FOREWORD: I don’t agree with many of the claims made in this paper, particularly the retrograde tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle claims. This is not a peer reviewed paper. That said, I’m willing to allow discussion of it, so be skeptical of these claims and force the authors to defend the work. As the author writes:
All open-minded readers are invited to discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of this theory or to falsify it.
There’s a summary PDF here. – Anthony
Guest post by Joachim Seifert, www.climateprediction.eu
In our new study (PDF), which we introduce here for discussion, we identify five macro-climatic mechanisms that govern a long time span of 20,000 years. In order to “govern”, they have to comply with two basic requisites: (1) clear visibility in paleo-climate proxy records and (2) continuous presence or multiple recurrence in a longer than one millennium time frame.
The state of the art in climate-forcing mechanism analysis is that presently available General Circulation Models (GCMs) underperform substantially in terms of predictive power, showing significant mismatches and model deficiencies in model-data comparisons. This may not surprise when macro-forcing mechanisms were substituted by coupled micro- and nano-forcings and feedbacks. It is evaluated in the literature that all GCMs perform well for the first 500 years backwards from the present, but then lack skill for the previous 9,500 Holocene years. This is critical for climate models, as they have also to show their validity on time frames of more than 1,000 years.
Our study proceeds with the selection of 10,000 years of the entire Holocene interglacial and, for comparison, of another 10,000 years of a purely glacial time span (37,000-27,000 BP). For the purpose of identifying macro-forcing mechanisms, we use the GISP2 record due to its high time and temperature resolution and its visibility of macro- and micro-temperature swings.
The presented climate-forcing study considers the effects of Milankovitch cycles, atmospheric CO2-concentrations, Solar Inertial Motions (SIM), the retrograde tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle, and of two major mechanisms, the Earth Orbit Oscillation (EOO) and the Cosmic Impact Oscillation (CIO).
After detrending the GISP2 data according to SIM and Milankovitch cycles, the EOO and CIO remain as dominant climate drivers. Both the two EOO and CIO cycles act as solar amplifiers: They do not act by increasing overall solar output, but they vary Earth-Sun distances, thus increasing or decreasing energy input received on Earth.
Detailed mechanisms for both oscillations are provided; their calculation methods are pointed out. The Holocene proves to be highly CIO disturbed over 8,000 years, whereas the 37-27k years BP time period remains CIO-calm with just one CIO-event to be noted.
As shown in the picture presented (above), the climate of the 37-27k period is overwhelmingly governed by the Earth Orbit Oscillation. We permit remaining small to medium deviations of the EOO from the GISP2 curve to undergo GCM-analysis for identifying and attributing micro- and nano-drivers in coupled systems. The EOO oscillation cycle is a continuously occurring mechanism. By knowledge of its dynamics, we are able to reconstruct the EOO cycle line from 37-27 ka BP, as displayed in the graphics. Comparison of the reconstruction line to GISP2 data yields an accurate curve match. Only one minor CIO impact event occurred at 31,000 BP. By knowing impact date and energy, we were able to reconstruct the missing EOO oscillation peak.
Concerning the most interesting time span of 10,000 years Holocene: We were able to identify 13 CIO events out of 24, which, according to impact mechanism dynamics, must send Holocene temperatures steeply down after each impact event. As the Earth orbital line oscillates, temperature recoveries follow after each cold temperature peak. The striking feature of this recovery pattern consists of a higher solar energy yield and higher GISP2 temperatures compared to the temperature level given for the date of any impact. We demonstrate this important feature in detail, because it remains left out in present GCMs, another modeling deficiency and obvious cause for GCM model-data mismatches.
The 37-27 ka BP period, as presented in the graphic, can easily be reconstructed based on the calculated EOO cycle combined with one minor CIO impact. The same applies to the Holocene, which can easily be reconstructed based on the course of the EOO cycle, and then enhanced with the superimposition of given 13 random CIO events.
Concluding the study, we zoom in onto EOO and CIO forcing of the past 3,000 years (1,000 BC to present) and provide an outlook onto forcing mechanisms, which are expected to act within the future 500 years. The GISP2 proxy temperature curve and macro-forcing mechanisms are compared to the Hockey Stick temperature evolution pattern.
Details of demonstrated astro-climatic relations are as of today, 2012, new and original climate change knowledge. The IPCC has not been able to provide supplementary data on cycle mechanics. The identification of 5 macro-climatic drivers, missing in current GCMs, unmistakably proves that climate science is not settled yet. One missing driver may be excused, but not five. The notion of “The science is settled”, upheld since the days of Galileo, is a spiritual relict of the past.
