Gas-Giant Exoplanets Cling Close to Stars

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Gas-Giant Exoplanets Cling Close to Their Parent Stars

Gemini Observatory’s Planet-Finding Campaign finds that, around many types of stars, distant gas-giant planets are rare and prefer to cling close to their parent stars. The impact on theories of planetary formation could be significant.

Finding extrasolar planets has become so commonplace that it seems astronomers merely have to look up and another world is discovered. However, results from Gemini Observatory’s recently completed Planet-Finding Campaign – the deepest, most extensive direct imaging survey to date – show the vast outlying orbital space around many types of stars is largely devoid of gas-giant planets, which apparently tend to dwell close to their parent stars.

Source

[NatureBoff]

Gas-Giant Exoplanets Cling Close to Their Parent Stars

I hate to say it Waspie, but this fits with the Ice Age Jupiter Hypothesis. You're not going to like it, but it's true. Edited June 29, 2013 by RingFenceTheCity

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I hate to say it Waspie, but this fits with the Ice Age Jupiter Hypothesis. You're not going to like it, but it's true.

It's not about liking or disliking, it's about supporting evidence. You love promoting hypotheses which have none.

[NatureBoff]

It's not about liking or disliking, it's about supporting evidence. You love promoting hypotheses which have none.

Not true. I've found excellent evidence for the 1,800yr millennial cycle, which is undeniable imv. You are unaware of the many problems of Milankovitch solar forcing as the primary driver for the 100ky ice age cycle which the new force tidal cycle hypothesis resolves in one go. He never considered inclination at all. FACT.

100,000-year problem

Main article: 100,000-year problem

The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. The greatest observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, while the theoretical forcing is smaller at this scale, in regard to the ice ages.[10] However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively great 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations.[11] Various explanations for this discrepancy have been proposed, including frequency modulation[12] or various feedbacks (from carbon dioxide, cosmic rays, or from ice sheet dynamics). Some models can reproduce the 100,000-year cycles as a result of non-linear interactions between small changes in the Earth's orbit and internal oscillations of the climate system.[13][14]

Stage 5 problem

The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) that appears to have begun ten thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have caused it (the causality problem).

Effect exceeds cause

See also: Climate change feedback

420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.

The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behavior is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).

The unsplit peak problem

The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125 ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies.[15] However, some researchers[who?] interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100 ka periodicity.[citation needed]

The transition problem

Variations of Cycle Times, curves determined from ocean sediments.

The transition problem refers to the switch in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1–3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41 ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this switched to a 100 ka variation matching eccentricity, for which no reason has been established.[citation needed]

Identifying dominant factor

N.B. Milankovitch believed that decreased summer insolation in northern high latitudes was the dominant factor leading to glaciation, which led him to (incorrectly) deduce an approximate 41 ka period for ice ages.[16] Subsequent research has shown that the 100 kyr cycle is more important, resulting in 100,000-year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last million years.

The problem which is easiest to see is the unsplit peak problem. This paper spells out that inclination is an obvious choice over the accepted choice of eccentricity Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle: eccentricity or orbital inclination?

Abstract

Spectral analysis of climate data shows a strong narrow peak with period ~ 100 kyr, attributed by the Milankovitch theory to changes in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit. The narrowness of the peak does suggest an astronomical origin; however the shape of the peak is incompatible with both linear and nonlinear models that attribute the cycle to eccentricity or (equivalently) to the envelope of the precession. In contrast, the orbital inclination parameter gives a good match to both the spectrum and bispectrum of the climate data..

Edited June 29, 2013 by RingFenceTheCity