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.
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.
repeatedly referring to this as “new knowledge” is a bit presumptuous. New ideas may be more accurate.
Davidmhoffer suggests: “… historical TSI reconstructions produce variations of only 3 w/m2 which are insufficient to explain temperature variations over the same time period…”
TSI, though, accounts only for the output of the Sun, and not for the effects that changing solar actity has on the atmosphere.
The whole problem with most of the arguments presented here is that boxes have been draw by so called “open-minded readers and presenters” and they define anyone who dares to think outside these self-constructed boxes as insane nuts who are not worthy of a moments consideration.
Yes, it is true that there are people who do not use rigorous scientific principles and logic to try explain the world around them and yes, they are annoying and it would make life much easier if they would shut up.
However, some of these so-called “close-minded readers” are actually using sound scientific principles and logic to point to a phenomenon that may [and I emphasis the word may] be worthy of further (reasoned) consideration and study.
Imagine that you were an alien who was observing Earth for the first time. After a period of observation, you noticed that many people who coughed also had brown stained fingers and yellow teeth. You might come to the (erroneous) conclusion that having brown stained fingers and yellow teeth might actually cause people to cough.
Imagine that when you presented your finding back on your alien home-world, you were laughed off the podium by fellow scientists who told you that there was no physical reason why brown finger and yellow teeth could cause coughing in humans. Not only that, you were told that if you even mentioned the topic of humans coughing and colored human anatomy again you would be driven from the hallowed halls of scientific discourse.
Now the question arises, who gains and who loose from this blanket ban on discussing this “sensitive” topic.
Those who gain are the people who are the self-appointed “gatekeepers of Science” who genuinely feel they have once again rescued the scared realm of scientific discussion from the vile stench of pseudo-science.
Those who loose are those who have a genuine interest in understanding why so many humans cough. It may be true that brown stained-fingers and yellow teeth does not cause humans to cough but there is the possibility that having brown fingers and yellow teeth may point to a third factor that is actually causing humans to cough excessively (e.g. the fact that many of the people who cough also smoke cigarettes).
The same is true of the topic of SIM (solar inertial motion) and the Earth’s climate. Couldn’t it be just possible that a third phenomenon (not necessarily directly related to SIM) that just happens to vary on time-scales that match is having an influence on our climate? Or should we do what our scientific gatekeepers ask and make this a taboo topic which must never see the light of day?
One of these two choices may lead to scientific progress while the other just makes the self-appointed gate-keepers feel good. I’ll let you guess which one does which.
I am with Leif on this and cannot be open minded in discussing this analysis. The only meaning that the motions relative to the barycenter can have is as a type of clock, a time measuring machine. The barycenter is just a very useful point to describe the whole planetary system with respect to the galaxy, in larger frameworks:
The barycenter has no mass and no meaning for the forces appearing within a planetary system; it is just a parametrization, as the geocentric system is just a parametrization of the planetary system. It makes no sense to discuss angular momenta etc in the barycenter system as in the geocentric system.
I will also agree with the criticism that any many parameter periodic system of functions can be used to analyze/parametrize , a la Fourier transform , any mathematical function, but will point out that using Fourier analysis is standard practice and nobody worries about the origins of the underlying function or the meaning of the sines and cosines if the fit is useful.
The value of this work will lie in predictions for the future where it will be validated as a useful parametrization or not.
dalek suggrsts: “Total angular momentum is conserved…”
The changes in angular momentum of the planets change the angular momentum of the Sun.
As seen in the link below.
http://www.landscheidt.info/
I do not claim that the mechanism is well established, but the predictive ability of the hypothesis considerably exceeds that of the AGW alarmism.
More particularly the effects of angular momentum have observable consequences for overall solar activity. Not merely TSI, which is close to invariate, but for cosmic ray changes discernable in the Be10 record:
http://www.landscheidt.info/
And changes in cloud cover, driven by cosmic ray variation, itself modulated by solar activity, are referred to in the various IPCC Reports as ‘poorly understood’ .
But, there is no reason that cycles have to be of a fixed constant and that they may not grow in their
—————-
Well they just contradicted the definition of a cycle. There is reason to claim cycles have a fixed period and amplitude and oscillate around a fixed point. It’s a definition.
After this it’s just gets worse by arbitrarily assigning random peaks to a supposed period. Somehow if there is a period marker and no corresponding peak, no problem.
Anthony is right to suspect this paper comes from crank land.
p.s. to my previous : as there are such a great number (13) cosmic impacts needed in the holocene I will also state that it is not a very good map either for future predictions. One would need to predict the impacts to get any predictivity.
Von Neuman is attributed with the saying : Give me four parameters and I will fit an elephant, give me five and it will wave its ears.
“The changes in angular momentum of the planets change the angular momentum of the Sun.”
Yes. But since angular momentum is conserved, the changes in the sun and changes in the planets’ angular momenta are equal and opposite. So where are the changes in the planet’s orbits?
From LazyTeenager on October 12, 2012 at 8:47 pm:
There could be frequency modulation. You clearly have cycles but the period is not fixed.
That is something I wonder about when seeing the curve fitting attempts to the SSN. They’ll vary the amplitude modulation fit, but while the variation of longer and shorter cycles is visible they don’t try a frequency modulation fit. People trained in signal processing looking for a signal in the solar cycles, don’t think to try FM?
jimmi asks: “So where are the changes in the planet’s orbits?”
It’s not the orbits of the planets that make a difference to solar activity, but rather disruptions in the smooth flow of changes in the orbit of the Sun.
Having discovered that LazyTeenager is disparaging the paper, I decided to give it another chance.
Sorry, but it gets no better with time. In brief, there’s a buncha stuff that sorta kinda correlates to a bunch of other stuff, but there is no physical process to connect them together. The one thing that could in theory tie them together is TSI, which the paper itself says is not of large enough magnitude to explain the temperature variations they are trying to correlate to. Even worse, the paper essentially begins by proposing the existance of 5 long term forcings, and then pretty much finds them by excluding anything that doesn’t match them so that all that is left is data that does match.
This is akin to standing on the side of a highway, certain that by analyzing the traffic patterns, one can discern the inner workings of a combustion engine. Sorry to be so negative, I think some of the criticisms of the models are fair, but the paper presents a theory that simply has no merit.
Until the authors can provide data to substantiate the Earth Orbit Oscillation and the SIM effect on the Holocene there is no point discussing this paper. The EOO data is only available if you buy their book?
So much information to process, and as usual so little time to do it in.
Colour me sceptical on the impacts. The analysis appears to use some circular logic, ie. saying wiggles show there must have been an impact, and then saying the impact explains the wiggles. Apologies to the authors if I have misinterpreted this, but it does seem to be lacking in rigour.
On the planetary cycles,however, we have something extraordinarily interesting, Leif’s dismissal notwithstanding. There appears to be no possible mechanism, yet the solar minima do seem to line up with the planetary cycle. It looks like the ‘next’ solar minimum (as in Maunder, Dalton, etc) was due to start a decade or more ago, with the low Earth temperatures starting within a very few years at most. So it appears that, unlike most climate science, Earth is about to provide us with the experiment that can disprove the theory. Thus far the theory seems to be on track, with a very long solar cycle #23, a weak #24, and the Ap index falling off a cliff in 2005. We shall see. Of course, it could all be caused by something else with the same ~170yr cycle length.
Give me four free parameters and I will fit an elephant. Give me the fifth parameter, and the elephant will be wading his tail.
Mike Jonas says:
October 12, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Thus far the theory seems to be on track, with a very long solar cycle #23, a weak #24, and the Ap index falling off a cliff in 2005. We shall see. Of course, it could all be caused by something else with the same ~170yr cycle length.
Yes, but the planet correlations in respect to angular momentum theory (which is quite different to the paper questioned in this post) go back at least 5000 years. Wolff and Patrone have provided one mechanism that has so far not been rebutted via any paper.
It is interesting to note in relation to suggested pseudo-cyclic variations of ~170y and ~60y that these are essentially the frequencies that characterise the met office Hadley processing and ‘bias corrections’.
Subtracting hadSST3 from it’s source data in ICOADS and fitting a two cosine model find 67 and 184y cycles both peaking around year 2000.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/hadsst3-cosine-fit1.png from the article here
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/#comment-188237
That does not mean that affecting cycles was their intended outcome but since the size and timing of the adjustments are largely hypothetical rather than observation based it may be a result of underlying assumptions that causes the processing to remove these longer cycles or some unexpected result of their data processing.
From the discussion that followed with John Kennedy, it seems they had never looked at what effects their processing was having on the frequency content of the data.
Part of the process involves projecting the “climatology” (mean seasonal variations) of 1960-1990 period onto the pre-war part of the record, any deviation is then considered to be a measurement “bias” and is removed.
There is no discussion of why the annual variations of that period should be of the same magnitude as those of the arbitrary reference period, it is apparently so ‘obvious’ it does not need proof or justification.
In any case the net effect is the removal of the long cycles from the SST record.
PS. It is possible that the Hadley processing has inadvertently _detected_ the nature of the long term variations by their implicit assumptions that there aren’t any.
anna v says:
October 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm
“The barycenter has no mass and no meaning for the forces appearing within a planetary system; it is just a parametrization, as the geocentric system is just a parametrization of the planetary system. It makes no sense to discuss angular momenta etc in the barycenter system as in the geocentric system.”
Tidal forces could influence the internal oscillations of the “solar dynamo”.
So far the alarmist side of science for climate change has been some what lacking in predictive skill. This would indicate that their models and ideas are not particularly cosher and new ideas are needed. That our little blue planet seems to respond to a repeating climate change with a sine wave type frequency would indicate that the cause is external and although you can not set your watch to it. The change happens with a regularity that can only be a cycle of either our solar system or our galaxy or both. This study one of many by people over a long period are trying to come to terms with some very complex interactions. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water.
That science has failed to explain the basic forces and their interactions makes the task very difficult, and looking at patterns and cycles, and, trying to make sense of them is all we do.
Geoff. Presumably this is the link you omitted to give when you mentioned Wolff & Patrone.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/218
Not sure I understand what the difference is between Milankovich cycles and Earth Orbit Oscillations. I thought Milankovich was about the changes to the Earths orbit?
As I’ve pointed out before, for those folks distressed at “no mechanism” and at the barycenter orbit changes not mattering (and in keeping with the stained fingers model 😉 there is a lunar tidal cycle that explains the connection. As orbital resonance locks various things in fairly fixed relationships, the lunar tidal cycles match the planetary / SIM cycles (as the planetary movements determine orbital resonance timing). That’s enough to be the ‘mechanism’ and explain why solar variations can’t be causal, yet are coincident.
No, not proven… but peer reviewed:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
The same orbital mechanics “issues” also moves the earth into / out of the center of the swarm of debris that make up the Taurids, so also could be modulating atmospheric dust and impact events directly as well.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
Basically “the all go together when they go” so you will get all sorts of “correlations” that are not causal. Yet the lunar / tidal cycle has a clear mechanism and tie to shifting cold water / overturning currents in the oceans. Wiggle matching will not sort it out, and there is the potential for each effect to be “too small” yet in concert sufficient. Thus we risk serial elimination and the fallacy of ignoring the whole by dismissing all the parts individually.
OK, commenting without reading the paper, but it’s very late at night so likely Sunday before I’ll have time. From the summary here, I’m concerned about “double booking” SIM / Earth motion and ‘wiggle matching without mechanism’ along with the potential for “double booking” the planet cycles as well. (Triple booking?).
anna v says:
October 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm
“The barycenter has no mass and no meaning for the forces appearing within a planetary system; it is just a parametrization
As is the centre of the Earth-Moon system , yet the two rotate about their common centre of gravity. One of the two daily tides is a centrifugal effect with respect to rotation about this point.
So I guess tides have no meaning and are also just parametrisations.
Is there any independent evidence for this Cosmic Impact Oscillation? Something like craters dated to the times?
In the absence of that, it just looks like something thrown in to make the graphs turn at the right times.
Reply to James Cross: What you suggest, is the typical AGW-science, we stay
away from those methods….. Please read the cosmic impact chapter, all info is given,
There are historical accounts over the past 3,000 years….. the impact science
is still young, as I wrote, in public memory, impact consequences are (almost) forgotten,
who in Alexandria today remembers the AD 365 impact megatsunami, which wiped
the town from the map?
What we need is high accuracy impact field dating to identify the remaining impacts,
because, as I also pointed out, the are more then 10 impacts outstanding
Get into detail reading, check Wikipedia and other sources first and question me
after….JS
Re Charvátová “….discovered the solar motion can be classified into two elementary types. Motion along a trefoil-like trajectory governed by the Jupiter-Saturn order…..”
She discovered the sun cycles between these two types of SIM at regular intervals. One type is very smooth trefoil type curves, the other is more chaotic.
It seems to me that ‘tugs’ away from a regular motion could perhaps have ‘internal effects’ on the sun (ie, “shaken, not stirred”).
Is it possible this affects the sun’s output (energy, cosmic rays)? Has any such cyclic change been detected?
It would seem likely if there is any significance in SIM that it is its effect on the sun itself that matters, as the earth will maintain its position in relation to an earth/sun barycenter which is very close to the center of the sun.
The only conceivable alternative might be that little ‘tugs’ on the earth’s orbit somehow affect airflows in the atmosphere, and tides in the oceans. (Oh yes, and IIRC, Charvátová also posited some relationship with volcanic eruptions… also plausible?…. small gravitational ‘tugs’?)
E.M.Smith says:
October 13, 2012 at 4:55 am
E.M. your comments (as well as your blog) are always interesting, well thought out and to my mind fun I would be hard pressed to say whom I have learned the most from, you, Willis, or Anthony. Since it was Anthony that ultimately by way of WUWT introduced me to both you and Willis I would say that the title goes to him..
Reply to Philipp Bradly: The problem always is that some people want to shoot first,
think they killed the brown dude but the ammunition was worthless. Go to Wikipedia
concerning Storegga: In order to produce a megatsunami, the impacts have to be
in the North Sea, clearly demonstrated WITH A MAP. Many impacts desintegrate due
to the immense heat during the ultimate miles of flight and produce a straighforward
line of impacts (all explained in the paper…..). The impacts can be veryfied by
mineralogical studies…please see the whole cosmic impact discussion…such as
Clovis event etc)…an impact on Earth produces micro-spherules, “Homogenites” and
glassy rock melting…..
Only AGW can invent stories such as an impact was nothing more then regular Greenland
ice melting…. Please read our detail, answers are given in the paper….
Nice climate model. have Bob Tisdale check how well it represents SST.
Have Willis check the response to volcanos. And then lets see a headline article on THAT.
E.M.Smith says:
October 13, 2012 at 4:55 am
“…..there is a lunar tidal cycle that explains the connection. As orbital resonance locks various things in fairly fixed relationships, the lunar tidal cycles match the planetary / SIM cycles (as the planetary movements determine orbital resonance timing). That’s enough to be the ‘mechanism’ and explain why solar variations can’t be causal, yet are coincident…”
Aaah! E M Smith makes a lot of sense here! Thank you!
Actually I think this paper is an excellent start, It may or not be correct but it is the way this science should be done. BEFORE you start ttrying to ascribe observed temperature fluctations to mankind, you need to know what the natural background temperature fluctuations are.
I think everyone can agree that there are cycles found in a multitude of places in nature. It would be natural to expect there are cycles as well in the earth’s tempearature. The current “best” knowledge about earth’s temperature history suggests that there are several cycles that are occurring. It would also not be unreasonable to expect that there may be occassional random events which MIGHT temporarily interrupt tthe effect that these cycles have on earths temperature (such as comets, huge volcanic eruptions, man’s large scale land use changes and GHG;s to name a few).
As a first pass, the authors have attempted to correlate the temperature changes in the past with the frequency of other natural cycles. Correlation does not prove causation, but it does suggest there MAY be a link to causation. For some prominent people here to suggest offhand that these correlations between temperature and other cycles are are just merely coincidence and that you are a crackpot if you even suggest there could be a connection is ridiculous. First you find correlations, which they have done, and then you try to determine if this correlation is mere coincidence or if they indeed are cause and effect related.
Not necesarrily relevant to this paper discussion or trying to pick on Bradley but I am curious about a statement made. He says . “We know how high the tsunami was on the coast of Scotland (21 meters) , which is consistent with the slide being the cause. ” Does the estimate of 21 meters take into account that the oceans are believed to have been 40 meters lower than they are “today” when the 21 estimate is made? I have not read the paper that makes the 21 meter esitimate so I have no idea if that was taken into account or not. If not, then the 21 meter estimate may be wildly innaccurate.