The paper is available here. Again, this is new knowledge, a new view on what drives climate in the long run. All open-minded readers are invited to discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of this theory or to falsify it. Productive criticism, in other words.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Science Magazine has a book review that seems to be applicable here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Science-2012-Velikovsky.pdf
Comparison with the paper presented on WUWT may disqualify me as on of “All open-minded readers”.
And the projection is … ??
Wow, within ten minutes I learned of two things that will have equal importance in my life: this paper; and Win 8 will be released in about a month, just in time for Christmas.
BTW, save yourself now and Abandon the Dark Side.
Thank you, Anthony for giving us and all your (and our peer -) blogger
community the possibility to participate in new knowledge. We, the
authors, hope, that all bloggers will download the paper and read it
slow and carefully over the weekend in their armchairs at home, having
made up their minds by Monday or Tuesday…..
We are interested in starting an ‘interactive open discussion’, which
is part of an ‘open review process’ and which we see as necessary
to better the climate discussion which, as everybody of us is aware,
decreased in quality over the years.
We evaluate our climate blogger community as the most concerned
about climate, and not the Alarmist institutes, who are after goverment
grants and million donations from the big insurers, pepping up ‘global
dangers’ and mongering in hype.
We are sure, here on Anthony’s blog, qualified people meet, who
are able to judge, what is new, into which direction research should
go. Yearlong bloggers accumulated a lot of own knowledge and are
not less capable of assessing a paper’s quality than certified professoral
“experts” who, knowing each other (therefore Warmist “peers”) bless each
others “work”. I even think, it is more difficult to stand up against peer
bloggers then against comrade Warmist peers…..
We present, for the first time, compact new knowledge on the astro-climatic
relation, shown in 5 forcing mechanisms, which are ALL visible
in paleo-temp proxy records. We know as well that many peer bloggers are
not familiar with the topic.
We are grateful that Anthony and his website provide the opportunity
to learn of new insights…… many things can still be improved, no doubt..
but don’t forget, the paper contains already 18 pages including details graphics,
worth for a detailed look, and expanding the paper with additional ‘missing
topics’ would turn it from a paper into a book, for this reason only we had
to set important aspects aside, such as the SIM motion and the 60-year
Scafetta-cycle, which was, and Anthony pointed in his introduction to it,
a bone of contention, back in February….we will resolve this astronomical
topic in our next paper, 2013. We agree that Anthony will completely stay on
the sideline and that we altogether, all we peers of Anthony, should make an
utmost effort to get to the bottom of climate truth. He fights in Television and
joins us all in a skeptical peer platform. Ourselves, the authors, can help with
humble research and years of work. Now, its time that our peer bloggers
get the microphone and do their peer part……
The authors, J Sei.
To J. Martin: …. In the paper…JS
interesting. I have read through your pdf
I am currently researching a fifty year period each side of 1250 because of the supposed decline towards the LIA that took place around that time, following a volcanic eruption, according to many eminent scholars,
You have 1260 marked as a climate turning point, yet its difficult to see why it deserves the name as according to you (and to my research) nothing much really happened either side of that date. What is your definition of a climate turning point and why does 1260 fit into that definition? Thank you
tonyb
Question:
How did they wind up with a 4.1MB summary of a 1.5MB paper?
Answer:
“Summary” is a two-page glossy handout. Unless you’re a fan of sales brochures, might as well go straight to the paper.
This is one of the silliest papers I have read in a long time. How do the authors know that the Santorini eruption was the result of a cosmic impact (news to any geologist), and not just an ordinary, abet large, eruption? Because it coincides with a cooling in the GISP2 record, and the authors have declared that coolings in the GISP2 record can be caused by impacts but not volcanism. This is about a perfectly circular an argument as it is possible to have.
And how do cosmic impacts affect climate? By nudging the earth out of orbit. This new exciting idea should be supported by pages of detailed calculations of conservation of momentum and angular velocity. I am sure that the authors have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which their margin is too narrow to contain.
The authors have clearly not read, or at least not understood any paper using GCMs to reconstruct Holocene climates. The authors claim that GCMs ignore orbital cycles when hindcasting Holocene climate. This is plain wrong. Appropriate orbital parameters are used for models of say early Holocene or LGM climate.
The authors claim that they have a better reconstruction of Holocene climate than available from GCMs. They omit to include this reconstruction in the paper. All they present is a curve fitting exercise for one locality with an indeterminate number of parameters and arbitrary events portrayed as impact events as required.
There are numerous other problems. [snip – keep your hate on other issues to yourself – Anthony]
The scale of the graphs seems a little exaggerated.
The SIO responses do not seem to be well-defined, other than the dates of their starting points. I am reminded of looking for particle tracks in bubble chamber photos. Is there any other information that you can bring to bear on which of the identified responses ought to have had longer durations or larger amplitudes?
