Table 1. Interplanetary Relationships and Comparisons

Planet                    Mass, Kg         Ratio      Orbital          Ratio           Orbital         Period Of

                                                   To         Eccentricity    To              Inclination    Rotation

                                                   Earth                         Earth           (degrees)     About The Sun

                                                                                                                         (YEARS)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earth                   5.976E24           1             0.0167          1                   0                 1

Mercury               3.303E23         0.05          0.2056         12.3               7.0               0.24

Venus                  4.871E24         0.81          0.0068          0.41              3.4               0.62

Mars                    6.422E23         0.11          0.0934          5.59              1.85             1.80

Jupiter                 1.899E27         317.8         0.0483          2.89              1.31           11.86

Saturn                  5.687E26         95.2          0.056           3.35              2.48            29.47

Sun                      1.988E30        3.33E5          NA              NA                 NA              NA

Moon                    7.349E22         0.012          NA               NA                 NA               NA

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1 (continued)

Planet           Minimum            Maximum          Maximum           Minimum

                    Distance             Distance           Gravitational        Gravitational

                    From Earth         From Earth       Force Between     Force Between

                    This Study          This Study        Earth & Planet      Earth & Planet

                     (AU*)                 (AU*)               (Newtons)           (Newtons)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mercury           0.553               1.447                 1.924E16             2.811E15

Venus              0.267               1.736                 1.217E18             2.879E16

Mars                0.378               2.675                 8.006E16             1.599E15

Jupiter              3.955               6.449                 2.163E18             8.137E17

Saturn              8.038              11.047                1.568E17              8.302E16

Sun                  0.984                1.016                3.659E22              3.432E22

Moon                0.00242            0.00271             2.219E20             1.782E20

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           * One AU (Astronomical Unit) = 1.49598E11 meters

           *AU distances were those found in this study

           Gravitational Force Formula is F=K(M1 X M2)/ D**2

                 Where F = Gravitational Force, Newtons

                           K = Universal Constant, 6.67E-11 Newton Meters Squared/ Kg Squared

                         M1 = Mass of the Earth, Kg

                         M2 = Mass of the Planet in Question, Kg

                           D = Distance Between The Earth and the Planet In Question

and moon. The mass of each body is shown and in column 3 the ratio for these bodies is shown. Ignoring the sun, it is clear that Jupiter is the most massive of the planets, being 317 times as massive as the earth. Saturn is 95 times as massive as the earth. The orbital eccentricity is listed in column 4 and this is important when considering oscillations in the first section of the results. Venus has the orbit that is closest to a circle with an eccentricity of about 40% that of the earth’s, whereas all of the other orbits are much more eccentric than is that of the earth.

The orbital inclination is the amount that the orbit of that planet varies from the earth’s orbit. Mercury has the largest inclination at 7 degrees. This was the basis for assuming that all of the orbits are in the same plane, which allowed a two dimensional analysis. The period of rotation about the sun is listed in column 7 with the fastest rotation for Mercury of a little less than 3 months to Saturn of 29.47 years. These periods of rotation will become important when identifying which planets are responsible for which effects.

Columns 8 and 9 are the minimum and maximum distances of each planet from the earth. These are not the theoretical minimums, and maximums, just the ones found in this study from the data used. Columns 10 and 11 are the minimum and maximum gravitational forces between earth and each planet from the maximum and minimum distances listed in columns 9 and 8 respectively. The last two columns are presented so one can get a feel for the relative magnitudes of the gravitational forces of the various bodies with earth.

When the calculations were made for the gravitational forces in Table 1, it was almost decided to abandon the study. The reason for this is that the gravity from the planets is so much smaller than that for the sun and even for the moon, that it was reasoned that the gravity from the planets would not be significant enough to cause any discernable variation in anything on the earth. However, stupidity won out and the study continued. It was decided early on, not to include the moon in any of the calculations. The rational was that the moon rotated around the earth so fast (once per day) that the gravitational effects would be limited to the tidal effects and any long term effects (in terms of 1 to 10 years) would be lost in the averaging and the inability of securing that short term temperature data for the entire world. Remember, the once per day for the moon is because of the earth’s rotation about its axis.

The gravitational effects of the sun on the earth were just ignored. This is not correct and there was a limited look at the potential for temperature rises during the first half of the year and then temperature drops for the second half of the year, or visa versa. The data analysis was very limited and did not show any discernable trend, but there should be one. This is an area for further research.

INTERPLANETARY DISTANCES

This is a catch-all heading to discuss the various interactions of the planets with earth. Keep in mind that the earth is the center of the universe in this study, so you will get some oscillations that are very real that you might miss when considering it any other way. The interaction with Mars will be discussed first, because it is easy to see. Some of the other planets are not as easy to see, but their characteristic interactions with earth will be pointed out.

Figure 1 shows the way in which the distance between Mars and earth varies for the time period of this study.

The first thing to note is that there is a time period of 2.14 years indicated on the figure. From Table 1, it is clear that the period of rotation of Mars about the sun is 1.8 years. The reason for the 2.14 years shown in Figure 1 is because the earth and Mars are rotating in the same direction (chasing each other) and it takes 2.14 years for them to be at their closest distance. So, it could be said that the first order period of oscillation is 1.8 years and the second order period of oscillation is 2.14 years. Similar first and second order oscillation periods were determined for all of the planet-earth distances. They are all chasing each other in the same direction.

The third order period of oscillation for earth-Mars is 15 years, also indicated on Figure 1. If both the earth and Mars had perfectly circular orbits, there would be no further orders of oscillation, but because they are both elliptical and because the perihelion (point of closest approach to the sun) and the aphelion (point of furthers distance from the sun) are not in the same place, the earth and Mars get closest every 2.14 years at a different place on their orbits. Consequently, only once in 15 years do they get together at roughly the same place on their orbits. So, there are three orders of oscillation to be concerned about. Because the reference coordinate system rotates with the earth, the first order of oscillation disappears. In point of fact, there are more orders of oscillation, but for the relatively short term study of 95 years that was considered in this study, they do not come into play.

Figure 2 shows similar data for the earth-Venus interaction.

The first order oscillation from Table 1. Is 0.62 years, the second order oscillation is 1.6 years and the third order oscillation is 8 years. As you can see, things get more complex in a hurry.

Figure 3 shows similar data for both Jupiter and Saturn.

For Jupiter the first order period of oscillation is 11.86 years and the second order period of oscillation is 12 years whereas for Saturn these oscillations are 29.47 years and 30 years. The third order period of oscillations for these two planets are not obvious from the data in Figure 3 and it was necessary to look very closely and then gather more data to delineate the third order period of oscillations.

Jupiter was investigated first and by magnifying the vertical axis, it was possible to discern a minimum distance every 12 years (surprise---that is the second order period of oscillation) and then investigate that for several hundred years. The results of that mini-investigation are shown in Figure 4.

The third order period of oscillation for Jupiter is 901 years. Even more interesting is that the minimum distance plot has its minimum at both 1927 and 1987. This is the era where the global warming is worst. Of course, the author had already established that Jupiter has the largest gravitational effect of any of the planets (see Table 1.), so if gravity has an effect on temperature then this could be a clue as to why global warming has gotten worse lately. For those of you interested in other gravitational effects, plot the data in Figure 4 on the same graph as the Length of Day (LOD) data for the rotation of the earth from 1900 to 1970. There is an uncanny similarity. This plot is not presented because the relationship is only good for that time frame and there are more things involved in the LOD determination than the earth-Jupiter relationship.

In a similar fashion, the third order period of oscillation for Saturn was determined, see Figure 5.

It’s period is 559 years and it was at its largest minimum distance from the earth in 1998. No data for Mercury are presented because it’s first order period of oscillation is 0.24 years and the once a month sampling rate of 0.083 years is not often enough to keep from introducing unintended errors. In fact, Mercury was carried along in almost all phases of this study, but it’s effect was so small that it could have been discarded.

In summary, the information gained from planetary distances is a recognition of second and third order periods of oscillation. The first order oscillation periods that almost everyone else discusses drop out because of the reference system. The second order oscillation periods of significance are 1.6 years, 2.14 years, 12 years and 30 years. The third order oscillation periods of significance are 8 years, 15 years, 901 years, and 559 years. The latter two periods are only significant because of where their minimum and maximum shortest distance are located in time.

GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTIONS

Fourteen different models were used to evaluate the gravitational interactions. The reason for so many models were just ignorance. The author did not know how to add, subtract, combine, or mix the various gravitational interactions in the correct way. Initially it was assumed that the interaction of any significance could only be perpendicular to that of the sun and that is the reason that the vectoring of the forces was calculated. It was also assumed initially that the correct sign for the gravity was positive in relation to the sun, but that turned out to be incorrect---at least as far as using the gross gravity rather than the vectored gravity. Initially, it was also assumed that the gravity components from the various planets would be additive, dependent on some sign convention. That assumption seems to have held throughout the study in all of the models. The most difficult portion of the study was determining the correct signs to be assigned to the forces. This even held true in the gravity-heat portion of the study.

The initial vectored portion of the study will be presented with one figure, Figure 6, so that the reader can get a feel for what kept the author pursing the study.

It is probable that the reason that sign was not so important for this data is that the resultant was determined by using Pythagoras theory, which squares the vector components. Squaring a positive number makes a positive number as does the squaring of a negative number. The only place where there was noticeable agreement between the gravity resultant and the land temperature is in the 1990 to 2002 range as well as some agreement in the 1960 to 1970 range. This was adequate encouragement to continue the study.

At that point various combinations of planets was attempted, including a model in which only Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were included and the gross gravity was calculated (gross gravity is the sum of the gravities with no regard to vectors). These data matched the land temperatures quite well, but for only for the time range of 1952 to 1958, see Figure 7.

However, when the data were calculate for all of the other years, there was no agreement. The only conclusion to be drawn from this data was that the agreement occurred when both Jupiter and Saturn were at their greatest distance from earth, see Figure 3. Someone may see a significance to this, but the author studied it from almost every direction but could find no conclusion. The only encouragement that this offered was that this was another correlation of the gravity to temperature.

Keep in mind that these data were derived by adding or subtracting the individual contributions of the various planets for every monthly data point. At this point, confusion was rampart, so the author fell back on basics. Analysis of the temperature data for the land temperatures was conducted and 39 peaks were found between 1937 and 2009. At first no correlation of any kind could be found. After a good nights sleep, it was decided that no correlation is a kind of correlation and after review of the planetary configuration maps supplied with the Fourmilab data sheets, it was found that every time there was a temperature peak, the sun, the earth and Jupiter were lined up (within a couple of months). This was true in all 39 of the peaks. It should be noted that for 30 of the peaks, Jupiter and the earth were on the same side of the sun and all of these were strong peaks. For the other nine, all were with the sun between Jupiter and earth and 8 of these peaks were very weak, with one being considered strong. This was very strong evidence and encouraged further work. For those of you interested in checking this out, Table 2 has a listing of the dates of these peaks.

Table2. Temperature Peaks Chart (Listed with year and month)

____________________________________________________________________________

1938-8, 1940-4, 1941-5, 1944-2, 1945-8, 1947-5, 1948-5, 1951-9, 1953-5, 1954-12,

1958-4, 1959-5, 1960-12, 1962-8, 1963-3, 1966-1, 1967-8, 1969-10, 1971-5, 1973-7,

1975-4, 1977-11, 1980-8, 1981-4, 1983-5, 1986-8, 1988-11, 1990-12, 1991-2, 1993-4,

1994-6, 1995-5, 1998-4, 1999-11, 2001-12, 2003-9, 2005-4, 2006-5, 2008-7

_____________________________________________________________________________

Following this information, the large data program was rechecked, all signs corrected and the assumed direction of positive reversed and the results are as shown in Figure 8 with the ocean temperatures plotted below.

These data correlated better with the temperatures than any other model. This was also the first time that temperature data for ocean temperatures between 1945 and 1950 (that almost horizontal line) correlated with any of the models. It was originally assumed that these temperature data were incorrect, but now there was a correlation with the gravity profile.

There are still some major mis-matches between the gravity data and the ocean temperatures, but there are lots more matches. Something is still not correct---assuming that there will ever be a precise match---but the trends that the author was looking for were definitely exhibited. The land temperatures correlated better with some of the gravity profiles, see Figure 9, than did the ocean temperatures, and worse in other areas, but in general, the trends were well matched.

When you review the absolute values of the gravity plots, keep in mind that running averages diminish the absolute values. Consequently, comparisons with the data in Figure 6 through 13 will have diminished values from those calculated in Table 1.

This was considered the end of the gravity study, but for the reader’s sake, the planetary gravity components that make up Figures 8 and 9 are shown as Figures 10 through Figure 13. Each figure is presented with the minimum of running averages performed on the data. This usually requires at most two 13 month averages. The sharp changes in direction, particularly for Jupiter and Saturn are because the sign was changed 100% when the planet went from pulling in the direction of the sun to opposition of the sun, or visa versa. Vectoring would smooth these sharp changes somewhat.

It is interesting to note that Jupiter is the only planet that has the characteristic gravity that remains rather unchanged from 1945 to 1955, a characteristic reflected in the oceans temperatures for that same time period. It is also interesting to note that Mars is the only planet that has almost all of its forces in the positive range. However, these forces are two orders of magnitude smaller than Jupiter, for example. This would indicate that Mars is not a big player in the temperature-gravity correlation and that was found to be true when a sensitivity analysis was performed. Mars could be removed and there was no discernable difference in the gravity plot. The same was true for Mercury, but Venus, Jupiter and Saturn were all significant contributors. Normally, Jupiter accounted for 90% of the gravity, Saturn accounted for less than 10% and on a regular basis, Venus accounted for peaks of 2% to 5%.

