How Barycentric Orbits Influence Climate

The New Zealand
Climate Science Coalition

18 November 2008 FOR SCOOP

How Barycentric Orbits Influence Climate

The newly appointed Minister for Climate Change, who strongly espouses the conventional IPCC view and also emissions trading, will be placed in a very invidious position long before the conclusion of this new Parliamentary term, says Dr Jim Sprott, OBE, MSc, PhD, FNZIC, a consulting chemist and forensic scientist of Auckland.

“But he has been warned. The projections of the IPCC are simplistic, superficial, and now proven wrong. The whole issue requires a fresh start, based on the mass of irrefutable data which has been assembled. Certainly New Zealand should not incur any expenditure based on the fallacious IPCC Report. Indeed, New Zealand should take a lead internationally to publicise the barycentric science, demonstrating how it explains the recent finding of low sun-spot activity, the very cold winter in Europe, and thereby destroys the whole ‘conventional wisdom’ of so-called global warming. Here is a real opportunity for New Zealand to lead the world,” said Dr Sprott.

In his paper on barycentric science, submitted to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, Dr Sprott writes:

It is an axiom of science that if the outcome of an experiment or event does not accord with that predicted by a theory, the theory must be discarded, no matter how attractive it may have appeared initially. That very situation now exists in relation to the projections of world climate as published by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC prediction of increasing concentration of so-called greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causing atmospheric temperatures to increase, dubbed “Global Warming”, seemed to have some merit, and there was widespread acceptance of it. However more recent impeccable data demonstrates that atmospheric temperatures are falling, and in fact have been falling for some years. The postulated connection between atmospheric temperature and atmospheric CO2 has broken down, and therefore the “greenhouse gas” proposition has failed. The disparity between the IPCC prediction and observed data continues to widen, and no amount of rhetoric can alter this. The tests on which IPCC relies now contradict its scenario, and therefore its proposition is discredited.

It also follows, as an axiom, that if there is some other theory which accords with observed data, that proposition must be given serious consideration, especially if the alternate theory also accords with and explains past factual data.

There is such a theory; that propounded by the late Professor Rhodes Fairbridge of Australia and others. Decades of scientific research and observational data, both recent and historical, have gone into this study, as detailed in the meticulous summary published in Australia by Dr Richard Mackey in 2007; “Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate”.

It is usually believed that the planets orbit around the sun, but this is not so – the sun and the planets orbit around the centre of mass of the solar system (termed the barycentre) in so-called “barycentric orbits”. Sometimes the barycentre is inside the sun, and at other times well away from the sun, depending on the juxtapositions of the planets especially Saturn, Jupiter and Neptune. The orbit path of the sun as the locations of barycentre and planets alter is complex, as demonstrated by Fairbridge. This divergent behavior causes widely varying outputs of energy from the sun on a regular basis, and these variations in the interactions between the sun and the planets have been assessed by various geological and related studies. The variations in energy correlate with uncanny precision with past vagaries of the Earth’s climate on a cyclical basis, the periodicity being about 179 years.

The correlations with recurring periods of very cold weather, as evidenced by historical data, can only be described as irrefutable.

Some years ago Fairbridge predicted that the next cooling period would commence in about 2006, and would be evident by 2011; and his prediction thus conforms with recent atmospheric temperature data, i.e. the Fairbridge hypothesis conforms with the observed data, and its predictions conform with the outcome. Like it or not, the barycentric orbit explanation for climate supplants the IPCC projections. Anyone who reads Mackey’s summary could not fail to come to this conclusion.

So what of the IPPC and their publication; “Climate Change 2007 : Summary for Policymakers”? At first sight an impressive document; however closer study reveals that it comprises no fewer than six “scenarios”; and there are wide variations between the “projections” of the six. Clearly there cannot be more than one correct prediction, so it follows that at least five of the scenarios are wrong. But which five? And if the IPCC is unable to discern between the reliability or otherwise of the six, how can we be expected to have any faith in any one of the six?

The short answer is that we cannot. And that conclusion is completely justified by Fairbridge’s research, Mackey’s summary of parallel research (109 references); correlation with and explanation of undeniable experimental data which is totally at variance with the multiple IPCC scenarios; and all in accord with the prime data.

To use the vernacular, it is no contest. The much-vaunted IPCC scenarios are patently wrong. The man-made climate change proposition fails. And with it fails the whole panjandrum of carbon trading; the Government’s Emission Trading Bill; Mr Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” which does not live up to its title. More to the point – the world’s climate will be cold and harsh for decades. And it’s started already!

So what effects will this inescapable cold period have on New Zealand? In a word, catastrophe. Space does not permit a detailed assessment of the many adverse effects, but the dire condition of our electricity supply must be mentioned. It simply will not cope. There must be a complete re-evaluation of policy as regards electricity, and a rejection of policies based on the now-discredited IPCC fantasy.

Then there is the matter of so-called sea level change, with claims usually based on apparent rise in sea level at some almost-submerged islands. But this proposition assumes that the shape of the earth is rigid and that changes in apparent sea levels constitute proof of rising water levels. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Earth is not a rigid solid – it is a plastic solid, and its shape is continually altering. A graphic recent example is the upwards lift of northern Canada as this large land mass continues to rebound upwards from downward distortion caused by the huge compression force of the kilometres-thick layer of ice which covered the continent during the last ice age. Distortions of the type in one region cause compensating distortions elsewhere, and it is illogical to ascribe a rise in sea level as being due to an increased volume of water. And this is especially so given the irrefutable research of Professor Morner (Sweden) that no such change is occurring.

Furthermore, the centre of mass of the world’s oceans are affected by the location of the barycentre, and as this alters due the planetary effect outlined above so will be sea level appear to alter.

In summary, the projections of the IPCC and simplistic, subjective and proven wrong. The whole issue requires a fresh start, based on the mass of irrefutable data which has been assembled. Certainly New Zealand should not incur massive costs based on the puerile IPCC data, and indeed should take a lead internationally to refute the whole of the “conventional wisdom”. Here is a REAL opportunity to “lead the world”.

Ends

© Scoop Media