I am not willing to class this with Vellikovsky’s work. But the obvious question is: What events of the next 20 years might add credibility to the model (should they occur or not occur) or detract credibility? That is, can the model be tested?
We thank Anthony that he provided his platform to us and the peer
blogger community, which needs to know details of the cosmic-climatic relation.
A lot of us know little of this relation, due to the fact that the atmospherical side of
climate change was inflated over the years, at the same time downplaying
astronomical features.
Now it is time that Anthony’s large and sceptical community will download the paper,
reading it on Sunday with a cup of coffee and respond from Monday on.
Anthony will stay “skeptical” on the sideline, which is good, why should he do what
all peers are supposed to do?
Our paper includes years of analysis work and is consistent in itself. It has already
18 pages, to most of peers, new in details. We anticipate that this or the other peer
appreciate additional detail, but mind, the paper would then turn into a book.
We point out that our paper is superior in accuracy compared to all GCMs (global
circulation models) at present on the market. They all underperform shown in
model-data comparisons and we claim the highest accuracy in reconstructing the
Holocene with all five cosmic climate forcings All of us may check upon the accuracy
of competing institutional GCM climate models, to verify our claim.
We are convinced that we delivered a substantial contribution to climate science.
and all of us, we, Anthony’s peers, are allowed to judge the proposed new knowledge
in climate science
The authors JSei.
oops: substitute CIO for SIO in my remark.
As seen in the Abstract, one mechanism is Solar Inertial Motion (SIM).
Googling led to an explanation provided in a Q&A with “Ing. Ivanka Charvátová, CSc. from the Geophysical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences (Prague)” posted at Motl’s site, The Reference Frame:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/06/interview-is-climate-change-caused-by.html
A. How does the barycenter of the solar system matter? Why would the Sun moving “across an area the size of 4.3 solar radiuses” have any meaning? This motion is not with regards to anything larger than the solar system which has an effect worth noting on either the Sun or the solar system. Thus the reference frame is wrong, consider the center of mass of the Sun as fixed with the rest going around it, the effects of the planets and the rest are treated as tidal forces. And stop the inane talk with the Sun and planets twirling together like skaters on ice.
B. As said above, SIM incorporates “Motion… governed by the Jupiter-Saturn order.” The paper has as one mechanism “the retrograde tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle”. Thus “Jupiter-Saturn” is incorporated twice. The SIM mechanism should be broken down, separating the chaotic and “Jupiter-Saturn” parts, with all “Jupiter-Saturn” bits unified.
Dr. Svalgaard, I read your book review, and I must agree that it does not make you look like an open-minded person:
“Gordin does, however, hint at a possi- ble strict line between those dubbed “pseudo- scientists” and those who are ‘denialists’— the latter of which he sees as essentially dis- honest about their work to cloud consensus on issues affecting monied interests, such as big tobacco or big coal.”
Maybe Anthony will take this opportunity to finally come clean about all those big checks “big coal” has been writing him. (That’s sarcasm, folks.)
Contrast this Gordin character with the late Carl Sagan, speaking on the very same subject of Velikovsky’s ideas:
kadaka asks: “How does the barycenter of the solar system matter?”
Mostly it matters because as the Sun orbits around it, the net solar angular momentum changes as the combination with the rotation of the Sun around its own axis.
One might note that this orbit around the barycentre is the exact method used to find extrasolar planets by measuring the doppler effect of the radial component of that motion for other stars.
Though no mechanism has yet (to my knowledge) been established, the smooth transition of the angular momentum curve is disrupted from time to time by the orbital effects of the largest planets, and each time a characteristic ripple occurs we see a Grand Solar Minimum such as the Wolf, Spoerer, Maunder or Dalton.
http://www.landscheidt.info/
The analysis of net angular momentum predicted a Grand Minimum starting sometime in the early 2000s, and we’re now seeing the lowest levels of solar wind strength since measurements began some 50 years ago, and the longest solar cycle (23) since the early 1800s. We’re also seeing the warming of the 20th century stagnating, quite possibly because Svensmark and Kirkby might be correct in their hypothesis that the effects of cosmic ray flux changes cloud formation enough to affect the climate.
Argh, I tried to link to 3:53 into the Sagan video. Fast forward to that point for the key difference between Mr. Sagan and Mr. Gordin.
Being only a Simple Red Neck, I am not qualified to speak on the science. However, it is refreshing to see someone put their work up for review by skeptics instead of a self-serving cabal of un-indicted co-conspirators.
I would respectfully suggest to my fellow Gentle Readers that they show a little grace as they wield their hatchets (if indeed that’s what they choose to do). The author has asked for your considered opinion and that would suggest a courteous reply would be in order.
After watching the VP debate last night, I have developed a personal distaste for churlish buffoons.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
GlynnMhor says:”the net solar angular momentum changes as the combination with the rotation of the Sun around its own axis.”