GRAVITATIONAL HEAT

Equating gravity with temperature is rather controversial, but calculating heat from gravitational interactions could also be considered controversial. Some theories have some of the gravitational energy converted to heat through deflection of the oceans and some of the gravitational energy is converted to heat through deflection of the earth’s crust. One could look at the temperature profiles and hypothesize that the ups and downs of the land and ocean temperatures are the portion of the gravitational energy that is converted in the oceans and the gradual rise or change in baseline temperature that is evidenced, with the ups and downs imposed upon it are the gravitational energy via deflection of the crust. The author is enamored with that theory, but there is a way to get around having to distinguishing between the kinds of heat produced by the two or more mechanisms. This is simply assume that all of the energy left over after all of the planets have contributed their gravitational energy and then taken it away is the amount of energy contributed to the earth. Of course, because heat is a cumulative quantity, one should really look at the rates of heat transfer into the earth and the rates of heat transfer away from the earth. That is what was done for this study.

Mechanistically, the way it was performed was to assume that the only movement from which to calculate heat is the movement of the planet towards the earth or away from it for the time period. It does not matter whether the earth is moving towards the planet or the planet is moving towards the earth, as long as the reference system is centered on the earth, that problem has been negated. So, from one month to the next, the difference between the particular planet and the earth is the distance of movement. The force was calculated as the average force for the time span in question. In equation form, the heat is:

Heat = abs((F1 + F2)/2) x (D1 - D2) x K

            Where Heat is in Joules or Joules per month because the time span was 1 month

                       abs is the absolute value of the average force

                       F1 is the gravitational force between earth and the planet in question

                                  For the first month of the time span

                      F2 is the same gravitational force for the second month of the time span

                      D1 is the distance between the earth and the planet in question for

                                   The first month of the time span

                       D2 is the new distance for the earth and the planet in question for

                                   Second month of the time span

                       K is a constant to get the units correct

               Note: If D1 is larger than D2, then the heat will be positive for the approach of the

                                 Planet towards earth. The sign of the heat was accounted for in this way.

The question of what sign to give the heat was determined by giving the heat generated when the planet was coming towards the earth as the positive sign and when it was moving away from the earth as a negative sign. It is known that the heat content of the earth has been increasing since 1970 at a rate of 6.25 E22 joules per year. This was generated by measuring the slope of the heat content depicted in an article by Scott A. Mandia (www2.sun Suffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/modern_day_climate_change.html), page 10. This figure originally came from a report by Daniel Murphy et. al. of NOAA-ESRL (www.esrl.noaa.gov) and is so important in this section that permission was obtained to reproduce it in this article and it appears as Figure 13A.

So, if the sign was correct, the depicted heat of the earth would be increasing since 1970. If it was decreasing, the sign must be reversed. In point of fact, the data confirmed that the heat was decreasing with the sign convention chosen, so the sign was reversed. The heat increases as the planets go away from the earth and decreases as the planet comes towards the earth. This is probably a significant find in relation to various theories of gravity, but it will not be pursued in this study.

This trend becomes much clearer if you sum the heat, which was done in this study. Figure 14 shows the results of the cumulative heat calculations with January, 1937 as the starting date.

The line drawn across the third through the fifth peak represents the heat increase rate between 1970 and 1990. It is difficult to see at first, but the peaks of Figure 14 are the same peaks shown in Figure 13A. The fact that all of the data occur below the abscissa (in the negative region) has no significance. This is only a function of where you start summing the heats. For example, looking ahead to Figure 15, where the beginning summing date was 1950, most of the data lie above the abscissa. It is interesting to note that the total heat of all five planets increases and decreases. This is to be expected, because all are moving towards the earth which absorbs heat from the planet and then move away from the earth which contributes heat from the planet---at least that is what the sign convention says. The time between these peaks is approximately 12 years which points to Jupiter being the dominant heat producer of all of the planets and of course, that was postulated in the above section entitled Interplanetary distances.

The little peaks shown atop the big peaks in Figure 14 are about 1.5 years apart which corresponds to the second order oscillation period of Venus which was determined in a previous section to be 1.6 years. Checking the actual data confirmed the identity of the peaks.

Determining The Earth’s Heat Dump Rate:

The heat build up rate for a planet is the difference between the heat input rate and the heat dump rate. The planet dumps its heat to space. For the earth, there are several heat dump rates which will be discussed later. The calculations in this portion of the study deal only with the heat dump rate associated with the planetary interactions with earth. It is only possible to determine these if you assume that the overall heat dump rate from earth was in equilibrium prior to the global warming and that the global warming was caused by this additional heat input. However, the technique allows one to determine the total heat dump rate attributable to planetary interactions. This is only possible because there was a heat buildup in the earth. It would not be possible to do this if there had not been global warming. This can be expressed in equation form as:

       HS = HI - HD

              Where HS is the heat storage rate, or the heat build up rate on earth

                        HI is the heat input rate from the motion of the planets

                        HD is the heat dump rate; the rate that earth dumps heat into space.

