![Embarrassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
It looks as if the solar radiance oscillates much faster than the earth's rotation. Oh well..back to the drawing board.
![Crying or Very Sad :cry:](./images/smilies/icon_cry.gif)
Apparently somebody else thought so too.In other words - we could do with another 50 years of data
The wind did it? Bit of a stretch, imho.Thus, the Earth (specifically the mantle), the rotation is accelerated or slowed according to the fluctuations of cosmic rays under the influence of solar activity through the zonal winds, provide a wonderful device integration variations in atmospheric angular momentum and zonal wind circulation that it is difficult to measure directly.
Wow it's really hard to keep reading between the lines to separate "the models" from the "observations".The longer patterns in changes of the length of the day can last for decades. "These are caused by processes within Earth's core," says Gross. "The core is a fluid. Its motion generates Earth's magnetic field. Changes in its motion can change the rotation of solid Earth. Observing the magnetic field at the surface gives us an idea of how fluid is moving within the core. These changes in the fluid motion inferred from the magnetic field match the longer period changes we see in the length of the day."
As in the 11 and/or 22 year solar cycle?The longer patterns in changes of the length of the day can last for decades.
Ummmm, there are like two hemisphere's ya know. I mean, the seasons are anti-correlated between the two hemispheres so doesn't that pretty much balance out? Winter "up" here, summer "down" there, that sort of thing. And what about ENSO, PDO, AMO and their effects on global atmospheric circulation patterns? I would think that would throw some anomalies into the annual variations but that doesn't seem to be the case."The annual changes in the length of the day," says Gross, "are caused mostly by the atmosphere -- changes in the strength and direction of the winds, especially the jet stream. The Sun warms the equator more than the poles. That temperature difference is largely responsible for the jet stream. Seasonal changes in that temperature difference cause changes in the winds and, hence, the length of the day."
We are still lacking the actual interrelation of all forces in the field; thus we have a great amount of details, and we end by trying to find the way out of this multiplicity, then we should go back to principles, so a unified conception is needed:solrey wrote:Thanks Alex. Way to read between the lines by "highlighting" the underlying reality.![]()
I noticed that was from 2002
As in the 11 and/or 22 year solar cycle?The longer patterns in changes of the length of the day can last for decades.![]()
And what is this all about?
"The annual changes in the length of the day," says Gross, "are caused mostly by the atmosphere -- changes in the strength and direction of the winds, especially the jet stream. The Sun warms the equator more than the poles. That temperature difference is largely responsible for the jet stream. Seasonal changes in that temperature difference cause changes in the winds and, hence, the length of the day."
ElecGeekMom wrote:How about this?
When the sun is quiet, the ionosphere lowers, indicating a thinning of the atmosphere. Conversely, when the sun is active, the ionosphere elevates, indicating a thickening of the atmosphere. Wouldn't that have an impact on the speed of the earth's rotation?
I would expect some sort of lag in that mechanism.
First show them that even in the gravity only model, we must have had recent major changes in our solar system. Tom VanFlandern (one of the great gravity-only mechanics guys), showed how after changes to the solar system, nearly circular orbits are stable, objects in highly elliptical orbits have few chances to interact, but objects in intermediate orbits are quickly swept up by the sun, or ejected from our solar system. He argued that since we have so many comets in relatively short period orbits, that have yet not been swept up or ejected, this is evidence of recent formation of these objects. Notice that even if there was a supply of new comets from the "Oort Cloud", that would not help explain the existence of these RETURNING comets. So we have, even in the gravity only model, a need for recent changes to our solar system.gocrew wrote:I was recently asked by someone deeply skeptical of EU why, if Venus, Earth, Mars and Saturn were new arrivals, they had stabilized their orbits so quickly. I explained that he was thinking in terms only of gravity, and he countered that if these planets had stabilized, why had comets not stabilized into circular orbits. I confessed I did not know.
Can someone help me with this?
This is a great thought-provoking topic, maddeningly elusive in its simplicity. Good question.gocrew wrote:I was recently asked by someone deeply skeptical of EU why, if Venus, Earth, Mars and Saturn were new arrivals, they had stabilized their orbits so quickly. I explained that he was thinking in terms only of gravity, and he countered that if these planets had stabilized, why had comets not stabilized into circular orbits. I confessed I did not know.
Can someone help me with this?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest