A Remarkable Lunar Paper and Numbers on Major Standstill

Posted: March 28, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

It’s the right time to reblog this great post from the Chiefio

Musings from the Chiefio

Yesterday we had a sort of a review of the lunar postings so far and a look at how the orbital changes are not quite as expected. That the lunar orbit is “wrong” – per some folks. Also a touch on the history of tides and that some of the very earliest writings are claiming much stronger tides than at present. There was also a link to a WUWT article about about the way tides are much larger during certain alignments of sun, moon, and earth with particular orbital conditions (perigee). Including calculations that tides then could be significantly larger. Between 1.5 x and 2 times present. This would tend to wash more warm water under the North Pole ice cap and help break up the ice. It would also cause large changes in ocean mixing of water levels and change both ocean surface temperatures, and through them, air temperatures.

View original post 4,953 more words

  1. A C Osborn says:

    Rog, see my comment on the other Lunar post about Clive Best’s related papers.
    Chefio did an amazing amount of research for this paper which I pointed out to Clive who contacted Chefio later.
    I find it amazing that Warmists and Luke Warmists accept certain “Cycles” in Climate data but reject any connection with Cosmic movements which have been known for centuries, but they have no other possible explanations themselves.

  2. tallbloke says:

    ACO: thanks, lots to follow up here. Chaeremon will be very interested in the eclipse evidence too.

  3. Chaeremon says:

    tallbloke wrote: Chaeremon will be very interested in the eclipse evidence too.

    Yes, I’m thrilled since the day I found the above article with link to the paper, and thank you for following it up here 😎

    As some in the blog here already know, the focus of my interest is on the time before the Druid scientists, and I’m always looking for evidence captured from observation of astronomical phaenomena — regardless of language and region / continent. I was very lucky after I extended my definition to astronomical patterns for which sets of data and diagrammatic plots could be reconstructed, because the resulting diagrams appear to have been recorded (in one way or the other) on stone and other canvas material. A group of physicists invited me to their conference to give a talk (next week) on the diagrammatic plots and astronomical patterns.

    But my research is open ended and I’ve not yet completed work towards absolute dating, so I haven’t much for posting here (perhaps, except for fun of it).

    Please folks, don’t be shy and post the stories that you found can / may / seem to talk about observations in the past which we can reconstruct. By this I don’t mean the classic Greece papyrus scrolls — I’m sorry, as this material has already been modeled into the current ephemeris but it’s criticised in Chifio’s article and was found inapplicable (to major eclipses in 400-1800 AD) by the courageous researchers in India.

    Thank you very much in advance 🙂

    P.S. the line-of-nodes is best observed at the horizon where it goes northern and southern in relation to sunrise and sunset. The line-of-apse is best observed at the two quadratures which tell you which side of the line (perigee or apogee) goes full-moon (and from where you then estimate, reliably, the dark-moon’s display size whenever a solar eclipse occurs). The stellar period of the moon is best observed from the first shy crescent to the last shy crescent, it gives you the sidereal lunar interval precisely up to the stellar position, and the sun moves out of the way during that time.
    The preceding makes you an expert scout in your hunting territory 😉

  4. Doug Proctor says:

    I started new thinking about scientific pronouncements wrt climate change. The think-for-yourself before you agree applies to everything: the Earth-Moon is a double planet orbiting the Sun! What a paradigm shift.

    Facts are hard; implications are soft. The nailed-down-to-the-ground belief of many comes from a confusion that facts and implications are equally hard.