Because all of the calculations in this study were done on a per month basis, all rates are in joules/month. The heat storage rate was obtained from the above mentioned reference and was equal to 6.25 E21 joules per year which is 5.208 E20 joules per month. The heat input rate is the data shown in Figure 14. This is represented as joules, but because each time frame is one month, this is also joules per month. The unknown in this equation is the heat dump rate. No modification was made to account for the heat dump rate increasing with increasing earth temperature as it must (heat transfer rate is directly proportional to the temperature difference), because that was a sophistication beyond the precision of this technique.

The way to determine the heat dump rate is to write an equation subtracting out an assumed heat dump rate from a particular time period on forward. When the slope of the line drawn across the same three peaks in Figure 14 is the same as the heat storage rate of 5.208 E20 joules per month, then you have arrived at the correct heat dump rate. You need a starting point, so the same start point as Murphy et. al. used(above reference) of 1950 was used. This corresponds to month 381 in this study, so the subtractive equation was installed at month 381. For reference, month 225 was arbitrarily selected as January, 1937. By the way, the assumed heat dump rate was calculated from the heat input from the planets whereas the storage rate was determined from the heat summation graph and that is why a reiterative technique was required, rather than solving the above equation directly.

Two of these calculational runs is shown in Figure 15.

The assumed heat dump rates were as indicated on the chart, 0.75E23 and 3.0E23joules per month. The sensitivity of this calculational method is illustrated by showing an assumed dump rate that is lower than the correct one and one that is higher. The correct heat dump rate of 1.55 E23 joules per month had already been obtained and these two rates shown are for half that rate and twice that rate.

This value of 1.55 E23 joules per month is the rate at which the earth normally dumps heat without any heat build up. In fact it is also the dump rate when there is global warming. The only difference is that when the heat input rate exceeds that value, the earth will warm up and store heat at the rate of 5.208 E20 joules per month. If there had not been global warming, it would have not been possible to determine this value---it would only have been possible to estimate it.

It is interesting to compare this heat dump rate with some known figures. For example, the average radiation from sunlight is 1370 watts per square meter. Using the diameter of the earth and an albedo (fraction that is reflected) of 0.3, one can calculate the that this is equivalent to 3.177 E23 joules per month.

Generating another comparative number, the earth at 14 degrees centigrade would dump 5.097 E23 joules per month if it was a perfect black body radiator and you used the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to calculate this heat dump rate. More will be made of these numbers and their relationships in the discussion.

PROJECTIONS

One reason for performing this study is to satisfy scientific curiosity. A second and far more important reason is to build a model upon which you can make projections into the future. With this second reason in mind, the gravitational and gravitational heat calculations were made up to and including the year 1932.

The data for the years 2010 through 2032 were added to Figure 8 and the result is Figure 16.

The news is not good. The temperature peaks are higher than seen previously. However, it was established earlier in the study that temperature peaks are not the same as heat content. Consequently, the 2010 through 2032 data were added to Figure 14 and the result is Figure 17, which shows the heat accumulation rate. The 2005 peak is down from the 1990 peak, but the 2016 peak is higher than any for the duration of the study. That peak is followed by a 2028 peak that is about the same height as the 2005 peak.

To properly evaluate the heat buildup, Figure 18 is presented. This is Figure 17 with a heat dump rate of 1.55 E23 joules per month dialed in at the 381 month, as discussed in the previous section.

 

If the earth could accommodate a heat dump rate of 1.55 E23 joules per month in the 1970 to 1990 era, it is safe to assume that it can accommodate the same rate in the future. Because the last three peaks (2005, 2016, and 2028) are below the heat storage (HS) line in Figure 18, this indicates that we will be in a cooling trend for the time from 2005 through 2032. The 2016 peak will retard that trend somewhat because of it’s height, but overall, we should see a decline in the baseline temperature. However, because of the gravity peaks in Figure 16, we can expect some temperature spikes that will be larger than any seen in this study. Yet the general trend for the temperatures is down in Figure 16 from 2012 till 2028.

It is interesting to look at the ocean temperatures in Figure 16 and observe that the general build up of baseline heat that began in 1970 seems to have flattened out between 1995 and 2000. It even seems to have decreased from 2000 to 2009. This would be consistent with the slope between the 1990 and 2005 peak of Figure 17. Remember, when there is heat build up in the earth it takes some time after the lessening of the heat input for the baseline temperatures to drop. Here, baseline temperatures and baseline heat refer to that general trend of temperature rise in which the ups are always more than the downs.