To alcheson: You must include one more point: The falsification! We detected, as
you write, ‘correlations”. Wonderful. Now these correlations are multiple x multiple and
if I say: “This is a valid, steadily occuring mechanism”…then get into the detail and falsify
it by pointing out that the mechanism DOES NOT WORK/APPLY in this x-time span of
the Holocene…. This is the method….. we checked on it many times whether a
falsification would be feasible….. if there were a real possibility of falsification, I would
have used the standard AGW terminology, we are all used today, such as the standard
phrasology: “” This indicates…, this may…we believe…we assume…etc.pp ” and
almost total use of conjunctives…. a master of the conjunctive phrasology, for example
is a guy called S. Rahmstorf, I can point to pages of him with 30 conjunctives on a
single page and labelled then as high class “AGW-science”…..JS
Second reply to Geoff Sharp:
Our paper is already 18 pages long and you run the SIM+Landscheidt page….
fine…. all peer bloggers are invited to read all blog comments until now and I
BET, they all will find your SIM/Landscheidt stuff most tedious/uninteresting/boring
(Bloggers you can correct me, if I were off this time).
If you now trying to hijack Anthony’s climate page to convert it into a Landscheidt-SIM
discussion would be against the interest of our peer climate bloggers.
I indicated (not forgot) the SIM-motion as a WEAK climate mechanism, visible in
GISP2 from 7,000 to 1,000 BC, producing a minimum concave temperature
effect. This should suffice for our 20,000 year Holocene paper. How it exactly
works, is SIM-motion material…..and we could dispute it among ourselves by Email,
you have mine for a long time…. If you insist, please take the SIM effect OUT if you
want, fine, “SIM produces NOTHING” for you, no problem…. this does not effect the
four remaining forcing cycles, they have a different mechanism…
…….Let me ask politely not disrupt the peer reviewing by exigencies in respect to you
private SIM website….JS
Reply to Steve Mosher: Good idea with Bob Tisdale and checking on SST…
and Willis, he did 3 outstanding quality posts on volcano eruption effects,
from which I, myself, drew a lot….I would like his opinion about the paper..
.he is the one to notice fine details….he would never produce an AGW linear
hockey stick and declare the rest of data as “noise”….We do not do this in
our skeptical climate science….. JS… Please someone forward the message
to Willis, good move, detail checking….
Geoff Sharp: 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 problem with considering Barycentres is that it is the centre of *mass*. Planetary movement is determined by gravitational forces that, while linearly related to mass obey an inverse square law with distance. So centre of mass is not the same thing as centre of gravity in a non-uniform field like the interplanetary scale. For an object on the table it is , to all intents, the same thing. This means the two terms are often used synonymously. At the planetary scale this is an error an probably the cause of this confusion.
Why is it that the CIO is always down-up-down? If these are from impacts, are not the sources of the impacts randomly distributed, and wouldn’t the impacts from opposite directions have opposite effects?
The caption to Figure E Might be: “Examples of Cosmic Impact Oscillations: impact, rebound, and stabilization of Earths orbit flight and resulting temperature changes.”
Reply to Matthew: I like this great question! We gave it month’s of thought…..
It is a fact/correlation in GISP2. NO IMPACT without this impact pattern…see
also paper resume…. Why is it? Maybe a skeptical peer mechanical engineer
from space or aircraft science could explain why an impacted system tries to
stabilize itself in this described way. …..
Lets describe it for now this way: We take a system with (1) centrum attraction and
(2) centrifugal forces. Impacts enhance centrifugal forces (the orbit at both ends
of the minor axis) goes into the cold run, then rebounces into the warm and
stabilizes itself as the 3. phase….
If we had included calculations of this pattern, our peer climate blog community
would have been not amused…. because its too specific….lets an knowledgable
mechanical peer engineer do some explaining…..JS
We are dealing with a chaotic system of at least dozens of variables, with patchy data for any, and no real knowledbe of all. Let us admit that there are two other KNOWN variables that would have climate impact and have an astronomical driver, Earth’s internal fission rate and Earth’s magnetism. Since there is no agreed model for our varying magnetic filed, let us start with the model presented in “No Loophole for Your Soul” posted at Canada Free Press. We have a 900 mile diameter cubic cyrstal Iron core, which by it’s cubic nature would be a very large permanent magnet. A spinning magnet creates an electric field, which creates a magnetic field. The Iron core of the Earth makes one more rotation every 400 days than the crust. If this is due to internal particle impacts, or changes akin to a motor-generator set with the Sun, is speculation at present. There result is obvious, as the magnetic axis and magnetic field strength vary over time. Earth is partially protected by the magnetosphere, which means only partial protection for solar particles. Less magnetic protection means more particle impacts on high temperature, high pressure fissionaable material as well as the surface and atmosphere.
Give ME four parameters….and if those four parameters include GRAVITY, MAGNETISM, FISSION ENERGY and THERMODYNAMICS….then i too can make an elephant wag his tail.
Last two questions:
1. Did you make a list of geologically identified impact events that produced no discernable signal in the temperature data? It would be interesting to compare other features (e.g. estimated energy of the impacting object) of these impacts to the impacts that produced discernable signals.
2. Does your theory depend on the orbit-changing effects of the impacts or do you consider other possible effects such as atmospheric dust kicked up by the impacts?
Reply to Matthew:
Please read the impact mechanism page before asking, its all there. The impact
dust question is new: Therefore answer: Dust belongs to the micro- and nano-drivers…
..there is no detectable signal as dust driving Holocene temperature evolution….
As micro-driver, it always peeters out after some years, there are many optical
transparency dust studies on the atmosphere… as volcanoes, hurling millions of
tons of ash into the air……
there always is clean breathing after a couple of years…The dust does not
drive the climate…….JS.
J. Seifert: and
almost total use of conjunctives
What does that mean? Can you provide some examples?
So far the skeptic blog peer review process shows no bias. Everything presented is openly scrutinized.
However it appears the correcting discourse should be friendlier. With the old peer review process corrupted the new still needs discourse maturity.
Anna v said:,
“The only meaning that the motions relative to the barycenter can have is as a type of clock, a time measuring machine. The barycenter is just a very useful point to describe the whole planetary system with respect to the galaxy, in larger frameworks:”
Th e question is – why does there appear to be a correlation between time scales associated with the SIM (Solar Inertial Motion) and aspects of the Earth’s climate?
You are correct in pointing out that motion of the Sun about the Barycentre is probably only a clock that is ticking at the same rate as another planetary effect upon the Sun.
The most promising of these other planetary effects is a process of tidal-torquing. This is where the periodic alignment of Venus and the Earth distorts the deep layers of the Sun’s convective zone (near the tachocline) so that they no longer have a spherical shape. This distorted region becomes susceptible to Jupiter’s gravitational force which is able to tug on the asymmetric bulges. This tugging force either slows down or speeds up the motion of material at the base of the Sun’s convective zone in such way as to effect the level of solar activity on the Sun.
If this tidal torquing model is correct then there is only an apparent connection between the SIM and the level of solar activity [that effects the Earth’s climate].
The real connection is as follows:
Motion of Jovian planets ——> determines stable orbits of inner terrestrial planets
So Motion of Jovian planets indirectly determine time scales associated with the tidal distortion of the deepest layers of the Sun’s convective zone.
Motion of Jupiter relative to the Inner terrestrial planets determined the timing and nature of the tidal torquing of the deepest layers of the Convective Zone. –> governing the level of solar activity.
SIM only APPEARS to correlate with the level of solar activity because SIM is being determined by the same factor which determines the level of tidal torquing on the Sun [which determine the level of solar activity on the Sun]. This common factor is the motion of the Jovian planets.
LazyTeenager says:
October 12, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Well they just contradicted the definition of a cycle. There is reason to claim cycles have a fixed period and amplitude and oscillate around a fixed point. It’s a definition.
There is no reason why you can’t have a cycle of increasing or decreasing frequency! A cycle does not mean fixed frequency. A crystal oscillator slowly changes it’s frequency over time.
J. Seifert: If we had included calculations of this pattern, our peer climate blog community
would have been not amused…. because its too specific
How about an appendix, or “supporting on line material”? Such computations will, I think, eventually be necessary to wash away the Velikovsky analogy.
I don’t understand why the effect is always “down => up => down” if the impacts are random. Wouldn’t you expect random impacts to produce random orbital deviations, hence random temperature effects?
To Matthew: Theoretically …but I cannot do this without explaining a lot of
background…. the SIM motion is a special matter, and as descibed as over
a multi-millenial period, needs explication with graphs up to a million years
back…. After this paper, I will explain the decadal Sat-Jup cycle in 2013, in
autumn 2013 the anti-science infantilistic hockey stick, which is also important
to shred into pieces and then comes the SIM and the glacial sequence
analysis….. this is my schedule for 2013-14. Sorry if you have to wait, I believe,
the present paper provided sufficient conversation items, greetings…. JS
Kelvin Vaughan: There is no reason why you can’t have a cycle of increasing or decreasing frequency! A cycle does not mean fixed frequency. A crystal oscillator slowly changes it’s frequency over time.
As does an automobile engine during acceleration and deceleration. I present this as a somewhat more common experience among non-electronics boffins.
J. Seifert claims a 790 year temperature cycle. .
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_seifert_790.gif
But the temperature reconstructions show a complex mostly threefold extrema with a frquency of 2/1827 years, which can be shown as a heliocentric synodic function of two planets with some difference in frequency and one has a great ellipticity (Pluto). This is especially indicated in the temperature reconstruction of E. Zorita (ECHO) between 100o AD and 1200 AD.
Seifert deals in his book also with a different distance for the times of cold resp. warm climate:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/aphel_1.gif
But is not.
V.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm
As seen in the Abstract, one mechanism is Solar Inertial Motion (SIM).
………..
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.
Kadaka
I presume that you will be passing your opinion onto those astronomers searching for ‘extrasolar planets’ who do so using just such a motion of the planet’s parent star to indicate their presence?
“Doppler spectroscopy is an indirect method for finding extrasolar planets from radial velocity measurements via observation of Doppler shifts in the spectrum of the star around which the planet orbits.
Over 90% of the extrasolar planets known as of September 15, 2011 were discovered using Doppler spectroscopy.
HISTORY
Otto Struve proposed in 1952 the use of powerful spectrographs to detect distant planets. He described how a very large planet, as large as Jupiter, for example, would cause its parent star to wobble slightly as the two objects orbit around their center of mass.[2] He predicted that the small Doppler shifts to the light emitted by the star, caused by its continuously varying radial velocity, would be detectable by the most sensitive spectrographs as tiny red shifts and blue shifts in the star’s emission. However, the technology of the time produced radial velocity measurements with errors of 1,000 m/s or more, making them useless for the detection of orbiting planets.[3] The expected changes in radial velocity are very small – Jupiter causes the Sun to change velocity by about 13 m/s over a period of 12 years, and the Earth’s effect is only 0.1 m/s over a period of 1 year – so long-term observations by instruments with a very high resolution are required”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy
AND
The following is a list of 456 extrasolar planets that were only detected by radial velocity method –– 31 confirmed and 323 candidates, sorted by orbital periods. Since none of these planets are transiting or directly observed, they do not have measured radii and generally their masses are only minimum. The true masses can be determined when astrometry calculates the inclination of the orbit.
There are 160 members of the multi-planet systems –– 21 confirmed and 139 candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extrasolar_planets_detected_by_radial_velocity
These astronomers are going to be extremely upset that you have identified the failing in their (and Newton’s) logic and their life’s work is wasted.
Alternatively, you could hypothesize why it is that only the Sun of all the stars in the universe with planets does not have any change in radial velocity due to the planets in orbit around it.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm
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….
We talk again on the same subject.
I suggest you read the works referenced here:
HISTORY
Otto Struve proposed in 1952 the use of powerful spectrographs to detect distant planets. He described how a very large planet, as large as Jupiter, for example, would cause its parent star to wobble slightly as the two objects orbit around their center of mass.[2] He predicted that the small Doppler shifts to the light emitted by the star, caused by its continuously varying radial velocity, would be detectable by the most sensitive spectrographs as tiny red shifts and blue shifts in the star’s emission. However, the technology of the time produced radial velocity measurements with errors of 1,000 m/s or more, making them useless for the detection of orbiting planets.[3] The expected changes in radial velocity are very small – Jupiter causes the Sun to change velocity by about 13 m/s over a period of 12 years, and the Earth’s effect is only 0.1 m/s over a period of 1 year – so long-term observations by instruments with a very high resolution are required”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy
You are at liberty to disagree – but astronomers have been using radial velocity changes causing Doppler shifts for some time.
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.
The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits. Have you never wondered why that is? What possible force could cause the change from a circular to an eccentric ellipse for a coupled system as large as Earth/moon or even Jupiter and its moons?
Reply to Volker Doormann:
We are peers on this website and you are the good, star gazing, esoterical ASTROLOGICAL guy…I know, Pluto told you all, stars do not lie and because Saturn crossed the Venus line,
the discussion paper must have many flaws….. My climate peers, Doormann has spoken…JS
anna v says:
October 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm
I am with Leif on this and cannot be open minded in discussing this analysis. The only meaning that the motions relative to the barycenter can have is as a type of clock, a time measuring machine. The barycenter is just a very useful point to describe the whole planetary system with respect to the galaxy, in larger frameworks:
The barycenter has no mass and no meaning for the forces appearing within a planetary system; it is just a parametrization, as the geocentric system is just a parametrization of the planetary system. It makes no sense to discuss angular momenta etc in the barycenter system as in the geocentric system.
The path of the solar system through space is described by the barycenter not the Sun’s center of mass. The sun describes a path around that barycenter as the solar system orbits the galaxy. This variance in velocity (wobble) is seen in other stars. What force is required to make the sun leave a smooth velocity and ‘wobble’ in an epitrochoid pattern? It is not just a theoretical nicety a force affects the Sun’s path through space. A similar force affects the orbits of all the planets. Why do you think the Earth follows Milankovitch cycles?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit
In 1989, Jacques Laskar’s work showed that the Earth’s orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the initial position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years’ time. Modeling the solar system is subject to the n-body problem.
Surely if you are correct the planetary gravitational effects are so minimal that there is no ‘n body’ problem and you can forecast the positions of the planets perfectly? Why do these astronomers see things differently?
Ivanka Charvátová and Pavel Hejda
A possible role of the solar inertial motion in climatic changes,
33rd International Geological Congress August 8-14, 2008, Oslo,
http://catriskglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/charvatova.pdf
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:45 am
Thank you for your kind words. Let me start by saying that I find your ideas thought-provoking.
I am concerned by the following claim:
My main concern, for this paragraph as well as for the paper as a whole is, where are the numbers? Where is the data to back up your ideas?
My other concerns, in no particular order, are:
• When there is a collision between between a cosmic object and the earth, as far as I know there is no resulting “oscillation” in the orbit of the earth. It takes up a very slightly altered orbit, and that’s it.
• How much altered? Depends on a host of factors, but consider the masses. The Chicxlub asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs is estimated to have weighed on the order of 6e+14 kg. The mass of the earth is about 6e+24 kg … that’s ten full orders of magnitude larger. The earth has ten billion times the mass of even that huge asteroid.
• It is not clear what you mean by the term “orbital run equilibrium”.
• Estimates of “units of megatons” or “multitudes of Hiroshima bombs” do not tell me much. Your average thunderstorm releases about as much energy as a Hiroshima bomb …
You follow the previous quote by saying:
While this may all be so, the devil is in the details.
• How do we know that the collision will elongate the minor axis of the elliptic orbit of the Earth?
• Why not the major axis?
• How much (as a percentage) can a collision with something one ten-billionth of the mass elongate elongate either asia?
• Where are the astronomical observations, or even theoretical calculations, that support this claim of minor axis elongation?
You continue:
I fear I don’t understand that at all. What does “the orbit swings into reverse” mean? And how can it swing into reverse “toward the opposite orbit side”? Also, I don’t understand why anything should start “from the furthest end point positions”.
Finally, all of this assumes that the disturbance of the orbit from the collision will result in a damped oscillation on either side of the original orbit. You further assume that this oscillation will die out, and leave the planet in the original “orbital run equilibrium”.
I see no reason to assume that either of those is true. After the collision, the planet will immediately take up a new orbit. If it speeds the planet up, the orbit will be further from the sun, and vice versa.