Physics is quantitative, not just handwaving. Please give magnitudes for any effects that result.
“the smooth transition of the angular momentum curve is disrupted from time to time by the orbital effects of the largest planets, ”
Total angular momentum is conserved, so if this were true the angular momentum of the planets would have to change, so their orbits would change. Please give data showing that.
Anthony is correct to be skeptical of claims related to planetary motions….
FINALLY….a look without green goggles of our planet as a component in an astronomically varying solar system. I love the use of “micro-forcings” and the [7] “GHG forcing is either too small or free of long term trends.” Inviting public review of this data is a bold move that will make the GHE syncophants very nervous on a number of levels….the entire Carbon forcing and mitigation industry is in immediate danger. I am having a fruitless ‘dialogue’ with a proponent of ‘intervention’ and am ready to introduce a new lexicon….
The term “geo-engineering” is an insult to engineers….henceforth….this effort should be described for what it is….demigods playing omnipotent with grossly inadaquate knowledge….therefore all who support planet wide human intervention are practicing GEO-SORCERY.
[cue the singing fat lady]
List%of%CI+events:
(1) BC% 6460,% the% strongest% impact% of% the%
Holocene:% the% “Storegga % impact% slide”% in%
Norway.% Three %impact% craters%in% the%North% Sea%
produced% a %megatsunami,%which% struck%300%km%
of% Norwegian% coastline,%washing% and% sliding% a%
large%mass%of%coastline%rock%into%the%water.
It’s generally accepted the slide caused the tsunami. Not the other way around. We know how high the tsunami was on the coast of Scotland (21 meters) , which is consistent with the slide being the cause. The tsunamis on the Norwegian coast were no more than 10 meters. Again consistent with the slide as the cause. An impact in the North Sea large enough to dislodge the amount of material in the Storrega slide would require a much larger tsunami.
And the slides are 100 Ks and further off the coast. A coastline that doesn’t face the North Sea.
Where are these North Sea impact craters?
If the rest of the paper is as ‘fictional’ as this, then Leif’s Velikovsky comparison is appropriate.
richard telford says:
October 12, 2012 at 2:45 pm
“I am sure that the authors have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which their margin is too narrow to contain.”
Hey! You didn’t write that – paraphrasing Pres. B. O.
The original was in Latin by Pierre de Fermat.
http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/xpage/FermatsLastTheorem.html
I have a lot of problems with this paper.
The biggest one though is that the authors begin by stating that historical TSI reconstructions produce variations of only 3 w/m2 which are insufficient to explain temperature variations over the same time period. Then they go on to explain it must be effects of the Milankovitch cycle, the Solar Inertial Motion, and the Earth Orbit Oscillation.
Well these are all things that could only cause a change in earth’s temperature by changing the TSI! Since the paper states that the TSI variation are too small, the only conclusion one can draw (provided that they are correct on this matter) is that these things do NOT affect the temperature of the earth enough to explain the earth’s temperature variation.
I think there are some interesting points made in the paper, I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but the central premise of the paper seems to contradict its own evidence.
“Steamboat Jack says:
October 12, 2012 at 4:23 pm”
Well said.
There is one major fault with this paper, there is no short term EOO (earth orbit oscillation) that has any measurable impact on climate or sun/earth distances. This is similar to the debunked solar chord theory (Bailey) which wrongly suggests the Earth orbits the SSB instead of the Sun. JPL data shows the perihelion/aphelion distances only vary by a maximum of 15000 kilometers over many thousands of years. The full debunking and graphs available in a previous article.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/200
Interesting that this and Bailey’s contribution both have a profit based book in the background.
As someone pointed out earlier the idea of Earth orbit being disrupted is pretty radical and needs to be backed up by at least some basic calculations before it can be given any credibility at all. I class it as being hair-brained until I see something much more convincing.
Accepting that these impacts are correctly identified (not certain) and that a major impact causes drastic cooling, which seems accepted in principal, a more credible explanation for the rebound over-shoot (as opposed to simple recovery to pre-impact temps) is the presence of a strong negative feedback in the climate system accompanied by the induced changes having some kind of “inertia”.
That kind of overshoot is typical of a damped oscillator’s response to a sudden change is state.
Temp change itself does not have inertia but whatever climatic changes are involved may well have a persistence that could cause that kind of effect.
Having promised J-S cycles and SIM , they get little more than passing comment. Disappointing.
I have long suspected that volcanoes are climate neutral due to such climatic rebound. Major volcanoes are usually followed about 6 years later by a warmer period. I suggested that this was visible in Bob Tisdale’s recent ENSO graphs if he omitted the unwarranted ‘detrending’.
Climatic rebound would be a more credible hypothesis than the wobbly orbit proposition.