DISCUSSION

It is doubtful that you could find 5 scientists in the world who would believe that there is a direct correlation between the gravitational attraction of the planets and the earth and the temperature of the land and ocean on the earth. However, the USA government has spent more than one billion dollars to prove that concept. The test laboratory is in the form of several satellite fly bys of the planet Jupiter and more specifically the moon of Jupiter caller Io. The moon, Io, has no discernable heat input other than the gravitational attraction of Jupiter, yet it is the most active volcanic object in the solar system. It has been hypothesized that this heat from the interior of Io is the results of the intense gravitational attraction of Io and the planet Jupiter. These gravitational attractions come in the form of something called tidal heating in the absence of an ocean. It is the flexing of the mantle of this moon that produces these heats. (no references are presented. Just Google Io and you will be inundated with reference documents.)

Yet the author of this paper is trying to prove that global warming comes from gravitational interactions. . That proof comes in the form of several related and important observations. They are:

     1. The largest earth-planetary interaction belongs to earth and Jupiter.

     2. Earth and Jupiter have their closest minimum distance in 1927 and 1987. This will not

                   Happen again for 901 years.

     3. Of the 39 temperature peaks between 1937 and 2009 for the land temperature of the

                  Earth, all 39 occur when the sun, the earth and Jupiter are lined up.

     4. The plots of net gravitational forces from the earth- planet interactions have a lot of the same

                 Ups and downs. There is a definite associative trend.

     5. The heat generated from the gravitational interaction of the planets show an increasing

                 Trend since 1940, in a similar fashion as the heat increase reported for the earth.

     6. The heat dump rate is in the same ‘ball park’ as the total solar energy reaching the earth.

     7. The only configuration that would produce a good correlation of gravity with heat is one

             In which the gravity pulls opposite to the sun. This causes a gravitational shear

             Which is what is required for tidal heating similar to that for the moon of Jupiter,

              Called Io.

The fact that the largest planet of the five considered is coming nearer to the earth and then starts to recede in about 1987; the fact that for the 39 temperature peaks between 1937 and 2009, all 39 occurred at the same time that the earth and Jupiter were closest; and the overall trend correlation of the gravity and temperatures are just too strong an association to be ignored.

The calculations relating to heat dump rates presented in a previous section have a lot of significance. Before the earth can dump heat, it must have acquired it from somewhere. In this case, the heat dump rate is the same heat input rate as that attributable to the heat acquired from the planetary interactions with earth. Once you have determined the heat dump rate, you can relate that to all of the heat inputs and the overall heat dump rate from earth.

The argument goes as follows: According to the Stefan-Boltzman equation, the overall heat dump from the earth to outer space is 5.097 E23 joules per month. This heat has to come from somewhere. Most of it comes from the sunlight hitting the earth. This quantity was calculated as 3.177 E23 joules per month. Normally it is the procedure to assume that the rest of the heat comes from the green house effect and that is where most critics of the carbon dioxide and green house effect disagree with the concept.. They say that the green house effect cannot produce heat, it can only attempt to hold what you already have. In this study, it has been shown that there is an additional heat that comes from the planetary interactions with the earth. This heat is in the amount of 1.55 E23 joules per month. This heat quantity (actually it is a rate) is derived from the earth-planets interactions and is not dependent on the green house effect.

If you add the solar heat and the gravitational heat, you get 4.727 E23 joules per month. This is still short of the 5.097 E23 joules that should be given off by our planet. The shortfall is 0.37 E23 joules per month. One of the places where this additional heat could come from is from an incorrect estimate of the albedo of the earth. The value of 0.3 was used in the calculation to determine the sunshine contribution of 3.177 E23 joules per month. If that figure were 0.22 instead, this would account for all of the heat. However, many researchers have looked at this number, and the largest variation from the 0.3 is maybe 10%, (a drop to 0.28) which occurred in about 1985 and then rebounded to the 0.3 after that so this does not seem to be a reasonable explanation. However, changes in albedo for the northern hemisphere may be the reason that the northern hemisphere is warming faster than the southern hemisphere.

Where does this additional heat come from. It is the position of the author that this additional heat comes from the gravitational interaction with the sun and of the moon, in the same manner as that for the planets. However, because there is no stressed situation that we can blame on the sun such as there was with the planets, the author has not figured out a way to make the calculation of the heat contributed by the sun. It was originally assumed that the earth-sun interaction returns to the same place it was in the previous year. It was assumed that there could be no heat generated from this interaction. However, it was found that the precession of earth around the sun is alive and well.

It was found that the precision of the data for the earth-sun interaction is not adequate for looking at the sun-earth interaction from the Fourmilab data. Another site was searched for and found, which has more precision relating to the earth-sun distances. This site is (www.pages.drexel.edu/~brooksdr/DRB_web_page/Aerosols/sol_calc.htm). With the information from this site, it was possible to make more precise calculations.