But there’s no swinging on either side of the original orbit back to the previous “equilibrium”.
In closing, let me again recommend to you a consideration of the relative masses. The Chicxlub asteroid hitting the earth is the equivalent of a 75 kg man being hit by a mass on the order of one milligram [UPDATE: a friend points out I meant a microgram] … one millionth of a gram. A gram is four-hundredths of an ounce.
Do you think that being hit by a mass, not of one gram (4/100 of an ounce) but of one millionth of that mass, one microgram, will affect the orbit of a man?
All the best,
w.
The cosmic connection in this paper is far overblown. Even mentioning the De-Campo impact as having any importance for climate (this impact produced about 5000 tons of metallic debris and hardly any crater), is suspect.
If the frequency of impacts were as high as this paper implies we would see it in many other proxies that simply aren’t there.
To Dennis Ray Wingo: Here another example of someone overblowing without
having read the paper at all…. airing wishfull AGW – Warmist nonsense….
Let me confirm again: (1) The IMPACT PATTERN &together with the (2) TP-EOO
SHIFT prove the occurence of an cosmic impact, which are 2 features for an impact…..
Both cosmic features together cannot be produced by any terrestrial catastrophic
event, since purely terrestrial events cannot cause orbital movements….
I get slowly tired to answer to trolls, who “air and overblow” themselves, in order to
feel important…my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer
blogging site….JS
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm
“• When there is a collision between between a cosmic object and the earth, as far as I know there is no resulting “oscillation” in the orbit of the earth. It takes up a very slightly altered orbit, and that’s it.”
Due to orbital resonance, the slightly altered orbit of Earth would subsequently be nudged back into its old shape. As resonant systems usually take a while to reach equilibrium again, one would expect an overshoot in the other direction, and over many orbits, the shape of the orbit would oscillate with ever smaller amplitude of the deviation from the equilibrium orbit.
J. Seifert says: October 13, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Reply to Volker Doormann:
We are peers on this website and you are the good, star gazing, esoterical ASTROLOGICAL guy…I know, Pluto told you all, stars do not lie and because Saturn crossed the Venus line,
the discussion paper must have many flaws….. My climate peers, Doormann has spoken…JS
The simple point is: I have shown that the global climate is a LOGIC conclusion from the synodic STAR motion, and YOU have not, and nobody else.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_remss_ghi_modi.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/svalbard_vs_ghi6.gif
V.
The authors have achieved their objective by receiving more productive analysis in one day than in six months of ‘traditional peer review’. The article addresses ‘primary forcings’ as being the isolated, end-result forces, when in fact it is the secondary forces and associated amplifications and buffering that matter. The above mentioned magnetosphere changes, geo-fission changes and tacholine tidal-torquing are excellent examples. As a simple analogy, consider climate to be soundwaves in a room with a mechanical clock. The cyclic pendlum governor and spring, or weight driven gears do make a ‘primary’ periodic sound, but these sounds are occasionally over-ridden by a louder ‘secondary’ dong. Earth’s thermostat is connected to a similar astronomical clock, which sets the baseline fission rates and level of magnetosphere protection. It is the effects of these secondary changes that are the governing factor, with NO input from the micro-forcing of GHG.
DirkH says:
October 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Thank you for your thoughts, Dirk. I don’t see how that can be strictly true. The momentum of the earth would be different. So although it might end up in something similar to its original orbit, I see no reason to assume it will return to its “old shape”?
I take your reasoning regarding the effects of orbital resonance. However, if it oscillates it will oscillate about the new value, not the old value.
In any case, for me to be convinced, I’d have to see the full simulations with and without the impact. It’s easy to say that orbital resonance will return the orbit to the “old shape”. But for Mr. (Dr.?) Seifert to claim that it is happening in a particular time frame, he needs to calculate the size and direction of the initial change in the Earth’s orbit, as well as the subsequent orbital resonance.
Let me emphasize again. The Earth has ten billion times the mass of the Chicxlub asteroid. How much change in the Earth’s orbit are you expecting when they collide? Show me the numbers.
All the best,
w.
Ian W on October 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm
GlynnMhor on October 12, 2012 at 4:00 pm
That makes two who are claiming importance of the movement of our Sun’s barycenter, is given by such wiggling being used by astronomers to find planets around other suns.
This may be important to alien astronomers determining if Sol has planets, and admirals of alien space navies wondering if Sol is harboring potential threats that require destroying.
But not important to we who are part of the solar system, as we do not see this barycentric motion from our frame of reference.
P Solar says; “As is the centre of the Earth-Moon system , yet the two rotate about their common centre of gravity. One of the two daily tides is a centrifugal effect with respect to rotation about this point.”
Er, no. If the tides were due to rotation about the earth-moon centre of gravity, then they would be a mo(o)nth apart. The tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon being greater on the side of the earth closest, at that time, to the moon than it is on the opposite side. i.e it is due to the gradient in the gravitational field which is why the tidal force is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance, not the inverse square. It happens twice a day because the earth rotates on its axis, not because it rotates around the earth-moon centre (though this latter point affect the mo(o)nthly variation in the magnitude)
Ian W says:
“In 1989, Jacques Laskar’s work showed that the Earth’s orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the initial position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years’ time. Modeling the solar system is subject to the n-body problem.
Surely if you are correct the planetary gravitational effects are so minimal that there is no ‘n body’ problem and you can forecast the positions of the planets perfectly? Why do these astronomers see things differently?”
Several points: Firstly I do not see anyone saying there is no n-body problem. Secondly,classical n-body problems are solvable to arbitrary precision given enough computer time. Thirdly, it is true that over a very long time period e.g the hundreds of millions of years mentioned the motions
resemble that of a classical chaotic system, but if you go down that path you are admitting that there are no cycles at all! But fourthly, and most importantly, you need to consider time scale. Over periods of a few hundred, or thousand, years the planets are completely predictable. Consider Captain Cook, sent in 1769 to the South Pacific to observe the Transit of Venus. Venus turned up exactly when and where it was predicted to be. As it did in 1874, 1882, 2004 and 2012. But this is the sort of time scale over which you claim “The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits” So please provide evidence for you statement.
RE: J. Seifert: (October 13, 2012 at 10:18 am)
there always is clean breathing after a couple of years…The dust does not
drive the climate…….JS.
I wonder if the effect of orbital, non-atmospheric debris might be longer lived.
Good paper.l
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 7:51 am
Reply to Philipp Bradly: The problem always is that some people want to shoot first,
think they killed the brown dude but the ammunition was worthless. Go to Wikipedia
concerning Storegga: In order to produce a megatsunami, the impacts have to be
in the North Sea, clearly demonstrated WITH A MAP. Many impacts desintegrate due
to the immense heat during the ultimate miles of flight and produce a straighforward
line of impacts
No, the problem (yours that is) is you run into people who know more about these things than you do.
There is no evidence of North Sea Holocene impacts, and the North Sea is probably the best surveyed seabed in the world.
There is no evidence of a mega-tsunami. Just tsunamis consistent with the Storegga slides of glacial debris.
As I said, those slides were 100 kilometers and further from the coast, a coast that does not face the North Sea. It is physically impossible for a tsunami to cause the required amount of debris at those locations.
What map?
Map on Wikipedia showing 3 oval impact craters in line….
Various people keep mentioning the techniques used to detect planets around other stars as if this proves anything about how planets may or may not influence the properties of the star. For example Ian W mentions the uses of the Doppler effect and asks “why it is that only the Sun of all the stars in the universe with planets does not have any change in radial velocity due to the planets in orbit around it.”.
Well of course the change in the radial velocity of the Sun would be detectable when viewed from outside the Solar System, but the fact that you ask makes me suspect that you do not really know what “change in radial velocity” means and how the Doppler effect works. It is actually quite simple. Suppose an astronomer is observing a star whose orbit is affected by an unseen object. Suppose when first observed the star in its orbit is moving towards us. Half an orbital period later it will be moving away. This is the change in velocity. This is what causes the Doppler effect. There is a periodic change in the observed frequency of the light from the star, which allows the orbital period to be measured, which allows deductions about the distance and mass of the unseen object. But note this – it is only the observed frequency that changes, due to motion relative to the observer – the light emitted by the star has the same frequency all the time, so you cannot use the existence of this technique to argue that the motion affects the properties of the star – it may, but the Doppler effect is not proof that it does – do you think that when you hear the siren on an ambulance change pitch as it goes past, that the ambulance has been changed? So, sorry, but no. If you think there are effects then you cannot use the extra-solar-star-detection methods as proof – you need something more local. So what is it?
Not necesarrily relevant to this paper discussion or trying to pick on Bradley but I am curious about a statement made. He says . “We know how high the tsunami was on the coast of Scotland (21 meters) , which is consistent with the slide being the cause. ” Does the estimate of 21 meters take into account that the oceans are believed to have been 40 meters lower than they are “today” when the 21 estimate is made? I have not read the paper that makes the 21 meter esitimate so I have no idea if that was taken into account or not. If not, then the 21 meter estimate may be wildly innaccurate.
There are multiple studies. This paper contains a summary. The tsunami heights are above the sea level at the time.
https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/729/Bondevik-al-03-EOS.pdf;jsessionid=51AA06481A1EE8E723E7650C8BD7AF22.bora-uib_worker?sequence=1
And no, sea levels weren’t 40 meters below current levels.
Dear Willis, I am pleased you discovered this blog and the discussion in progress….
.and as I said, you are the one who goes after the fine details….. Your question
is good: How to quantify the impact forces with numbers…..
Let me say the following; 1. The paper is already 18 papers long and I believe,
that every peer, who got all through to the end, will take a deep breath and
hope that he grasped everything, due to the multitude of new info, which most
of our peers NEVER heard of….
2. Putting numbers into every paragraph would extend the paper into a book,
and you can see the paper is concise, compact, intertwined in their forcings.
Myself, I did not see a way of cutting out one single point of the presentation in
order to put desired calculations for sections to be omitted…The paper would
have suffered in its global astronomical context… and I already reduced the
paper substantially by taking the Scafetta-cycle and the SIM-motion out, which
have to wait/are planned for next year ….
To your observations: 1. The “high voltage pattern” must show/and shows after
each impact. If no detectable pattern, there was no impact…Here you can start
trying to falsify by FINDING an cosmic impact WITHOUT a GISP2 impact pattern.
We tried and could not, therefore we maintain the impact pattern is a STANDARD
IMPACT FEATURE AND CLIMATE FORCING…[I believe the AGW-team will try
to do this but its too hard and they will lose their teeth trying]
2. The cosmic impact on the Earth’s surface does not
have to be very strong…..please take one well documented event: Tuettensee,
Bavaria, BC 207, as documented….enlarge it from the NOAA GISP2 data base,
the most detailed version and check upon each decade…. go ahead…
the impact crater field is well measured out…. the impact strength was not
especially high, even a “mini”-force impact….. My explanation: An impact
pushes the planet maybe one inch/foot/yard to one side….not more, but as
the planet flies with 30 km/second,
this “small” off-course push accumulates tremendously after a few million of
orbital miles…and the planet needs its “astronomical time” to settle on the
middle path again…..
…When I was 16, driving 50 miles/h on my motorcycle, I got only slightly hit
onto the stirring bar from one side…. the bike was impossible to control, also
the end of the ride and the bike….a slight touch was enough, the Earth’s speed
produces the off-course effect
3. The periods with their TP (turning points) reveal the
astronomical causation of all impacts (impact shift) ..it is the COMBINATION OF
THE IMPACT PATTERN TOGETHER WITH THE TP-SHIFT showing the
clear impact…….and a terrestrial cause (volcanoes, earthquakes) is not capable
of shifting an orbital TP…do not forget this feature….
Take AD 1255 as example the impact knock down from a top, high temp TP
position into the GISP2 lower boundary cold position….What the desperate AGW
team does, is putting a volcano eruption onto the date of 1255 as cooling cause
…but too late….cooling took place AD 1178-1255 BEFORE the eruption, as you
yourself noted in your volcano analyses..
There is another wealth of Additional details, worth to read over again several
times
…..JS
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:42 pm
my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer blogging site….
It seems you are being hit by a healthy dose of wonderful skepticism…
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Regarding the length of the paper, goodness, dear friend, what do you think “Supplementary Online Material” is for? Fermat’s Last Theorem may have been too long for Fermat to write in the margin … but I’m sorry, saying you don’t have room to detail your claims simply doesn’t work in the electronic age.
Regarding the numbers, perhaps you could start with the following calculation, You are claiming that the collision of the Earth with another object one ten-billionth of the Earth’s mass makes a significant change in the Earth’s orbit. You say the orbital change is enough to change the average temperature of the earth.
I don’t believe that. I want to see the calculations for the disturbance of the orbit and the resulting change in TSI (total solar irradiance).
In addition, you are neglecting the angle at which the two objects strike each other, with respect to the Earth’s orbit. If they smash head-on, it will slow the Earth’s rotation around the sun. When the rotation slows, initially at least the Earth will drop nearer to the sun. But if the cosmic object strikes the Earth from behind, and speeds up the Earth, the resulting impact will move the Earth’s orbit further from the sun. And if it strikes the Earth from the side, things get even more complicated.
I see no acknowledgement of either of these two issues (relative masses, angles of collision) in your work. Perhaps you could speak directly to those two questions.
My regards to you,
w.
To Willis: All good considerations …..Numbers are requested…..First, lets say:
Our new tri-synodic Jup/Sat paper of next year will be filled with detailed calculations
on the subject, this because this paper is less of general public interest and can be
filled with calculations for the specialist ….but you cannot wait and want numbers now
and not next year…..Its not easy to do it with a minimum background desciption, though.
Let’s try:
1.Change of the Earth’s orbit: Important: the apside is an adiabatic constant (no length
variation between the distance aphelion-perihelion. The distance variation is observed
EXCLUSIVELY on both ends of the minor axis…. astronomical encyclopedias put the
value of 3% of the minor axis length, between glacials and interglacials (the orbit is
rounder and the minor axis longer in glacial times).
The distance variation between Sun and end of Minor axis presents our EOO_CURVE,
best to see in the 27-37 ka diagram….. here we talk about a glacial temp swing of 5 C
measured at the GISP2 Greenland site (vertical distance between top and botton
limit EOO-line). The temp can be converted into W/m2– see for example the
latest paper of Willi Soon on forcing in the 19/20th century, to make it easy in
conversion and is 4.57 W/m2 per 1 million km orbital distance change away/or
towards the Sun, measured on the Earth surface. This has to be augmented for the
radiation loss ( 4,47 W/m2 x 1,41 albedo loss ) to get the value at the top of the
atmosphere to be multiplied by 4, to reach the TSI-value of around 25 W/m2 in
TSI-terms. This can also be seen in the radiation value of 1,408 W/m2 occuring at
perihelion and 1316 W/m2 at aphelion, for a distance difference of 5 million km.
With this value we are able to convert the vertical amplitude distance of the EOO-wave
exactly into kilometers between Sun and Earth at both ends of the minor axis.
To give a distance change idea: radius 149 Mio km, the impact distance change
lies between 50,000 km and max.1 Mio km. I have the numbers all given in my booklet,
but as soon as I mention this, some know-it-alls immediately blast that I only wanr to
sell my booklet, although everybody can check with Amazon, that I wrote in “unsalable”
German….
We are therefore able to convert our GISP2 temp change (warm/cold) diagram into
a Sun-Earth-distance change diagram for both ends of minor axis to the Sun. A
stronger impact (with larger impact craters) will produce wilder orbital and temp swings….. Therefore, you have
another means of impact falsification at hand: Relate the crater sizes = impact force
to the amplitude and the size of the impact pattern…..
We identified 13 cosmic impacts….all 13, for which we found accountable dates, have
to fulfill 3 conditions 1. The Standard Impact Pattern, 2. a TP shift of the EOO-curve,
3. a large to small relation in temperature swing to acorresponding large to small impact
crater size.
These are 3 simultaneous conditions….we maintain, that ALL are fulfilled by ALL
given cosmic impacts…. FIND ONE sizable impact (the mini-impacts cannot shift
the ensuing TP if an TP is still some centuries away, because its forcing peetered
out before the TP line has been reached, this is trivial to say…) and you have the
storyline is falsified….if you could…but….good luck. A Joke: AGW is able to provide
a clue……
Willis, I sat over all this for 5 years and I can tell you one thing: This cosmic-climate
relation is completely consistent and water-tight. Lets do it this way, my proposal:
You continue disbelieving and try to falsify our 18 pages with the info in it provided ….meanwhile….
I get my additional calculations ready and put them into the annex of the new 2013
paper on the still missing fifth forcing cycle, on which you were at odds with Scafetta
6 months ago…..by the way, this discourse between you, Scafetta, me and Geoff
Sharp was highly productive in hindsight because I found the solution for calculating
the Jup/Sat cycle with full numbers….you will see this paper next spring….
.. its Saturday night, late… cheers for the moment….JS
my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer blogging site….JS
>>>>>>>>>
You invited review and now you are insulting the people who have responded.
David, I expect that all peer bloggers have a coffee, lean back and enjoy 5 years
of work and insights…..All trolls, who just feel important and want to disturb are not
invited…..we need good insights and not just “overblown”-nonsense which does
not get us any further… read the text and opine…this is what blogging is all about
so we may advance forward and not fall backward with AGW….JS
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Map on Wikipedia showing 3 oval impact craters in line….
Link or Google Earth coordinates, please.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 13, 2012 at 6:09 pm
“I don’t believe that. I want to see the calculations for the disturbance of the orbit and the resulting change in TSI (total solar irradiance). ”
I believe you meant to say “insolation” instead of TSI. You know that objects impacting Earth cannot change TSI ( unless it was the Sun itself).
@
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 13, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Ian W on October 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm
GlynnMhor on October 12, 2012 at 4:00 pm
and
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 13, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Various people keep mentioning the techniques used to detect planets around other stars as if this proves anything about how planets may or may not influence the properties of the star. For example Ian W mentions the uses of the Doppler effect and asks “why it is that only the Sun of all the stars in the universe with planets does not have any change in radial velocity due to the planets in orbit around it.”.
Take a binary star system where there are two stars of equal size orbiting the barycenter between them.
I presume both of you would accept that whatever frame of reference (kadaka) or doppler shift (Jimmi) you are using you would both accept that neither star is stationary with the other orbiting – they are _both_ orbiting the barycenter of their system.
If we slowly shrink one of the stars to the size of Jupiter …. at what stage does this dual orbiting of the barycenter stop and become a stationary star with a well behaved orbiting planet? And why does it stop?
It seems that both of you want to assert a heliocentric rather than barycentric view but I don’t see your logic.
Ian W “It seems that both of you want to assert a heliocentric rather than barycentric view but I don’t see your logic.”
No we are not – we are asking you, what effect does the motion about the barycentre, or any other centre, have on the properties of the star and/or planets?
The barycentre is an arbitrary point chosen for convenience in solving the equations of motion as it allows you to ignore the overall translational motion of the system. Any other choice for the origin of the coordinate system will give the same orbits, though with a little more work. It is a general principle that the choice of coordinate system does not affect any real physical property.
The point you still have not got about the Doppler shift method, is that it does not measure a change in the star, so it cannot be used to prove that there is a change – you are going to need something else.
And you have not come up with anything to indicate that there are significant changes in planetary orbits over a shortish time period.
The orbit of the Sun around the SSB induced only by the planet positions changes the solar velocity by 100% every 10 years. This is indisputable and solid evidence of planetary influence on the Sun.
Carl Smith plotted the angular momentum of the Sun which showed AM perturbations occurring on a roughly 172 year cycle. These perturbations I discovered happened at the same time as the solar orbit takes a disordered path about the SSB which also coincides with past solar and current slow downs as discovered by Charvàtovà, but now we have a tool that by quantifying the AM perturbation gives us the ability to predict the length and depth of any grand minimum type event. Landschei.t missed all of this but did notice the disordered orbit but DID NOT associate this occurrence with solar slowdown or grand minima.
Enough said on this topic which will hopefully end the barycentre talk, I am still waiting to see the numbers on the Earth Orbit Oscillation (the unaffected by comet values) which is one of the key drivers of the paper under so called revue.
To Philipp Bradley: It seems that some bloggers are unable to type
….” Storegga slide.”… and click the Wikipedia page…. the 3 impacts, are
mistakenly reverse….. Phil: Why dont you ask me to bring you to bed and
make your morning coffee?
Geoff Sharp
“The orbit of the Sun around the SSB induced only by the planet positions changes the solar velocity by 100% every 10 years. This is indisputable and solid evidence of planetary influence on the Sun.”
And what is the change relative to a point half way between the Sun and Alpha Centauri? And what effect does this have on the physical properties of the sun?
The velocity of a point on the earth’s surface changes by 100% every 12 hours – what effect does that have?
“””””…..John F. Hultquist says:
October 12, 2012 at 6:45 pm
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……”””””
Why do they say that Fermat likely did NOT have the “truly marvellous proof” that he claimed to have discovered ?
Before I would believe that assertion, I would want these naysayers to at least have discovered for themselves, what exactly the proof Fermat said he had was, and THEN point out the fallacy in his proof.
The plain fact of the matter is that mathematicians, have failed to discover Fermat’s “proof” of Fermat’s last theorem, and until they do, they should shut up. For one thing we do NOW know, that Fermat’s conjecture is correct; so what is their basis for saying that Fermat’s “proof” of the theorem is incorrect. It is far more likely to be correct since the theorem is, than incorrect.
And to call the current reigning “proof” a mathematical proof, is to be very generous.
My money would be on Fermat having discovered a proof, that he deemed so straight forward, as to not needing to be written down.
I believe the theorem is also true for negative integer values of (n)
There are solutions for 1/x +1/y =1/z and also 1/x^2 + 1/y^2 = 1/z^2 , but I believe not for
1/x^3 + 1/y^3 = 1/z^3 etc.
And no I don’t have a proof for that.
Ian W (also DirkH ,P. Solar)
Ian W said : October 13, 2012 at 1:09 pm
It is not just a theoretical nicety a force affects the Sun’s path through space. A similar force affects the orbits of all the planets. Why do you think the Earth follows Milankovitch cycles?
Have you ever been in a train watching the buildings and trees running away backwards? Why are they running away? Is the train forcing them to run away? When the train turns are they turning?
It is called a coordinate system and one can devise an infinite number of them.
Coordinate systems have a physical meaning when the forces are mathematically behaving according to that system. The heliocentric and geocentric system are good examples. The geocentric was a successful parametrization of our planetary systems, and was used for centuries but it is the heliocentric that describes the geometry of the gravitational force positions ,simplifies the mathematical analysis, and validated the physical theory of gravity.
The barycenter is a convenient (0,0,0) point for the coordinates describing the total planetary system in its trip through the cosmos. The total system
from a large distance acts as a gravitational well with combined strength that falls as 1/r^2.
Our planetary system which has many gravitational bodies is a many body problem and can be solved numerically following Newton’s laws and the equations of motion. The calculations can be made in any coordinate system but the centers of force are at the gravitational bodies not the assumed center of coordinates which is a mathematical point and has no mass and thus no gravitational strength.
That a barycenter has no gravitational strength can be seen in the simpler earth moon system where the barycenter ploughs through the earth 1,710 km below the surface every second, every minute. The earth would have been turned into mayonnaise from the beginning of the formation of the earth moon system leaving no chance for continents to rise. Of course the tides are correlated with this motion. BUT correlation is not causation should be primary in any scientific observations and results sought.
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm
David, I expect that all peer bloggers have a coffee, lean back and enjoy 5 years
of work and insights…..All trolls, who just feel important and want to disturb are not
invited…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, now I see. You asked for critical peer review but all you really wanted was to provide us with the opportunity to basque in the benificent glow of your brilliance. The fact is that commenters have raised legitimate issues which you have either not responded to at all, or avoided with the excuse that the paper is too long already, or (hilariously) admitted that the math to support your conjecture actually hasn’t been done but you promise to do so a year hence.
My impression is that you did not set out to fool anyone, but that you’ve managed to fool yourself. Calling your detractors “trolls” won’t make them wrong or you right.
To David Hoffer: David, everybody can download the paper. My principle
is that I have to read the paper and then air opinion. afterwards. An author
immediately recognizes, whether a paper has been read or not….Fine,
two possiblities: Either I read unfounded comments and do NOT react. or
I react and speak my mind. All critizism welcome….but NOT reading and blowing
smoke does not have my symphathy…..
To Geoff Sharp: Finally….. we settle that the SIM is a macro-climate driver, but
only very long term (multi-millenial scale), which we can afford to put aside from
the present discussion without losing too much content….
To the EOO cycle and its numbers: There are graphs for this in our paper:
The cycle length identified in the literature is 556 years and growing in its periodicity
by rounded 18 years with each continuing successive cycle…. this can be taken
from the TP-point list provided….you just have to subtract the dates…. this is already
too much work or thought for some of the people…. the EOO amplitude measure is
given on the left hand side, which shows the temperature amplitude in the GISP2
borehole…..Some people are not so good at reading graphics..
…Going now slowly toward the right hand side, the EOO-wave ( distance to the Sun)
at both ends of the perpendicular minor axis GROWS IN AMPLITUDE AND PERIOD,
whereas the amplitude explains the distance to the Sun… see as well graphics on
the impact pattern with the orbit run closer (warm run) or further (colder run) from
the Sun — the same, the up and down in the EOO-wave, is a continuous process at
both ends of the minor axis.
This astronomical cycle has been identified in the literature ( presented in detail)
What is the point of repeating what is explained straightforward and multiple times
in the text? Dear bloggers…. first step: (1) Read the text…(2) Ask senseful questions
afterwards….
Cheers for the Saturday, relax everybody…….JS
To David M Hoffer: THe TSI is the solar output, which changes little….. the changes
are produced by the Earth’s orbit, with a distance varying 5 Mio km between the
Aphelion and the Perihelion making the Sunlight received on Earth to vary daily with
a max of 1,408 W/m2 on Jan 4 and 1,318 W/m2 on July 4.and all other days of the year
are in between…..while the TSI output itself just varies 3 Watts/ms, see the Gavin Schmidt
2012 version 1.1 paper…..see yourself….
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:52 pm
I am sorry, Joachim, but there is far too little information in your paper to falsify it. That is why I asked you to calculate the change in momentum when the earth is impacted by something with a mass one ten-billionth of the mass of the Earth. Until you do that, until you provide the numbers to support that one and the rest of your various claims, there is nothing to falsify.
Umm …
I asked you two questions, Joachim. The first regarded the effect of something impacting a mass ten billion times larger than itself. How much change (as a percentage) in the orbit of the larger object should we expect from such an impact?
I hold that the effect on the orbit (and thus on the temperature by way of orbital alteration) would be far too small to measure. If you want to convince me otherwise, show me the numbers.
My second question asked about the angle of the cosmic impact. I had said:
In other words, why should the immediate effect always be one of cooling from a cosmic impact? The impact could push the Earth either closer to or further from the sun … why do you say it leads cooling in both cases?
I finished above by saying:
Unfortunately, I do not see any discussion of either of those issues in your response. Instead, you are repeating your claims. As I said, the claims may be true … but repeating the claims instead of answering questions about your work does not engender confidence.
So let me invite you again to answer the questions.
Best regards,
w.
To Willis: Open remains the question how do impact angles and the impact push
from front, back, left or right of the Earth’s path influence the impact pattern?
From front or back is easy, the planet is capable of accelerating and decellerating
(velocity between 29 and 31 km/s) and will thus make up a setback or slow down
according to the orbital system. How is is with a sideward impact? The answer is
that the orbital system ALWAYS reacts with going into the cold side, away from the
SUN, then oscillates to the warm orbital run and settles as third phase back in its
run, previous to the impact. This is what the system does…..prove: GISP2 temps.
Why is that.?..I hope an aeronautical peer would come up with a dynamic flight explanation….myself I made following conclusion: The system has 2 major orbital
forces, solar attraction towards Sun and Earth’s centrifugal forces away from the
Sun. Now, solar attraction remains unchanged but the impact enhances centrifugal
forcing…. I can imagine, that a super impact would even knock a planet out of its
orbit. Therefore, the system tries to repair itself by adding all centrifugal forces first
and moves the planet out into the cold run, followed by the already explained warm
and stabilization swings…
..But shouldn’t be at least one difference noticable in the GISP2 temp record? Yes
there is… the difference lies in the size/dimension of the upswing/downswing
temperature peaks…because there are impact patterns going down relatively deep
and rebouncing less than the previous knock down and on the other hand, there
are impacts, which knock down temps little and produce an enormous temp rebounce…
.. To go into those details, would be material for follow-up papers, not urgently
required for this overview paper….
Good to hear that you judge that falsification would be difficult/impossible.
If Leif calculates large impact masses to be required to disturb a smooth orbital
run then I would not agree because we have various certified impact dates, with the
impact right on top of a upward spike, knocking temps down and they are NOT
high mass/force….because the impacting speed is important…I recently came
upon an impact page from some Californian guys, where you can simulate you own
cosmic impacts by varying mass, angles and velocity and they developed the
computer program for those calculations….If it were important we could look again
to find it…calculations/simulations is done nowadays with the most unbelievable
matters… I think we can settle this question by looking together onto our impact graph….
.That the planet gets pushed out somewhat from its regular path is logical to me..
.you can see it in football/soccer, as small push of a player with NO force makes the
other players fall over like the bowling pins….
Think it over, JS any other observations?
As I suspected, there is no map, and the North Sea cosmic impact events are fictional.
BTW, it’s just after lunch here.
Jimmi the Dalek, for you…
Reference says:
October 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Ivanka Charvátová and Pavel Hejda
A possible role of the solar inertial motion in climatic changes,
33rd International Geological Congress August 8-14, 2008, Oslo,
http://catriskglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/charvatova.pdf
I have been reading the external links given on this thread until my eyes are crossed. I believe that there are others links that suggest a similar relation between the sun’s orbit about the barycenter and climate change but I do not have the energy to go back and find them for you.
For Leif Svalgaard:
I applaud your efforts. I also believe that astronomical cycles affect the long term climate rather than the idea that short term events cause ‘runaway positive feedback’ to cause major long term climate change. My comments to follow are offered respectfully. Please take them as such.
I am skeptical about the hypothesis of Earth Orbital Oscillations. There seems to be a preponderance of astronomical studies and calculations that such a cycle does not exist and you offer no explanation or citations to support this idea. Astronomical proof is needed to support this. Without further proof, this is just an unsupported and questionable hypothesis. Perhaps there is another astronomical pattern that is causing the climate cycle that you are observing. It is yet to be decided.
I am also skeptical about the hypothesis of the deformation of the earth’s orbit caused by cosmic impacts. The energy of such an impact does not seem sufficient. That being said, you have succeeded in identifying a definite climate signature (the shape of the high voltage symbol) of known impacts and have predicted the presence of additional impact episodes that have not been identified. That is a good accomplishment. It would be definitely validated if the other impacts can be identified and properly dated. However, that finding still would not support the hypothesis of deformation of the earth;s orbit. Further mathematical and astronomical proof is needed.
Finally, in my opinion, your paper spends too much time deriding the efforts of those that propose theory of General Circulation Models. It would be sufficient to point out that they have been disproved and to provide citations. You take it to the extreme with repeated quotations such as “no status of truth”. You also include unnecessary negative comments. An example is; “Schmidt misses out on atmospheric laughing gas forcing”. Your negative attitude is also evidenced in your comments on this thread:
“Reply to Volker Doormann:
We are peers on this website and you are the good, star gazing, esoterical ASTROLOGICAL guy…I know, Pluto told you all, stars do not lie and because Saturn crossed the Venus line,
the discussion paper must have many flaws….. My climate peers, Doormann has spoken…JS”
This attitude is unprofessional and detracts from your efforts to put forth an unbiased scientific proof of your theories. The “trolls” on this blog that you criticize are seen by us all as being “trolls”. When you lower yourself to that level, you also appear to us as being a “troll”. Do not lower yourself to that level. Stay above the fray and remain calm, cool, and professional.
From Ian W on October 13, 2012 at 7:13 pm:
It seems that both of you want to assert a heliocentric rather than barycentric view but I don’t see your logic.
Because you have decided to not see the logic.
What effect is generated by the barycentric motion upon the Sun and solar system? Is there enough of a galactic magnetic field locally that the twirling generates an electric field that affects the Sun and subsequently affects Earth’s climate? Does the twirling within the gravitational fields between the Sun and bodies outside of the solar system perturb the depths of the Sun enough to alter its output?
The answers are, of course, no. There is nothing generated worth mentioning from the barycentric motion, except decorative curvy plots like I used to make with a Spirograph when I was a child.
Geoff Sharp said on October 13, 2012 at 8:38 pm:
The orbit of the Sun around the SSB induced only by the planet positions changes the solar velocity by 100% every 10 years. This is indisputable and solid evidence of planetary influence on the Sun.
