Earth distance.
Because of the gravitational teleconnection between the Earth and the Moon, any ‘significant’ impaction to either the Earth, or Moon, would’ve caused a discernible alteration to the ‘orbital lunar distance’.
Discussion of events ‘prior’ to this period seem to be entirely ‘speculative’ and should be met with the scepticism that’s related to the ‘presumed’ ‘event’.
Best regards, Ray.