The following observations were made with respect to the earth-sun interactions:

     1. The perihelion of the earth’s orbit about the sun is increasing at the rate of about 5.66 E4 meters

             Per year.

     2. The aphelion of the earth’s orbit about the sun is decreasing at the rate of about 6.3 E4

            Meters per year.

     3. These two observations mean that the orbit of the earth about the sun is getting closer to

             To a circle every year, but not at a very fast rate.

     4. The calculations of the heat transfer rate between the sun and the earth were found to be more

             Than 2 E26 joules per month. This was significantly more than all of the heat transfer

            Rates in the entire study. No explanation for this discrepancy was found.

     5. It was found to be possible to treat the earth as two hemispheres. The northern and the

              Southern. Calculations were then made assuming that they were independent

              Entities which rotate about the sun, but at the same time. The results of these calculations were that the northern hemisphere acquired about
              1.4 E22 joules of heat  per month more than the Southern hemisphere. These calculations seem to support the

              Observations that the northern hemisphere has heated up more than the

              Southern hemisphere in this current bout of global warming. No explanation

              Is available for the higher than expected heat transfer rates.

Several weeks were spent calculating gravitational interactions between the earth and moon. In general, it was found that the interactions are stronger than those for the planets. It was also found that there was a second order period of interaction of about 4 years with a third order period of interaction of about 24 years. These interactions are difficult to picture and are not presented here because the calculations did not yield any discernable trends other than that it appears that the earth-moon interaction is predominantly a cooling effect. The heats appear to be two to three orders of magnitude larger than those for the planets, but the highly oscillating character of these heats baffled the author when it came to determining time related interactions.

The overall conclusion from this portion of the study is that there must be a shearing or opposing gravitational force for heat to be produced. This is the overall conclusion for the Io studies and it was consistent with this study. It was necessary to assume that the gravitational forces of the planets were opposite to the gravitational forces of the sun for there to be heat production. That is the reason that it was not possible to get a correlation with heat from the earth-sun interactions. There was no opposing force.

The net results of these calculations in this study are that carbon dioxide is not required to make up as large a heat load as previously calculated----that is if you believe that carbon dioxide and the green house effect can in fact produce heat. The heat dump rate from this study accounts for 81% of the previously unaccounted heat. Consequently, carbon dioxide is not the primary causative agent for global warming.

It is interesting to note that if the green house effect is real, it will cause the temperature of the surface of the earth to increase (as seen from outer space), which will increase the overall heat dump rate, which will cause the earth to be cooled. Calculations indicate that for a 1 degree centigrade rise in temperature the overall heat dump rate will be increased by 1.4%. This represents an additional heat loss of 7.28 E21 joules per month which is almost 14 times larger than the current heat build up rate of 5.08 E20 joules per month. When you look at it this way, using heat flow rates rather than just temperature, it seems as though the earth’s temperature is self regulating. Perhaps that is why the temperature of the earth has not varied more than 2 degrees centigrade in the previous 2000 years. From these numbers and the perspective of heat transfer rates, it seems that the green house effect will actually cool the earth, rather than heat it up.

There will be lots of criticism regarding the heat calculations and the small mention of whether there are two gravitational heats working---one that heats the oceans and causes the ocean temperature to go up and down and one that heats the earth’s crust and causes a general baseline heat increase. The author’s response to that is illustrated graphically in Figures 19 and 20. The global land volcano frequency went along at a rather benign rate of 3 to 8 land volcanoes per 10 years until the 1990s when it shot up to 10 to 20 times that rate (see Figure 19)

(www.infoplcasc.com/ipa/AO763388.html). In a similar fashion, the global earthquake frequency went along at a 10 to 30 per 10 years rate until the 1990s when it suddenly shot up to 137 (see Figure 20)

(www.tttp://cn.widipedia.org/widi/Historical earthquakes). It is also notable that there were only 8 reported major earthquakes in the southern hemisphere from 1823 to 2000 but from 2005 to 2009, 13 earthquakes occurred in that same region. If you do not think there was an interaction with the crust of the earth, these figures tell a totally different story. It was not possible to gather data on the submerged oceanic volcanoes, but that would be interesting data if it exists.

So, what do Figures 19 and 20 mean? It is the author’s belief that as the temperature and heat content of the earth increased, the earth expanded. When that increase lessened, the earth started to readjust. Significantly higher incidences of volcanic eruptions, like those on Io, and earthquakes resulted.

If you do not believe that the global warming is abating, it is instructive to plot the land temperatures and the ocean temperatures on the same graph. This is shown in Figure20A.