Yes, just like the velocity of a valve stem on a wheel rim keeps changing. It’s amazing the wheel ever gets anywhere with all those changes.
From a January 2009 Time article:
100% change in the solar velocity every 10 years, with the average speed of the Sun being 568,000 miles per hour around the center of the galaxy? Just from the influence of the planets that are also traveling at that speed on average with the same rotation?
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:52 pm
To give a distance change idea: radius 149 Mio km, the impact distance change
lies between 50,000 km and max.1 Mio km.
Let’s say 100,000 km, then a simple calculation gives that the kinetic energy of the Earth will change by 0.07% if you change its distance by 100,000 km. The impactor will have to have a kinetic energy of the same order of of magnitude of that of the Earth in order to change the Earth’s by that much. Assuming that the typical speed of the impactor is of the order of that of the Earth’s, the mass of the impactor will have to be 0.07% of the Earth which is impossibly large.
Ray, thank you for the Ivanka Charvátová reference, but I had seen it before and regrettably find it unconvincing. just as I find every argument which works in terms of the system barycentre.
People keep saying, the Sun moves with respect to the barycentre, it must have an effect. But what I am saying, as is Anna V, is why must it?
The barycentre is an imaginary point. A choice for the origin of the coordinate system. Instead of saying that the sun moves relative to the barycentre and imagining it jumping around all over the place, just think of it the other way around. The barycentre moves relative to the Sun. The barycentre is a massless, chargeless fictional point. It has no electric or magnetic field. It exerts no forces. Why in all the heavens should the Sun care where the barycentre is?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:47 pm
the mass of the impactor will have to be 0.07% of the Earth which is impossibly large.
That is five times the mass of the largest asteroid, Ceres.
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm
We need some numbers and where you are measuring it from (without comet impacts). JPL tells us the perihelion distance of the Earth to the Sun varies by 15000km in a rough 60 year cycle. Are you disputing these figures, if so your paper is way out on a limb?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Can I suggest you attempt to bring yourself up to speed by looking at the Wolff & Patrone paper.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:42 pm
100% change in the solar velocity every 10 years, with the average speed of the Sun being 568,000 miles per hour around the center of the galaxy? Just from the influence of the planets that are also traveling at that speed on average with the same rotation?
I was referring to the orbital velocity of the Sun around the SSB which is on a different plane. Think of it as a spinning bicycle wheel traveling axle first around the galaxy centre.
The idea that the Earths climate changes only by going through cycles is popular and there is evidence that supports these cycles which result from changes in cosmic alignment ; Moon ,planets and position in galaxy.I don’t think though that all change in Earths climate has to be cyclic and the Earths climate has the potential to become unstable over a long time period.I also find the impact theory a bit hard to believe given the size of the Earth and the size of the meteorites, it is possible that impacts could accumulate on one side of the Earth rather than hit randomly but I don’t believe that would be possible to measure.
I would like to know where their GISP2 data came from.
The paper waves it off, saying it’s “…available for downloading from the internet.”
I have found NOAA’s clearinghouse for Greenland Ice Core data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html
Going by the spacing of “between 5 and 17 years” that would indicate the beginning of the Alley 2000 dataset, not the Kobashi 2011 dataset (names linked to relevant papers). Both sets available from the NOAA page. The Kobashi “GISP2 4000-Year Ar-N2 Isotope Temperature Reconstruction” has a resolution of only one year but is much shorter.
However the Alley GISP2 dataset has notable errors. Starting from the beginning at 119.205 years before present (before 1950), there are two temperatures given for the same time. I had stuffed the data in a spreadsheet and have a column for the difference in times to check the spacing. The zero time differences are many and glaring.
There are also oddities with those.
Years BP, Difference, Temperature in °C
3989.62_10.9_-31.0708
3989.62__0.0_-31.0932
4016.89_27.3_-30.9952
4016.89__0.0_-30.9140
4029.42_12.5_-30.9148
In a string of spacings between 11 and 14 years, there is what looks like a doubled interval. Something similar happens soon after, at 4294.27 there’s a doubled interval, 4294.27 again but with a different temperature, then the spacing resumes.
Thus I want to know if Alley 2000 is the dataset they used, where they downloaded it from, if it has these errors, and how did they fix or work around the errors (if present). If their version as downloaded doesn’t have these errors, then information about the differences needs be presented to check the veracity of their version as the one from NOAA is the “official” download.
They did check their GISP2 data for possible errors before using it, didn’t they? I’ve looked through their paper, I see no mention of errors in the GISP2 dataset, no corrections etc. The first error is in the first five times. I just checked the NOAA one again, errors are still there. How did they not notice them?
That’s why I want to know where they got their GISP2 data.
Comment to Ray: I principally agree with you that I have the tendency to overshoot.
With Doormann I got mad and I wished I had not reacted, because we all know who
we are. I do not agree concerning the paper: Only a few of us are aware that there
are dozens of GCMs out there, expensively done on computer systems and in the
end they ALL fail miserable in the entire Holocene temp reconstruction-model – data
comparison…….
Why should I hold this misery, which the climate institutes themselves, see quotes,
admit, under the table and not put it right in the middle?
Our cosmic cycle approach is the one and only, which performs, with best
results in temperature evolution. Unrivalled. Why should I rate the hockey stick
in the last figure as scientific work? Some people doubt but they should point out
a superiour GCM work, reproducing GISP2 better than we……
Read Mr. Schmidt, his two example papers on microdrivers, saying in the end that his
work would be ‘uncertain?” Imagine, I would say to Anthony and Willis: Here is my
paper but in the end it will be all uncertain? He would scratch his head…..
OK, next time a will put my tolerance bar higher…
JS
My earlier post was in error. I addressed my comments about the paper that is the subject of this thread to Leif Svalgaard. It should have been addressed to J. Seifert.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:38 am
If Leif calculates large impact masses to be required to disturb a smooth orbital
run then I would not agree
It doesn’t matter that you disagree, the calculation is elementary and sound, so your basic tenet is dead. No need to discuss this paper any longer.
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:42 pm
my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer blogging site….
Leif says in response to J. Seifert said:
It seems you are being hit by a healthy dose of wonderful skepticism…
There is a big difference between gate-keeping and skepticism….
From Geoff Sharp on October 13, 2012 at 11:40 pm:
While trying to Google it up, I found this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Patrone.doc
I regret I do not have the time to bring myself up to speed on “fairy tales”.
anna v says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:33 pm
“That a barycenter has no gravitational strength can be seen in the simpler earth moon system where the barycenter ploughs through the earth 1,710 km below the surface every second, every minute. The earth would have been turned into mayonnaise from the beginning of the formation of the earth moon system leaving no chance for continents to rise. Of course the tides are correlated with this motion. BUT correlation is not causation should be primary in any scientific observations and results sought.”
The barycenter corresponds to the point to which masses are attracted due to the superposition of all the gravitational fields that act on them together. The barycenter of the Earth “ploughing” through the mass center of the Earth has of course little meaning to a particle inside the Earth as that particle is close to the center anyway and a far lower gravity acts on it than for a particle on the surface of the Earth (It is attracted by the layers on top of it as well as by the layers below it; effective gravity right in the barycenter would be zero, ignoring the solar system gravitational fields for the moment).
For a particle on the surface of the Earth, the swinging of Earth’s barycenter means a slight deviation in the direction it is attracted to; explaining tides. You have just swept the tides from the table, dismissing them as correlating with lunar motion but maybe or maybe not being caused by them.
I hold that tides ARE caused by the influence of the moon; and I think the last 12,000 years of human civilization confirm that.
As for things being turned into mayonnaise, now that is an impossibility in the absence of raw egg but “Stresses caused by tidal forces also cause a regular monthly pattern of moonquakes on Earth’s Moon.” which is, I think, as close as the Moon can be in trying to turn into Mayonnaise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
J Seifert;
An author immediately recognizes, whether a paper has been read or not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Authors can read minds? Wow. I’ll have to be more careful about whose stuff I read from now on.
J Seifert;
Either I read unfounded comments and do NOT react. or I react and speak my mind. All critizism welcome….but NOT reading and blowing smoke does not have my symphathy…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: So you welcome criticism except when you disagree with it. Got it.
J. Seifert;
Only a few of us are aware that there are dozens of GCMs out there, expensively done on computer systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: You must be very special, only one of a few people who are aware of this.
J Seifert:
Now, solar attraction remains unchanged but the impact enhances centrifugal
forcing…. I can imagine, that a super impact would even knock a planet out of its
orbit. Therefore, the system tries to repair itself by adding all centrifugal forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: The system tries to repair itself? The system is sentient? I refer you to the first comment in this thread by Leif Svalgaard. After you’ve read it I refer you to his comment at 12:38 AM. After you’ve read that, I refer you to the first comment in this thread by Leif Svalgaard. Repeat as required.
DirkH “I hold that tides ARE caused by the influence of the moon; and I think the last 12,000 years of human civilization confirm that.”
Of course tides are caused by the moon’s gravity. But they are not caused by the motion about the earth-moon centre. See post at 3.59pm
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 14, 2012 at 2:49 am
I am not sure why you bother to comment as you have offered nothing to this conversation. A half baked private email response is not a solid rebuttal to W&P.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 13, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Ian W “It seems that both of you want to assert a heliocentric rather than barycentric view but I don’t see your logic.”
No we are not – we are asking you, what effect does the motion about the barycentre, or any other centre, have on the properties of the star and/or planets?
The barycentre is an arbitrary point chosen for convenience in solving the equations of motion as it allows you to ignore the overall translational motion of the system. Any other choice for the origin of the coordinate system will give the same orbits, though with a little more work. It is a general principle that the choice of coordinate system does not affect any real physical property.
The point you still have not got about the Doppler shift method, is that it does not measure a change in the star, so it cannot be used to prove that there is a change – you are going to need something else.
And you have not come up with anything to indicate that there are significant changes in planetary orbits over a shortish time period.
And
The barycentre is an imaginary point. A choice for the origin of the coordinate system. Instead of saying that the sun moves relative to the barycentre and imagining it jumping around all over the place, just think of it the other way around. The barycentre moves relative to the Sun. The barycentre is a massless, chargeless fictional point. It has no electric or magnetic field. It exerts no forces. Why in all the heavens should the Sun care where the barycentre is?
And
anna v says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Jimmi you ask “Why in all the heavens should the Sun care where the barycentre is?” I will avoid the anthropomorphism … and try again
Let us assume that magically everything in the universe disappears apart from the Sun with it still retaining its current velocity (speed and direction) and rotation. In the absence of the other gravitational forces it will no longer be ‘continually accelerating toward the center of its orbit’ as a continual velocity change due to the centripetal force because that centripetal force that keeps it in an orbit has disappeared.
So when the planets and galaxy are there the centripetal force acts toward the barycenter of all the masses involved. That centripetal force is sufficient to accelerate the entire solar mass so it is not small. If the barycenter is moved the vector of the centripetal force is moved and the centripetal acceleration changes. Yes – I agree that the barycenter is a ‘virtual’ point but the centripetal forces acting on the bodies orbiting the barycenter are real – or there would be no orbits all bodies would travel in nice straight lines.
You are claiming that there is NO centripetal force on any of the stars or planets – as the barycenter is virtual – I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps you would explain.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:46 am
I am not sure why you bother to comment as you have offered nothing to this conversation.
Neither have you as it turns out.
A half baked private email response is not a solid rebuttal to W&P.
But Douglas Gough’s comment to me on W&P is:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Gough-Comment-on-Wolf-Padrone.doc
“Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar considered certain classes of fluid interchange under restricted circumstances under which the issue of moving boundary conditions does not arise. Therefore their analyses are meaningful. Wolff and Padrone consider more general situations, as stated in the last six lines of p.232. What they failed to point out, however, is that in consequence application of the perfectly valid arguments of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar, inadequately modified by the modified situation, is not correct. They have fallen into the trap of many a naive modern physics student of misapplying an initially valid formula to a situation in which it is not valid.
I have no advice to offer the authors that I believe they might take. What they should do is go back to the original publications of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar and try to understand them. If they succeed, and if they are honest, they would then withdraw the paper.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:01 am
But Douglas Gough’s comment to me on W&P is:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Padrone.doc
I see that this was already referred to. In any case it is useful to do it again. If W&P “are honest, they would then withdraw the paper”.
From Geoff Sharp on October 14, 2012 at 4:46 am:
I am not sure why you bother to comment as you have offered nothing to this conversation. A half baked private email response is not a solid rebuttal to W&P.
You have a curious definition of “nothing”.
I have yet to see a good reason to view this as barycentric instead of heliocentric. Dreaming up new reference frames where you can claim the velocity of the Sun changes 100% over 10 years does not help. It would be quite impressive to see that happen to a star like our Sun, involving forces unimaginable, so wrenching they’ll likely tear the star apart.
Yet the Sun is doing just fine, so I know you’re just playing tricks, playing with frames of reference to imagine that which does not manifest itself physically.
When I search for “wolff patrone” what first shows up is Tallbloke’s site, first two results. I’ve noticed Tallbloke was removed from the “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory” blogroll section not that long ago. Given the sort of stuff that shows up at his site and is given serious consideration, I was not expecting much from W&P. And W&P was only in the first seven results, largely by references to the paper. Not good.
I have now read the W&P Abstract. Summary: Gravitational forces from planets can churn the material of a star, resulting in increased solar output and decreased lifespan compared to the same star without planets. That’s it. I see no advantage to using a barycentric viewpoint over heliocentric, the planets are exerting tidal forces, thus my view from long ago in this thread still stands.
If you continue to insist I must read the full paper, then provide a free link or the $39.95 for the paywall.
As it stands, you have yet to provide justification for a barycentric viewpoint that passes muster. Smoke and mirrors, misdirection, hand waving, assorted attempts at belittling, those you have provided. But even just one solid reason why it must be barycentric and not heliocentric, still not yet.
To Willis again: As you say: Putting numbers into cosmic impacts is of great
importance, because it has a very practical side: Asessment of the global cooling
process after a future impact on Earth. We cannot exclude that this will happen
within the next generations…
There is, as usual, a Hollywood film on “Impact” .on the market…..but this only shows
that there can be an impact scare and calculations would help to clarify the grave/not
grave character of such an event.
The relation of impact pattern (ensuing temp drop after the impact) to crater sizes
can be statistically studied and we would get the depth of the future temp drop, the
years required to reach the bottom temp floor and the average decadal temp drop.
This would calm the public and helps against scare-mongering, because, as the
GISP2 shows, the temp drop proceeds in multi-decadal time spans and not in
overnight or yearly leaps…..
To Leif: His mass calculations are one thing, he maintains he has the REAL figures….
His opinion….. Parameters for temp drops/crater sizes/flying cosmic mass sizes can
be taken from GISP2 and from geological crater studies….there also exist a scientific
crater and impact study community which should be able to present their details….
……The paper proves what IS a cosmic impact and what IS NOT a cosmic impact,
and we can distinguish this through use of the COMBINATION (1) Impact pattern (high
voltage symbol – in temperature drop/rebounce/stabilization) WITH (2) cosmic
TP-shifts. Both taken together prove the cause/provenience/occurence of a
cosmic impact strike and the necessarily ensuing temp drop….
The striking cosmic masses do NOT have to be large and fulfil Leifs calculation
pad…If Leif reckons all Holocene impacts do NOT FULFILL his quantity mass impact
calculations in order to produce our impact pattern….then his conclusion would be
that all 13 GISP2 temp drops after each “Leif-micro-mass”- impact are purely
coincidence and TP-shifting in the Earth orbit cycle would be…(he did not yet
comment on this one yet) …something…? Fine, he is the one who must falsify
our claim that impact masses can be SMALL TO CAUSE temp drop/
rebounce/stabilization cycles…..and he demands exaggerated cosmic masses.
The answer would lie in the fact that impact power increases with impact speed,
the higher, the stronger the impact…thus an impact mass can be rather smaller
then larger to produce enumerated impact features….
JS
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 13, 2012 at 11:05 pm
“People keep saying, the Sun moves with respect to the barycentre, it must have an effect. But what I am saying, as is Anna V, is why must it?”
