People send me stuff, my email is like a firehose, with several hundred messages a day, and thus this message was delayed until sent to me a second time today. I’m breaking my own rule on Barycentrism discussions, because this paper has been peer reviewed and published in Elsevier.
George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:
Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation.
If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.
There have been many articles over the years which indicated that there were 60-year cycles in the climate, but this is the first one I’ve seen which ties them to planetary orbits.
– George
===============================================================
The paper is:
Scafetta,N.,
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications .
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010),doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015
I find his figure 11b interesting:
Here’s the link:
www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’d like to see that with the eruptions marked.
Astrology.
in which house is Venus today?
Can’t be right – that looks like a prediction…
Alex, just remember that copernicus was an astrologer and he was right about his ideas about the solar system. If it takes an astrologer to give us correct climatology, I’m all for it.
http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2009/11/non-linear-perspective-of-climate.html
Can’t say this is because of Jupiter or Saturn, but climate cycles are apparent if you use more than 50 years as your timeline.
alex says:
October 13, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Astrology.
in which house is Venus today?
Be respectful please!.
So you believe in ghosts like: Black Holes, Dark Matter, Multi dimensional universes beyond the “Land of Never More”?.
Everybody knows that is pure Voodoo Science, Witchcraft!.
Hope you are not old, because if you are, there is no hope for you.
I wrote NOAA with that question in 2007.
Here is the response.
x 2007x
From:
To:
Subject: Response to inquiry #xxxxx from Answers@NOAA.gov
We hope this answer has helped to resolve your inquiry. If it does not, please
use the link at the bottom of this email to clarify your question or comment on
the answer you have received. So PLEASE do not reply to this e-mail directly,
but instead please use the link below. It has been our pleasure to answer your
inquiry and we appreciate your interest in NOAA.
On x/xx/2007 you posed a question to Answers@NOAA.gov which was noted as inquiry
xxxxx.
The question you posed and our response are listed below.
Your Question, Comment or Feedback:
Is there a gravitational component to Global
Climate change?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Has anyone
looked at this solar
system’s planetary orbits to see if a discernable
relationship exists to our
global climate?
Thank you,
DXXXX X. King
Response:
Other than the tilt of the planet which accounts for our seasons, not that I am
aware of.
We hope this will help resolve your inquiry. If it does not, please use the
link below to add to or clarify your question. You may need to cut and paste
the entire link (it may span two lines) into the address line of your web
browser.
Not much new there. In 2003 I wrote short article
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
analysing Jupiter-Saturn vs. solar activity resonance. Scafetta’s mechanism of magnetic resonance is not new either, as many of readers may recall long and tedious arguments I had with Dr. Svalgaard on the subject. I wrote about the J-S effect, but do not think climate change is a direct response to it.
None of these offer a convincing mechanism, hence we have to look to the field anew.
Solar system, as the name implies is a ‘system’ and most of ‘grand events’ are rooted in that system, that has been known for long time, but on its own it does not move let alone resolve the climate debate.
Dr. Scafetta has to come up with some ‘down to Earth’ data that can be directly applied to what is recorded during last 350 or so years, if he is to make any impact on the climate lobby, otherwise his work will be dismissed and consigned to the realm of astrology.
There appears to be a confluence of opinions developing regarding the direction of our weather and climate. Scafetta’s various graphics suggest a distinct cooling is in the offing. This is consistent with what the Russians have been saying. Farmer’s Almanac too. Crop yields are down due to an unusually cool summer, while the vintners are rushing to get the grapes off the vine ahead of the first frost expected to be more severe than usual. And then there’s the near-record sea ice extent in the Antarctic and the Arctic ice is growing nicely.
How long will it be before John Holdren resurrects his explanation of the mid-70s cooling, blaming the new trend on irresponsible human activities? Certainly, a cooler world will exert severe pressure on civilizations, more so than a warm planet. I will watching for the explanations of how global warming caused the cooling (as we’ve seen similar tortured arguments already).
Not Astrology, but bone fide astronomy and astrophysics. Real, measurable and verifiable.
So if you pass the global temperature data through a narrowband filter which is matched to the natural cycle of (other metric of your choice), you get sinusoids that seem to match really well by eye! Gosh, who’d have thought that would happen.
I’m sure Dr. Briggs would have something to say about this, hockey pucks and all.
For obvious reasons. I’ll wait for the comments of Dr Leif, of course.
On page 11.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
fig 10 A and 10 B
Glob. Temp. minus its quadratic fit curve
Rescaled 60 year modulation of SCMSS index (+5 year shift-lag)
Detr. global temp. (8 year moving average)
Detr. global temp. (+61.5 year lag-shift
This is the “””perfect”””” adjustment of temperature ….. adjustment … adjustment…. adjustment.
If the moon causes tides on Earth is there any reason doubt that the planets have a similar effect on the Sun? Clearly there are questions of the scale of any such effect on the sun given the distances and relative masses of the objects in question but anyone who dismisses the idea as ‘astrology’ clearly doesn’t understand much about gravity, the solar system or anything else probably.
Hm, looks like we should be in a cool trough, not at about record highs (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/05/september-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-60-deg-c/)
Oh and while I’m on the subject, a bit of trivia for you.
The Flu, derived from the Italian Influenza…meaning ‘the influence’. Influence of what I hear you ask…why The Planets. Apparently the ‘astrologers’ of the day assigned some connection between the behaviour of the planets and the appearence of epidemics…is there a relationship between climate/weather and illnesses? I’ll let someone else can work that out!
Is this Climastrology. :o)
(toungue in cheek)
“”” Spence_UK says:
October 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm
So if you pass the global temperature data through a narrowband filter which is matched to the natural cycle of (other metric of your choice), you get sinusoids that seem to match really well by eye! Gosh, who’d have thought that would happen. “””
When I used to work for Tektronix in the early 60s, we used to joke that what the world needed was narrower bandwidth oscilloscopes; because if you tried to look at your nice smooth sinusoidal signals with a wide bandwidth oscilloscope, it would simply distort the signal and add all kinds of sharp edgy trash onto you lovely signal.
The EMI aftermath of a single lightning strike; when passed through a narrow band filter will produce a nice smooth sinusoidal response; and narrow band filter tuned to any frequency(almost).
Exactly the same thing happens when you run “climate data” through a filter; it will also generate a signal which was not there to begin with.
Interesting presentation observations and conclusions.
Worth a re-read tomorrow.
It includes actual verifiable, non-contradicting, easily observable (falsifiable) predictions?
I thought that such things were not allowed in climate science.
How did this get published?
“Consequently, the current climate models, by failing to simulate the observed quasi-60 year temperature cycle, have significantly overestimated the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic GHG emissions by likely a factor of three.”
“This study reinforces that climate change is more complex than just a response to added CO2 and a few other anthropogenic GHGs.”
“This failure indicates that the models on which the IPCC’s claims are based are still incomplete and possibly flawed.”
Look at the y-axis labels and compare with http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Even if some physical mechanism can be imagined, it would only explain a small proportion of the variance, and none of the trend.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Thus quoth the Bard.
Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter control the 11-year solar tides which influence our climate. Then there are the lunar 18-year nodal and 1,800-year declination cycles, the Landscheidt Impulse Of the Torque cycles of the Jovian giants, and finally the Earth’s own Milankovich cycles, which round out the total control of our climate. This isn’t astrology. This is historic, provable, repeatable, predictable fact. This is the climate change elephant in the room.
Klyashtorin and Lyubushin wrote “Cyclic Climate Change and Fish Productivity” in which they detailed many more-or-less 60 year cyles.
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?
As an aside, George Taylor provided data to those authors about Pacific NW precipitation.
Ken Hall says: “Not Astrology, but bone fide astronomy and astrophysics. Real, measurable and verifiable.”
Looks more like wiggleology, bumposophy, and manipulography to me. I would love for Scafetta (and Vuk!) to be right, but I’m not convinced. Too much long-term smoothing, which is known to shift peaks about. Too short a period to be convincing, and the bumps don’t match at times. I think a huge grant is in order, though, to suck up some of the excess funding provided for batguanoclimatophrenology and the like.
Spence_UK says:
October 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm
A narrow bandpass filter will certainly extract narrow-band oscillations from virtually any time-series, but those oscillations need not be pure sinusoids or be coherent with the supposed driver. The coherence shown in Scafetta’s 11b (after rather arbitrary time shifts) is unimpressive. There certainly are multidecadal and quasi-centennial oscillations in climate records , but their relationship to J or S orbits remains moot.
I don’t think anyone can dispute the fact that the climate oscillates (it gets warmer and then it gets colder). However we should hold this paper to the same standards as any other. Let us begin by passing red noise into this procedure, and see what comes out the other end :p.