In general, the land and ocean temperatures more or less paralleled each other until about 2000. At that point, the land temperatures continued to rise whereas the ocean temperatures leveled off and then started down. Keep in mind that the heat buildup in the earth is almost entirely in the ocean (refer to Figure 13A) and so the ocean temperatures are a direct indication of heat transfer. The leveling off and decline in the ocean temperatures is consistent with the calculations of heat flow rates from this study, is consistent with the volcano and earthquake rate and is consistent with Jupiter pulling away from the earth. The rising land temperatures is consistent with the projections in Figure 16. Whether the trends will adhere to the models in this study will only become clear with time.

So, what does the author’s crystal ball show with respect to global warming. As Jupiter gets further and further from the earth, it’s contribution to global warming will decrease even more than it already has. Saturn will get closer and closer, but it’s contribution will be much less than Jupiter’s was because it is about 1/3 the mass of Jupiter and about twice as far from the earth. It is doubtful that Saturn will cause any measurable global warming. When the planets are not inputting as much heat, the only interactions to be concerned with are the sun and moon. The moon is moving away from the earth at the rate of 38 millimeters per year (www.physics forums.com) and this will cause some warming, but rough calculations indicate that this heat transfer rate is about 6.3E17 joules per month, which is a drop in the bucket compared to Jupiter’s heat. The earth’s orbit around the sun is becoming less eccentric and that is cause for concern. In the 1800s, a mathematician named Milankovitch proposed a theory, which was later confirmed,(www.emporia.edu) in which he showed that the ice ages were a consequence of the earth’s orbit becoming almost circular. Consequently, we can look forward to cooling of the earth, but the rate of change will be very long as the cycles involved in this change are of the order of 20,000 years. However, when Jupiter moves away from the earth, we can expect to see some of this cooling.

What role will carbon dioxide play in the future? Now that it is determined that carbon dioxide’s role was not as large as previously thought, the models need to be reworked. It is conceivable that the green house effect will become more of a dominant player when the planetary interactions get smaller. However, this author does not think they will ever become anywhere near as large as the heating provided by Jupiter in the last 50 years.

The results of this study opens up areas of study that could be very enlightening. There is substantial information to indicate that the length of day for the rotation of the earth is correlatable to some of the data in this study. The author was able to determine that the location of Jupiter relative to the sun when the interactions occurred was critical, but the overall relationship eluded him. The heat flow generated by the gravitational force between the earth-sun and earth-moon and their relative movements, which could account for some of the overall heat dump from the earth may be an area of study worth pursuing The ability to equate gravitational forces with temperature and heat have far reaching theoretical implications for gravitational theories as well as the conclusion that heat increases as the planets separate. All of these areas were beyond the scope of this study. Of course, the logical area for further study is to take the techniques in this study and extend them backwards, prior to 1937 and see if some of the temperature and heat fluctuations of the past can be explained. There are ways to do this with much less than the 2 to 4 hours of labor per data point that the current study cost the author. Good luck with all of these areas.

CONCLUSIONS

There is really only one conclusion: There is a strong correlation between the gravitational attraction of the other planets with earth and the temperature and the heat of the earth related to global warming. The correlation is so strong and the heat that is produced is so much that this appears to be the main causative effect for global warming rather than carbon dioxide. In fact, it appears, based on heat flow calculations, that carbon dioxide and the green house effect may, in fact, be a cooling rather than a heating effect.

There are lots of other conclusions to be drawn. However, until the above conclusion is tested by other researchers and proven correct, the above conclusion is the only one of any importance. The author looks forward to astrophysicists investigating the phenomena highlighted in this study, using their more sophisticated models, and refining the results of this study. Remember, if it can happen on the moon of Jupiter called Io, it can happen to a lesser extent on earth.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded entirely by the author and his wife, Donna. The author wishes to thank all those good folks who made their studies available on the internet, and in particular for the availability of the calculational system provided by Fourmilab. This study would not have happened without that service.

The author also wishes to thank Dr. Ben Chen for his technical review of this article.

CAUTION

The author was hesitant to publish the results of this study because it will give those who do not think that we need to limit our carbon dioxide emissions ammunition for their positions. However, that is a separate issue. Just because carbon dioxide is not the cause for global warming does not mean that we should ignore the build up of carbon dioxide in our air and water. Continued discharge of excess quantities of carbon dioxide will surely affect our oceans and the biota that live in them in an adverse manner, which will affect us humans in ways that we may not be able to imagine. Because of that, the author is currently preparing an article delineating his “take” on the effects of unlimited carbon dioxide discharges (late summer at the earliest). The reason for going ahead with publishing of this article was that it is his belief that we should make our political decisions based on good science rather than having our politicians dictating the results of our scientific investigations.

FINAL

The author leaves you with one final figure (Figure 22). It is the distance from earth to Saturn with the distance from earth to Jupiter subtracted for all of the times of this study. The green line is a 25 month running average. It appears to have no scientific significance, but it looks like a work of art or an undulating flock of starlings. Enjoy.