Synchronicity. We notice that solar activity seems to be correlated with planetary orbits and that the earth’s climate seems to be affected by solar activity. But we know that with known physics the effects of solar activity are ‘too tiny to matter’ so apparently there can be no direct effect of planetary orbits on the earth’s climate. However, over the eons the tiny tidal forces raised by Jupiter and Saturn and the sun may have also had an effect on the earth-moon-sun system. Now gravity enters the picture and the planetary effects on earth’s climate are an illusion, and the real actor is gravity. This suggests we need to be looking at the relationship between tidal effects and gross ocean currents, especially as regards vertical mixing.
See Keeling and Whorf (2000) http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full.pdf
Also, I suspect that the cooling effect attributed by Seifert to orbital displacement may in fact be due to a sudden disturbance to the ocean temperature profile, either from vertical mixing or surface cooling that somehow persists for a long time.
Here one reply to Leif: Leif, your quote “simple calculations” demand high
impact masses to produce the impact mechanics pattern. …Whereas
we identified 13 cosmic impacts in the Holocene on Earth, based on the
(1) temperature impact pattern COMBINED with
(2) a TP-SHIFT at the following EOO-turning point line plus
(3) a size correlation of small-medium-large terrestrial impact sites with the
respective small-medium-large temperature
drop+rebounces+stabilization swing…..
According to your “simple calculations”, none of the 13 identified impacts fulfill your
size requirement and is LARGE enough to produce (1) plus (2) plus (3) which ALL
can be clearly identified in the Holocene temp evolution.
Our peers may judge now, whether Leifs calculation pad has the right numbers
or our analysis of Holocene impact events…Important in this is that the EOO-TP
shift of the orbit cannot be caused by events on the Earth’s surface and can only
result from orbital DEFORMATION by the impact strike…. The TP-shift is clearly
demonstrated in the various graphics …. most easy to recognize in the 27-37 ka
BP picture….this is why we added those 10,000 years as well…..
Leif tell us what does your notebook say about the two TP-shifts downwards
in our 27-37 ka BP picture?….Please present more of your cosmic mass numbers
to solve the 27-37 ka BP temperature evolution and the two observed TP-shifts
downwards… JS
I must admit that in the aspect raised by DirkH and Ian W that anna v has made a mistake. It is not a bad mistake, but she is taking the viewpoint that all bodies can be approximated by assuming that they act as if they are all point sources of gravitational attraction, which technically they are not. Her view does ignore internal and surface tidal accelerations toward mutual centers of attraction in all bodies, especially important here in the Earth and the Sun itself. So the question still remains whether the tidal flows within the sun’s matter do, in fact, cause enough variance to meaningfully affect Earths long term climate. It is a valid question when worded properly.
To me if you were to ever claim that this position of the center of attraction as felt by the Sun (the bc) were to cause multi-year variance you would first have to show that there is in fact some amount of a 27 day signature in the solar radiation as the sun revolves about its axis or the effect in the next paragraph. I don’t think I have ever seen such fast-action correlation. We all know the exact distance of the Earth from the sun does vary not only on ellipticity but also depends on where the center of attraction is from the sun’s center over many years, but I also agree that from first principles this does seem very tiny at best.
To even simulate such affect you would have to break the sun’s mass into some thousands of pieces and track the movement and trajectories of each of these pieces to see if there are some presently unknown flows within the sun itself, possibly tending to warm and cool the surface in cycles from the core over time. I also don’t remember seeing any such analysis along these lines. But I do agree, most of these aspects are just trivally ignored and they really should not be without some detailed analysis.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 8:15 am
Here one reply to Leif: Leif, your quote “simple calculations” demand high
impact masses to produce the impact mechanics pattern.
Your whole argument hangs on if an impact can change the orbit by 50,000-1,000,000 km. My calculation shows that it can, provided the impactor has a mass 5 times larger than the largest asteroid [Ceres]. Which is clearly impossible. The impact that wiped out the dinosaurs had an estimated diameter of only 10-15 km versus Ceres’s 950 km. So, on grounds of energy the changes in distance that you claim are physically impossible. That demolishes your paper, regardless of what else you claim.
Leif: We both agree that an cosmic impact is capable to deform the orbit, which
in turn would the produce the impact pattern, ensuing temp decline and the
TP-shift. The only difference between us is that your calculations need higher
cosmic masses/energy to achieve that goal.
My side is supported by 13 impact observations as prove….on your side is your
calculation pad, which denies that the 13 impacts and their effects took place,
for the sole reason that your calculation requires higher impact forces to produce
observed effects.
Fine, whether your high mass requirement were correctly calculated, we may
resolve with the aid of other astronomical experts…. JS.
****
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 8:39 am
Your whole argument hangs on if an impact can change the orbit by 50,000-1,000,000 km. My calculation shows that it can, provided the impactor has a mass 5 times larger than the largest asteroid [Ceres]. Which is clearly impossible. The impact that wiped out the dinosaurs had an estimated diameter of only 10-15 km versus Ceres’s 950 km. So, on grounds of energy the changes in distance that you claim are physically impossible. That demolishes your paper, regardless of what else you claim.
****
Yup. Pretty basic….
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:38 am
Thank you for the response, Joachim. Sorry, but that is nonsensical reasoning. You say that cosmic impacts change the orbit, and that the orbital change results in a change in GISP2 temps, that it always changes in the same direction (cooling) and your proof is … that GISP2 temps change.
But that only makes sense if we have already established the underlying idea that the collision changes the orbit, AND we have established that said orbital change affects the temperature … and that’s not been established.
It should not be “good to hear”. If your claims are not falsified, you are in good shape.
But if they are not falsifiable, then they are not valid scientific claims. To be a scientific, a claim must be able to be falsified. You have not done your part of the job. You have not provided the numbers and calculations that are required to make your claims scientific.
Look, if I say “the Empire State Building is tall”, that statement cannot be falsified. It is tall compared to some objects, and not tall compared to others. But if I say “the Empire State Building is taller than 300 metres”, we can falsify that statement.
So no, it should not be “good to hear” that your claims cannot be falsified, it should be bad to hear, it means that your work is merely anecdote, not science. The fact that you seem oblivious to the difference between anecdote and science is worrisome …
That is one of the more ridiculous claims I’ve ever heard. First, moving a planet is not like football, where a small force can trip up a big player. You can’t use judo on a planet, or leverage, unless you are Archimedes. To change the orbit of a planet, only one thing works. You need brute force. Lots of brute force. And to move the Earth, you need lots and lots and lots of force.
More to the point, you can’t hand-wave away the need for calculations by saying that you have “certified impact dates”. I don’t give a hoot if you claim the GISP2 data moves in harmony with your impact dates. The question is, how much force can you get from the impact, and how far will it move the earth?
Now, I have not done the orbital calculations as Leif has, but the answer was obvious to me from the masses involved. The masses of any conceivable colliding cosmic objects are many, many, many orders of magnitude smaller than would be required for your theory to work.
So all of your handwaving about soccer players and the like is meaningless. As I said above, not once but a couple of times, if you want to convince me of your cockamamie theory that a collision with some fly-speck sized object will move the earth out of its orbit, SHOW ME THE NUMBERS.
Because frankly, Joachim, I’m growing quite bored with your vapid unsupported claims. I’m tired of asking you questions and getting the runaround. It’s time to put your numbers where your mouth is.
w.
PS—You are committing a fundamental logical error. Note that I (and Leif) are not saying that a cosmic impact has no effect on the climate. I am saying that a cosmic impact of the type you describe has very little effect on the orbit. As a result, saying that GISP2 shows a climate effect from an impact MEANS NOTHING ABOUT THE EARTH’S ORBIT. A cosmic impact might (or might not) have a climate effect from a host of other factors, so even if there is an observable climate effect, that doesn’t mean that the Earth’s orbit has been pushed out of shape as you claim.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:29 am
Yes, as I say, putting numbers into cosmic impacts is of great importance … so why have you not done so? Leif has done so. I have done so. You have not done so.
When you do so, you will find that a “cosmic impact” with the types of objects we have encountered in the past only has the energy to make a tiny, imperceptible, minuscule, trivially small change in the earth’s orbit. This change is far, far too small to create the knock-on effects that you are claiming.
So yes … the calculations are important. Do them and report your findings back to the group.
w.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 10:40 am
Fine, whether your high mass requirement were correctly calculated, we may resolve with the aid of other astronomical experts…. JS.
This you should have done beforehand.
But we do not need “other astronomical experts”. You can do the calculation yourself [and readers can follow along] without fancy mathematics. It goes like this:
A body in orbit has a certain kinetic energy [KE] in the framework of the solar system. The basic formula for KE is KE = 1/2 * mass * speed squared [we can omit the factor of 1/2 for order of magnitude calculations]. The Earth’s speed is about 30 km/sec. If you move the Earth to a different orbit its speed is different. How different? Here is a website that shows you the speed of different planets and their distances: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm
You can see that the speed goes [inversely] with the square root of the distance. So the KE is now mass * square (square root(distance)) or just mass * distance. If you change the distance by 100,000 km [=0.07% of the Earth’s distance (1 AU) from the Sun], the resulting distance is 1.0007 so the KE changes by 0.0007 or 0.07%. since the mass has not changed appreciably. Assuming that the impactor on average has a speed comparable to that of the Earth and that all the kinetic energy of the impactor goes into changing the orbit, the KE of the impactor would be 0.07% of that of the Earth and since the speeds were assumed to be the same, the mass of the impactor would have to be 0.07% that of the Earth. The mass of Ceres is 9×10^20 kg, that of the Earth is 6×10^24 kg, so Ceres has a mass 0.015% of the Earth, so the impactor would have a mass 0.5 times that of Ceres for a change in distance of 100,000 km, or 5 times that of Ceres for the upper range of the distance change you claim, 1,000,000 km.
Now, this calculation is what is called a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation and only gives a rough indication of reality. One thing that is certainly wrong with it is the assumption that ALL the KE of the impactor goes into changing the Earth’s orbit. Most of the KE goes into vaporizing the impactor and the ground at the impact site, so our estimate of the mass of the impactor is only a lower limit, the real mass must be considerably larger. We also ignore things like the angle of impact, all of which make little difference to the overall argument.
J Seifert;
I’m looking at Figure A of your paper. There are more peaks (both high and low) that do NOT match your cycles than do. Some of them stick out like sore thumbs, such as 5200BC, 4900BC, 3600BC, 1900BC, 1200BC, 0BC, 700AD and 1100AD. If there is an actual cycle, and an actual turning point within that cycle that is 50 years different from what you have calculated, do you realize that you would get almost the same number of “peaks” correlating to the vertical lines in your graph? If all I did was throw vertical lines at the GISP2 data with completely random intervals, I could wind up circling the same or more number of “turning points” and claim correlation to my random intervals! Further, some of what you have circled as “turning points” clearly aren’t. For example 6800BC and 6600BC are brief and very small variations from what is clearly an 800 year trend. Some turning point!
What you are dealing with here is a raging case of confirmation bias. You decided what the answers were, and went looking in the data for thiings that correlate to your pre-determined answers. You found what you are looking for by simply ignoring anything that doesn’t fit and also ignoring that even random intervals produce correlation to a certain number of peaks in the data.
BTW, Leif’s and Willis’ contention regarding the mass required to impact the earth and alter itz orbit by the amount you claim is bang on. That doesn’t mean that the 13 impacts you claim never happened (which is what you tried to suggest in rebuttal to Leif) but that they were of insufficient size to produce the orbital changes that you claim.
To David: Wonderful, I like your kind of responses, which shows you read
the paper and coming up with suggestions. Yesterday we had a few of
those who just opine without knowing the paper.
The EOO cycle is your concern: And here you found some spikes, “which
stick out like a sore thumb ” exactly…. these thumbs do NOT belong to the
EOO-cycle…..this “sticking out ” proves it, those points are NOT EOO-TPs
as you allege, but the end points of the IMPACT mechanism, the spikes
of the High -Voltage-Impact Symbol….. Those two mechanisms are completely
separate, and only show to interact overlayered in the GISP2 graph…. .
I should have included more graphs, for you, for example, to make it clear:
The first Figure A graph, as is, but then a second graph,
from which the Spikes of the Impact symbol as NOT pertaining to the EOO being
removed…. therefore: Overlay the impact “Blitz”es, as I call it, on top of figure A
and take the CIO impact spikes out…..and then the clean TPs of the EOO are
left to remain…..
The problem with the Holocene really is this high disturbance due to impacts
….this confuses many people and this is the cause why Holocene reconstruction
is in its infancy, in spite of million-subsidized institutional GCMs….see how
AGW is howling about the low quality of their model-Holocene data comparison
….(( and by the way, G. Lohmann of AWI just went back to ONLY 4,000 BC from
today on, and for the time before that he kept in gentleman’s silence….if Lohmann
read this he would …..not talk about it….we know why……the Met-guys Hamburg
(Jungclaus, Bothe) only dared to to model-data comparison for 1,500 years, with
the verdict: of “no status of truth”….some AGW-follower complained my remark.
…. and here we talk about a MEAGRE 1,500 years of Holocene time span…
You like to side with Leif and his impact mass calculations…
I can tell you the following (1) I like his wonderful white beard, a person, who
I would like to come at Chrismas… (2) he apologized to me being off in calculations
last year…. and now (3): See his notebook calculations: He calculates a 100,000 km
distance change ALL AROUND THE COMPLETE ORBIT…..see his figures….
whereas: I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move
outward…which is absolutely imposssible since the aphelion-perihelion distance
is an adiabatic constant and does NOT move…. what senseless energy
calculation assuming what we never have claimed…..JS
To Willis: We reached a point now where we should take a break. Tiredness set in
and that is not helpful.
Since we both wrote lengthy replies, let me describe the concise state of our
discussion: 1. You want numbers on cosmic mass, cosmic energy, orbital
deformation in kilometers, impact angles and related astronomical
values…..
Until you have those, you, as you write, CANNOT [and will not]
falsify our paper because our numbers, as your Empire State
building example, appear to you as being sound and correct.
Well, I am happy with your statement and can live with it.
Imagine all the people who, until now, live with
underperforming GCMs with WRONG numbers of Holocene
reconstruction….this is what our climate work is all about…..
2. We proved, WITHOUT your wanted numbers, that 13 Holocene
impacts took place [you agree?] and they can be detected in GISP2
based on their GISP2-appearence, which is A. Impact pattern,
B.astronomical TP-shift, C. Correlation Impact size and temp
change effect.
Application of this cosmic analysis, as it stands, provides the best
Holocene and the best 27-37 ka BP temperature reconstruction…..IN
OPPOSITION to present day underperforming, low quality institutional
GCMs, which were tested and found you know how.
We realize that full astronomical calculations would agment your attention, this
was clear from the beginning. However, I feel that you are much too exigent and
do not proceed from the 2012 state in science: See our chapter 2: Identification
of cosmic cycles. The todays literature is only capable to identify cosmic
cycles [here the 556++ growing cycle]. They exist as fact, they are observed.
We do NOT OMIT data of those cycles, would have liked more info from the
literature, but…….
So good as our paper is, it is the BEST Holocene temp evolution analysis
near and far…..[there was not ONE word from you about this, unimportant?]
Our approach is writing about “what is visible as macro-driver – quantificable-
in GISP2 temp records. — and compare our results to those of Gavin Schmidt
and other Micro-forcing GCMs. On the battleground are GCM vs.
our Cosmic-climatic GISP2-temp analysis. The GCM side shoots with micro-
forcings [no comment of yours]….. and we, taken from the GISP2 proxy, with
macro-forcings…..
Since you cannot falsify [as you said], our data/facts/cycles/insights so as
it stands in the paper, we thank you to this point. We know from all your writings
that you take pride in not siding with anyone – idea of being
individual/independent – neither with us nor with GCMs [they escaped your
attention], but you ask for delivery of scientific impact knowledge not being on
the published market yet.
As I also said, the impact science is hardly 15 years in existence and is notoriously
underfunded, whereas GCM-models reap in million grants and are in model-data
comparisons [do one with our approach] way, way below our performance…
I am certain, that if an university would put a million or two into impact modelling,
they would provide you with your wanted numbers. And I am also certain that
they would put Leifs calculation notepad to where it belongs…..JS
Ian W
“You are claiming that there is NO centripetal force on any of the stars or planets – as the barycenter is virtual – I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps you would explain.”
No, that is not what I am claiming. What I am saying is that not only is the barycentre a virtual point, it is a completely unnecessary virtual point. The real forces in the solar system are gravitational forces acting between the planets. The barycentre is a mathematical convenience not a real object. If you cannot show that any effects are independent of the choice of origin, then you have not shown that they are real. The challenge therefore is : derive the results you claim are significant, without using the barycentre. Simply stating that the barycentre moves around proves nothing.
“Holocene temperature evolution data shows unmistakably, that the planet Earth starts to oscillate in its orbit after each sizable cosmic impact. Due to resulting minor Earth orbit deformations Earth’s temperatures first fall for decades, then rebounce into excessive heat for the following decades and oscillate back by returning to their previous average value”
I must confess, I have difficulties with understanding the mechanism described in the paper. I had the feeling it tries to explain the oscillation temperature in my car through the vibrations created by the impact of the flies in the windshield.
Furthermore, when the Earth was knockdown from the warm orbit – to keep the terminology – how on earth does it rebounce and come back to the warmer orbit? I do not understand this phenomenon (CIO pattern – page 9). For the Earth to change its orbit there needs a bit more then a couple of flies on the windshield, but maybe I am wrong – let me see the numbers. Wonder how is the Moon then behaving to the Earth suddenly changing the orbit? That would be an interesting situation.
(I saw Leif putting a number already above with 5 times Ceres, which makes it easier to judge)
It looks like the whole CIO pattern was thought looking at the temperature graph and deriving Earth’s cosmic movements from it – as davidmhoffer says “is a raging case of confirmation bias.”
It is not clear what does “cool orbit” mean. How far is it from the sun and what TSI reduction is it?
Once the Earth got further away from the Sun why would it ever come back closer where it was before? What “drives” it there? Astronomy is a very precise science where the movement of the heavenly-bodies are calculated with years and decades and centuries in advance. We know that Aphopis will come to its rendez-vous 2029 the 13th of April and will fly at about 1/8th of the lunar orbit away of the Earth.
For the Earth to move to a “cool orbit” it would need to move at least a million of kilometres from the Sun away to influence TSI a bit of %, that is 3 times the Earth-Moon distance…
To me it looks like a collection of observations and some ideas, but am missing the logical deduction and calculations, and the basic astronomy check, however I might be wrong, it is late week-end. I am with Leif that the paper needs retraction and rethink with the calculation done.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I am certain, that if an university would put a million or two into impact modelling,
they would provide you with your wanted numbers. And I am also certain that
they would put Leifs calculation notepad to where it belongs…
It takes no money to follow my calculation. Anybody can do that; even you, if you try.
Leif, you are off again as last year, when you apologized….
I never ever claimed that the Earth orbit fully around the Sun would go
outwards by 100,000 km [or distance XYZ] ….which is impossible,
because, now I repeat this a third time on this blog, the Aph-Perh-
distance is a constant and cannot vary, except, due to Geoff Sharp,
for 15,000 km in a 60 year cycle…..Our orbit change of EOO and CIO
concerns only the end point of the minor axis…
Reach for your “simple calculation” notebook again…JS.
It is great to see thinking outside of the box. We definitely need some new stuff for the box! One thing that ocurred to me is that impacts might be able to influence climate without perturbing the orbit. Even simply mixing out the ocean should cause dramatic cooling for a while.
J Seifert;
you can see it in football/soccer, as small push of a player with NO force makes the other players fall over like the bowling pins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think you’ve confused the earth being “tippy” with Guam. Have a chat with Hank Johnson, I’m sure he can explain it to you.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/01/congressional-tipping-point-not-an-april-fools-joke/
As one who is always alert to extra-terrestrial causes of change in planetary climates I recognise some of the known elements, but find other aspects of the paper hard to swallow, in particular their emphasis on the frequency and lasting effects of substantial cosmic cratering and the rather mysterious multi-centennial Earth Orbit Oscillation Cycle.
I do observe that, in considering basically the Holocene’s 10,000 years:
1. Their emphasis on Milanovitch is puzzling as even the shortest of M’s cycles is twice as long as the period under consideration.
2. Their use of SIM appears to ignore the work by Charvátová and several others, which goes back to Jose, half a century ago, and which contains a clear cyclicity of 179 years, tied to the LIA’s individual minima and which is absent from their consideration.
3. There is an absence of Svensmark’s Cosmic Ray influence in ionisation of aerosols on cloud cover and temperature and no mention of Shaviv who would have had something to say about cosmic ray impact frequency..
4. There is no mention of the AMO’s harmony with these solar variations, nor the ENSO’s influence. The oceanic oscillations’ ties to solar variation is becoming increasingly clear.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 1:26 pm
He calculates a 100,000 km distance change ALL AROUND THE COMPLETE ORBIT…..see his figures….whereas: I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move outward…which is absolutely imposssible since the aphelion-perihelion distance is an adiabatic constant and does NOT move…. what senseless energy calculation assuming what we never have claimed…..
This complication does not matter much, only changes the mass by a factor of roughly two [which is within the bounds of a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation]. Your paper is still dead. You asked for review, you got it.
Leif: You are the astronomy man of Anthony…..but dont’ you realize that
we did NOT write an astronomical, astrophysical paper but a Holocene climate
forcing analysis evaluating the GISP2 temperature evolution.?… This in line with
competing Holocene temperature evolution GCMs – read the 2 given Gavin
Schmidts papers from 2011 and 2012 for comparison…..and their capability
of Holocene temp reconstruction…
We dissect the Holocene and identified cycles surging out of the Holocene
temp evolution, which were also recently detected by spectral ice core analysis
(the 556+ EOO-cycle) (see cycle detection chapter). You keep silent on
cycles because your notebook is empty on existing cycles…and….you continue
[Willis more on this] with demands for full astronomical numbers for exact impact
dynamics, energy releases, impact angles etc …. are you sure this does not go
too far? Please read quoted COMPETING Holocene reconstructions:
Do they prove their Laurentide ice melt forcing assumptions? Show me
calculations for their Dansgaard- Oeschger conveyor belt Gulfstream reversal
or for rapid temperature swings of the Younger Dryas period….
Those professoral ineptitude papers contain nothing but ifs, whens, coulds,
mights and do not show the calculation methods for Gulf stream and Laurentide
ice flow parameters ….. this is the real sad state of Holocene science….From this
view angle you have to assess our paper…go easy on astronomy…..
Well, lets say then, so what.?…. The ultimate astronomical figures are missing. But
nevertheless our Holocene reconstruction works and is superiour to all results of
GCMs on the market. We explain, as best of all, a total of 20,000 years of
climate change….. this is unrivaled [you keep silent on this….. why?],
whereas your own method does NOT produce a single Holocene reconstruction …JS
To Albert Jacobs: The 60-year multidecadal cycle as also manifested in the
AMO was set aside until 2013….it is not missing but announced, you are
6 months ahead of your time, just wait, this AMO and all related Scafetta
aspects see quotes in the book warrants a separate full paper…I explained
it all, what is your point of mentioning decadal mechanisms…?
The same Svensmark: Micro-drivers (as cloud formation) are the ones, which
cannot be identified in the Holocene temp evolution…. Many times said all
over…..JS
To Lars P: Focus on the impact mechanism graph, the center part with the
Sun and the cold, average and warm orbital run presented, the graph explains
better than words….JS
J Seifert;
The first Figure A graph, as is, but then a second graph,
from which the Spikes of the Impact symbol as NOT pertaining to the EOO being
removed…. therefore: Overlay the impact “Blitz”es, as I call it, on top of figure A
and take the CIO impact spikes out…..and then the clean TPs of the EOO are
left to remain…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’ve entirely missed the point.
Add in the cyclical forces referred to by Albert Jacobs. Add in the orbital eccentricities of the moon. Add in sun spots. Add in variations in earth’s magnetic field. Add in AMO, PDO, ENSO and TSI and GCR and and and… I could come up with dozens of sub sets that in the absence of the others look as well correlated as what you have produced, and my results would be no more meaningful than yours.
Well, actually mine would be more meaningful than yours because I wouldn’t make the mistake of proposing a physical mechanism that is impossible. You go on to compound your glaring inability to understand physics in your response to Leif:
J. Seifert;
He calculates a 100,000 km distance change ALL AROUND THE COMPLETE ORBIT…..see his figures….whereas: I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move
outward…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ll not steal Leif’s thunder other than to say you really, Really, REALLY need to take a 1st year physics course. Your response to Willis shows that you also have no idea of what the scientific method is all about. Your orbit has been perturbed and you are lost in space….
This thread has been both amusing and educational. The educational part came entirely from the helio vs bary centric discussion however.
I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move
outward…which is absolutely imposssible since the aphelion-perihelion distance
is an adiabatic constant and does NOT move….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Take that 1st year physics course twice.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Our orbit change of EOO and CIO concerns only the end point of the minor axis…
Reach for your “simple calculation” notebook again…
And I repeat that this will only make a change of a factor of two, so no real difference.
It still takes a lot more energy to change the orbit than the impactors have, so your paper is still dead. The calculation is simple as I demonstrated. No notebook needed or used, so you can stop using that silly phrase..
David: please check Leifs penultimate calculation and ask him about
your orbit extension/1 grade physics claim…He will certainly give you a
scientific answer….JS..
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Leif: You are the astronomy man of Anthony…..but don’t you realize that we did NOT write an astronomical, astrophysical paper
You obviously did NOT. However, an important ingredient of your ‘paper’ is the change in the minor axis of the Earth’s orbit by impacts. And my calculation shows that there is not enough kinetic energy in an impactor of reasonable size to affect the change you advocate. So the change of the orbit because of impacts cannot be the cause of whatever climate changes you postulate. That is all.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Leif: You are the astronomy man of Anthony…..but don’t you realize that we did NOT write an astronomical, astrophysical paper
In your ‘paper’ you say:
“This minor axis has two variable end points, which allow distance variations to the Sun. A closer distance of those end points to the Sun will produce higher temperatures on Earth”
You also say [Figure D] that the result of the impact is first to increase the semi-minor axis [by 50,000-1000,000 km or should that be twice those values? I assume twice because you talk about distances]. Now you cannot increase the semi-minor axis by more than twice 10,630.5 km, as at that point the orbit becomes a circle with a radius equal to the unchangeable semi-major axis. So even your proposed changes don’t make sense. How you get the ‘rebounce’ is voodoo. What force would do that? So all impacts will add up over billions of years of time and produce what? Doesn’t make sense.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm
by 50,000-1000,000 km or should that be twice those values?
If not twice, then the number 10,630.5 I calculated above should be doubled to 21,261 km.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Ian W
“You are claiming that there is NO centripetal force on any of the stars or planets – as the barycenter is virtual – I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps you would explain.”
No, that is not what I am claiming. What I am saying is that not only is the barycentre a virtual point, it is a completely unnecessary virtual point. The real forces in the solar system are gravitational forces acting between the planets. The barycentre is a mathematical convenience not a real object. If you cannot show that any effects are independent of the choice of origin, then you have not shown that they are real. The challenge therefore is : derive the results you claim are significant, without using the barycentre. Simply stating that the barycentre moves around proves nothing.
We are slowly getting there.
So do you accept that the Earth Moon system orbiting actually describes an epitrochoid path as they mutually orbit in the solar system?
If so do you also accept that the Sun has an epitrochoid ‘wobble’ in its orbit of the galaxy like other stars with large planets, or do you consider that it moves in a smooth orbit around the galaxy totally unaffected by the presence of the planets?
Ian W says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:54 pm
If so do you also accept that the Sun has an epitrochoid ‘wobble’ in its orbit of the galaxy like other stars with large planets, or do you consider that it moves in a smooth orbit around the galaxy totally unaffected by the presence of the planets?
Is a straw man argument. The stars, the Sun, and all their planets are in free fall and feel no forces due to their movements [other than tidal forces], so solar activity is indeed unaffected by the presence of planets.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm
now I repeat this a third time on this blog, the Aph-Perh-
distance is a constant and cannot vary, except, due to Geoff Sharp,
for 15,000 km in a 60 year cycle…..Our orbit change of EOO and CIO
concerns only the end point of the minor axis…
I cannot imagine a change in minor axis dimension without affecting the major axis. Disregarding the CIO logic I still do not see any evidence for a EOO more than 15000km.
“We are slowly getting there.”
No we are not…. prove the “wobble” has an effect. Using the same definition of “wobble”, the Earth has a “wobble” 150 million km wide …. what effect does that have?
The “wobble”-term sounds good to describe the impact effect!
For example: The Earth gets impacted by a [Holocene type small] flying object,
which CANNOT displace Earth with ONE STRIKE, lets say by 150,000 km to one
side, [as LEIF in his impact calculation, which are not applicable, DOES.] BUT the
strike only deviates slightly the angle of the flying direction by a few yards. This
happens, say in July. The planet continues with this deviated angle until Oct, 4,
which are about 200 Million km further along the road, when the minor axis is
reached…. and finds itself now sideward deviated by 150,000 km from the
undisturbed orbital path….This way, the temporary length of the semi-minor axis
increases by 150, 000 km. This amounts to 1,000th of the orbit radius,thus very
little and is absolutely feasible: An orbit wobble by a 1/1,000th (one thousands)
part off-road the regular orbit line….This is reasonable…..Now, the orbital flight
has a bulge or wobble on Oct 4, and Earth has to adjust direction toward the
fixed perihelion, because the perihelion is a fixed point, which does not permit
wobbles [this is the difference between the major and the minor axis…..because
of the flexible length of the minor axis. The astronomy counts with a maximum 3%
of minor axis lengthening during glacial times (so-called variability of eccentricity
a la Milankovitch). One 1,000ths due the impact is substantially less than 3% of
150 Mio km…..Now, the system is not yet repaired, because the wobble dynamics
will create another bulge in springtime, April 4. In order to get rid of the wobble
bulge, the solar system with its gravitational and centrifugal forces is trying to
eliminate the wobbles over the following decades of orbiting and re-establishing
its undisturbed orbital flight again…Too bad that Leif und Geoff have static,
outmoded astronomy perceptions, which do not help us…..JS…..
J Seifert;
1. The GCM’s being wrong doesn’t make you right.
2. What you have done is not a reconstruction, nor is it a model. It is curve fitting using selective variables.
3. Writing a paper about Halocene forcing doesn’t mean you get to ignore the laws of physics.
4. You can’t claim what you have done has more skill (or any skill for that matter) than the GCM’s until you have predicted something and seen that prediction borne out.
5. I don’t need to ask Leif about anything. He’s presented his rough calcs, as has Willis. Their calcs are more than sufficient to show that the forces that you assume are orders of magnitude too large to have been caused by the impacts you have identified. I followed their math and the numbers are reasonable.
6. You seem to be under the impression that the orbit of the earth, after being perturbed in some manner, somehow returns to its original state. You seem to be of the belief that an impact only affects the minor axis. These things evoke that famous quip from Einstein “that’s not right, that’s not even wrong”. If you are correct, then all those satellites orbiting the earth according to the exact physics that Leif is trying to explain to you must have been faked along with the moon landings. (SARC!)
It seems to me that you have put a tremendous amount of effort into this paper, and you are very attached to it. I’ve done the same, but when objective evidence is put in front of me that I am wrong, I’ve had to eat crow. Seriously, stop rejecting the things people like Leif and Willis are trying to tell you. Instead, embrace them. Learn the physics, get to the point where you know what formulas to use, when, and why. Get to the point where you can follow the math and understand it instead of making excuses that your paper isn’t a physics paper. That’s just a ludicrous excuse. Learn the physics, then come back to your work and look at it with a fresh perspective.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm
This way, the temporary length of the semi-minor axis increases by 150,000 km
It cannot increase by more that some 10,000 km because that increase makes the orbit circular. Any further increase would make the semi-major axis larger which is impossible.
outmoded astronomy
Has served well for hundreds of years and are still perfectly valid.
Meanwhile I still can’t attempt to replicate the finding of the cycles, as my questions about their GISP2 data remain unanswered. How can I proceed when the only version of the database available to me has such obvious errors, looks possibly corrupted?
Since replication of results is important, and Mr. Seifert has not addressed my concerns about that from which the entire paper is built, I cannot confirm this paper is even science, let alone good science. Who do the authors think they are anyway, Climate Scientists™?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:29 pm
the semi-major axis larger which is impossible.
which was what Seifert said, probably lifted from Wikipedia. But, of course, it is not impossible. If a large enough body slams into the Earth, the orbit of the Earth can be altered in any which way, or even completely destroyed.
J Seifert;
In order to get rid of the wobble
bulge, the solar system with its gravitational and centrifugal forces is trying to
eliminate the wobbles over the following decades of orbiting and re-establishing
its undisturbed orbital flight again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Seriously. That’s not right, that’s not even wrong.
davidmhoffer says:
October 14, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Seriously. That’s not right, that’s not even wrong.
It seems to me that further discussion of Seifert’s missive is fruitless.
To Geoff: Your quote:
“””I cannot imagine a change in minor axis dimension without affecting the major axis. Disregarding the CIO logic I still do not see any evidence for a EOO more than 15000km.”””
The shape of the ecliptic plane of the Earth’s orbit pulsates from ellipse to circle to ellipse
and so forth….The apside (perih-to aph) stays CONSTANT, but whereas the minor axis, within
ongoing Milankovitch cycles lengthens/shortens up to 3% (= several million km) in LENGTH .
This is the astronomical background of the flexibility and variability of the minor axis – called variability of the eccentricity….
…… I guess the evening got late. We left the qualified discourse and somehow fell into rudimentary astronomy, where all peers, please read the above 2 paragraphs, can
evaluate enormous discrepancies between the first (Geoff) and the second (mine)
paragraph.
The same applies to Leifs great calculations….. the pre-conditions/description of
impact dynamics based on kinetic energy are Leifs invention, and his calculation
results confirm his kinetic inventions….this has nothing to do with our analysis,
because the impact process is different and rather follows my explication given as
comment further up concerning the “wobble’ term.
To the remark: personal “outmoded astronomy”: Due to this type of
science, proudly hobbeling along “for centuries”, GCM Holocene reconstructions
underperform “without status of truth”, because the astronomical side and the 5
macro-drivers ( EOO, the CIO, the 60-year Scafetta, the 100,000 year eccentricity
Milankovitch and the SIM -cycle ) have successfully been kept out by Warmists in clima
calculations.
..Leif comments purely on astronomical matters and is carefull NOT to mention EOO
cycle analysis and TP-shifts….not a single word on this. Also not one word on the
temperature evolution over the Holocene. His approach obstructs the cosmic analysis
by disregarding “cosmic cycles visible in the Holocene temp evolution”.
I believe he has room for betterment and in late spring, our promised 60-year cycle
paper will follow and I will include an extra page for him with urgently desired astronomical
numbers. JS
Leif, all has been said, no point to continue the low quality discourse,
let me keep the hope that you have room for betterment… Thats it. JS
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Leif comments purely on astronomical matters and is carefull NOT to mention EOO
Because you have not explained what EOO is. But as I said, “It seems to me that further discussion of Seifert’s missive is fruitless”, so don’t bother.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:32 pm
let me keep the hope that you have room for betterment
We all have, even you.
The earths eccentricity is altered by impacts in theory.
http://www.jhu.edu/~lhinnov1/hinnovresearch/earthsorbitalparameters.htm
There does not seem to be a large effect over a long time period.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Ok, so you are saying the EOO is part of the Milankovitch elliptical change process brought about mainly by the 4 larger planets, but the EOO (unhindered by CIO) is a step oscillation pattern following the general trend of the Milankovitch cycle. The Earths orbit is pulsing in and out measured at the minor axis but overall following the Milankovitch trend.
If so what evidence do you have for the separate EOO pulse?
This guest post is bad and reminds of some of the worst pieces in pseudo science.
It is possible that impacts, even very small, change the climate on large time scales.
What is impossible is that they do so by significantly changing the orbital parameters on short time scales (e.g 1000 – 10000 years)..
Using the observed asteroid masses and velocities, this would simply violate the mechanical energy conservation law (Kinetic energy + Potential energy = constant) which the Earth’s orbit respects with a very high accuracy.
So while the proposed correlation might be right (I am open minded), the proposed mechanism is wrong with an absolute certainty.
And will stay so as long as one accepts that Hamiltonian mechanics is an acceptable approximation of the general relativity to describe the Solar system’s orbits…
This paper strikes me as unsupported, as no details are given regarding the computations. Mostly, it seems to be based on the extraction of Cyclical patterns, of the sort one might do using Fourier transforms, and explaining away the discrepancies as the results of impacts. It might be good, but the paper needs strong backing for its claims regarding the postulated impacts. Moreover, no references are provided regarding those impacts, and many of them are absent from the quoted Earth Impact Database.
For example, the Helike disappearance is most often attributed to an earthquake, and I could not find any mention of an impact.
The santorini event ALSO is most often described simply as a volcanic explosion. Why is this activity attributed to a collision? Similarly , Sirente is not listed as a proven/probable impact site.
The Mahuika crater is claimed by this paper to have caused the disappearance of a Chinese fleet near New Zealand at 1443. What is the documental evidence for the presence of that fleet in New Zealand and its disappearance?
Signals from some small impacts are claimed to be visible in the data (like Kaali, Estonia, claimed to be 2500 yrs old, whereas http://tsun.sscc.ru shows it to be 4000 yrs old). The Expert Database on Earth Impact Structures (EDEIS, http://tsun.sscc.ru) lists 28 impacts (proven or probable) in the last 10000 yrs with larger magnitude than Kaali. Shouldn’t they all be visible in the data?
PS: I first tried to post this comment last Friday on Tallbloke’s blog, but it did not go through. I post it now here so that Seifert and Lemke may address it.
PedroS: See reply over at TB and I very much appreciate your help in
detecting additional impact events. They should, as you correctly point out,
due to their impact size, indeed be visible in the GISP2 data. This stands, of
course against Leif’s “SIMPEL” calculations, as he put it. He opposes that
your impacts will cause temp-drop-rebounce-patterns and the TP-shift, as
basic indicator for impact occurence. He studied our paper well to put forward
his qualified conclusion
The only problem is that Leif maintains that NOT ONE SINGLE IMPACT which
you will identify for us will show you our IDENTIFIED (1) impact pattern nor
(2) a TP-shift. nor (3) the relation of crater size to temp drop.
He did simple calculations discovering that you cannot discover (1)+(2)+(3) in the
GISP2 data set, because only half-star-size flying objects are capable to produce
identified 3 effects in our paper….JS
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm
The “wobble”-term sounds good to describe the impact effect!
For example: The Earth gets impacted by a [Holocene type small] flying object,
which CANNOT displace Earth with ONE STRIKE, lets say by 150,000 km to one
side, [as LEIF in his impact calculation, which are not applicable, DOES.] BUT the
strike only deviates slightly the angle of the flying direction by a few yards. This
happens, say in July. The planet continues with this deviated angle until Oct, 4,
which are about 200 Million km further along the road, when the minor axis is
reached…. and finds itself now sideward deviated by 150,000 km from the
undisturbed orbital path….This way, the temporary length of the semi-minor axis
increases by 150, 000 km. This amounts to 1,000th of the orbit radius,thus very
little and is absolutely feasible:
We can test this claim quite simply, without going into orbital mechanics. Consider an Earth like object flying in a straight line through free space at Earth-like velocity. It is impacted from the side at right angles to its trajectory by a big meteor travelling at a similar speed. All of the impact energy is converted to KE for the purpose of the argument (in reality, much of the energy would be dissipated as heat). How big would the object need to be to produce the 150,000km deviation from the path that the undisturbed object would have taken that Joachim Siefert estimates?
200,000,000/150,000=1333.3
1/1333.3*8=0.006 degrees deviation from the undisturbed course
sin(0.006)=1*10^-4
The velocities of the objects are the same so the mass of the impactor therefore has to be 0.1% that of Earth.
That pretty much agrees with Leif’s calculation of an object half the size of Ceres producing a 100,000km deviation in the size of half the minor axis of Earth’s orbit.
As I told Joachim in email early last week, this hypothesis isn’t yet ready for prime time. It was given as friendly advice.
To me, the more interesting question is what the effect would be of an impactor punching a hole through the Earth’s crust sending shockwaves through the mantle. I would guess (and it’s only a guess), that there would be immediate planet wide cooling due to volcagenic albedo, followed by warming due to increased atmospheric mass due to the resulting widespread volcanic activity. That would (I guess) then be followed by cooling due to increased biomass-atmosphere chemical interaction and the resultant drawdown of excess atmospheric gases.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:18 am
When I search for “wolff patrone” what first shows up is Tallbloke’s site, first two results. I’ve noticed Tallbloke was removed from the “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory” blogroll section not that long ago. Given the sort of stuff that shows up at his site and is given serious consideration, I was not expecting much from W&P.
I’m not too worried by your dragging up Anthony’s temporary re-classification of my website during a period when we had a disagreement over an issue irrelevant to the topic of this thread, you smearing troll. We do give serious consideration to interesting ideas dismissed out of hand by fools like yourself it’s true. The 2000 plus people who visit my site daily regard this as an asset rather than a demerit.
I have now read the W&P Abstract. Summary: Gravitational forces from planets can churn the material of a star, resulting in increased solar output and decreased lifespan compared to the same star without planets. That’s it. I see no advantage to using a barycentric viewpoint over heliocentric, the planets are exerting tidal forces,
The planets exerting the tidal forces are exerting them in such a way that there is a tendency, identified by Wolff and Patrone’s model, for more energy to be released from overturning convection cells beneath the Sun’s surface on the side of the Sun facing the barycentre of the system. The barycentre exerts no force of its own, as Anna V tirelessly reminds us, but it is a ‘shorthand’ single word ‘notation’ for the combined forces of several planets acting on the Sun used by those of us who are working on the details.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 5:11 pm
The stars, the Sun, and all their planets are in free fall and feel no forces due to their movements [other than tidal forces], so solar activity is indeed unaffected by the presence of planets.
If the Sun was a point-like perfectly-elastic billiard-ball-in-space you’d be right, but it isn’t, and you’re not. Your friend Gough’s appeal to the authority of Chandresekar and Rayleigh isn’t either. Which is why we aren’t seeing it elevated to being a submitted rebuttal that Wolff and Patrone can respond to. Referring to the year-old note sent to you in email by Gough is just a worthless smear. Repetition of wrong analysis doesn’t make it correct [Though some may come to believe the propaganda].
Tallbloke :”The planets exerting the tidal forces are exerting them in such a way that there is a tendency, identified by Wolff and Patrone’s model, for more energy to be released from overturning convection cells beneath the Sun’s surface on the side of the Sun facing the barycentre of the system. The barycentre exerts no force of its own, as Anna V tirelessly reminds us, but it is a ‘shorthand’ single word ‘notation’ for the combined forces of several planets acting on the Sun used by those of us who are working on the details.”
Regrettably for this argument, the position of the barycentre relative to the Sun is determined largely by the positions of the heavy planets Jupiter and Saturn, but these do not produce the largest tidal forces. Qualitative handwaving style physics using the barycentre will therefore always produce a spurious correlation with J-S cycles, as the tidal forces due to Mercury and Venus (combined) are actually greater. This means that use of the barycentre leads to an unjustified answer
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:34 am
Regrettably for this argument, the position of the barycentre relative to the Sun is determined largely by the positions of the heavy planets Jupiter and Saturn, but these do not produce the largest tidal forces. Qualitative handwaving style physics using the barycentre will therefore always produce a spurious correlation with J-S cycles, as the tidal forces due to Mercury and Venus (combined) are actually greater. This means that use of the barycentre leads to an unjustified answer
The Mercury and Venus tides operate over shorter timescales and raise tidal bulges which are then acted upon by the larger planets. Ian Wilson, a qualified astrophysicist, has done a lot of work in this area, which the commenters dismissing the idea of planetary motion affecting solar variability haven’t read, and don’t (currently) understand. The Sun’s outer layers are highly mobile plasma, and do not act the same way as an incompressible fluid like Earth’s oceans. Gravitational forces from planets can act in a more localised way on such a fluid as the Sun’s envelope, and we do not yet have an accurate assessment of the fluid dynamics involved.
However, we have found correlations between the speeding up and slowing down of the latitudinal ‘belts’ at various latitudes on the Sun and the frequencies of planetary alignments. Jimmi has no idea of what is justified and what isn’t, because he has not studied the matter in sufficient depth.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Ian W says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:54 pm
If so do you also accept that the Sun has an epitrochoid ‘wobble’ in its orbit of the galaxy like other stars with large planets, or do you consider that it moves in a smooth orbit around the galaxy totally unaffected by the presence of the planets?
Is a straw man argument. The stars, the Sun, and all their planets are in free fall and feel no forces due to their movements [other than tidal forces], so solar activity is indeed unaffected by the presence of planets.
So you are saying when the direction of that ‘free fall’ is altered changing their velocity vector the Sun and planets do not have any inertia and no force is required to move them into different orbits? They act as massless objects?
Have you really considered what you are sayng?
From tallbloke on October 15, 2012 at 4:05 am:
…you smearing troll. We do give serious consideration to interesting ideas dismissed out of hand by fools like yourself it’s true. (…)
Yes, stuff shows up here, gets dismissed by fools like Leif Svalgaard, Willis Eschenbach, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, even Lord Monckton, then finds a home on your site. Excuse me for noticing.
Example of an “interesting idea” you recently posted on Oct 8: Ebisuzaki et al : Some volcanoes are triggered by cosmic rays.
Caption of volcano drawing: Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber
From the Abstract: We note the possibility that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was triggered by the same mechanism: an increase in cosmic-ray flux triggered by Typhoon Yunya, as a decrease in atmospheric pressure results in an increase in cosmic-ray flux.
From USGS (bold added):
(…) The barycentre exerts no force of its own, as Anna V tirelessly reminds us, but it is a ‘shorthand’ single word ‘notation’ for the combined forces of several planets acting on the Sun used by those of us who are working on the details.
And yet there are barycenter advocates finding meaning in how much area the Sun sweeps around it, and have discovered mysterious enormous forces changing the Sun’s velocity 100% every 10 years. Using a barycenter to simplify some calculations related to orbital mechanics, that is understandable. Ascribing powers to the solar system’s barycenter as has been done, is not understandable.
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Have you really considered what you are saying?
objects in free-fall follow geodesics of spacetime, and what we perceive as the force of gravity is instead a result of being unable to follow those geodesics of spacetime, because the mechanical resistance of matter prevents us from doing so, but since there is no such resistance in space within the solar system, there is no force acting on the bodies.
Tallbloke says “Ian Wilson, a qualified astrophysicist”, attempting an argument from authority, which always goes down badly of skeptic sites.
If he is, then he has some funny ideas. For example appears not to know how Doppler effects used to detect extrasolar planets actually work. And he says “The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits” yet when challenged to prove that this is correct (on the sort of timescale that is implicit in the discussion), he makes no reply. Perhaps you could try?
From Ian W on October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm:
So you are saying when the direction of that ‘free fall’ is altered changing their velocity vector…
You may stop there. A vector has two components, magnitude and direction. An object in orbit is undergoing a continuous change to its velocity vector as its direction continually changes due to the acceleration provided by the gravitational force, its instantaneous direction given by the tangent of its orbit. The magnitude of the velocity vector is the speed of the object in orbit. Please try to make your arguments sound more authoritative by proper use of the proper nomenclature.
J. Seifert says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm
As far as I can see, Leif has said nothing about “temp-drop-rebounce-patterns” or about the Toilet-Paper-Shift (or ‘Temporal-Persistence-Shift’, or whatever the “TP” actually stands for).
What he and I have both said is that there is not enough energy in the impacts you list to change the orbit of the earth. It’s less than the impact of a fly hitting a car, more like the impact of a midge hitting a car. Sure, there is an impact, the midge thinks it’s the end of the world.
But if you think a midge hitting a car significantly changes the car’s orbit, you’re not paying attention. Similarly, thinking that the impact of even something as large as the Chicxlub meteorite could significantly change the Earth’s orbit is just magical thinking. Run the numbers.
No, Leif is not claiming that. He said nothing about the “impact pattern” or the toilet-paper-shift.
He said that there is not enough energy in your cosmic impact to affect the earth’s orbit in the way you claimed. Which is what I said, and others have said.
There’s an old saying that goes “If one man calls you a horse, laugh it off. If two men call you a horse, check your footprints. But if three men call you a horse, buy a saddle.” A number of people here have pointed out a huge flaw in your claims. The cosmic impacts don’t have enough energy to do what you claim, by several orders of magnitude. The math is not hard, Leif went through it above, as did I. Tallbloke went through it as well, and his numbers agree with Leifs.
In response, you keep waving your hands, and saying well if it moves the Earth just a little off then over time it will be a larger effect, and the like. All that is doing is causing people to lose respect for you. Man up, do the calculations, admit you were wrong, buy a saddle, and move on.
Or you could just move the conversation over to Tallblokes … because you are rapidly losing credibility here.
Me, I’d stay here if I were you, because here on WUWT folks will tell you the truth. And I would give up on the bluster, and on the claims that Leif and tallbloke and I are just fools who are trying to do you wrong. We are the good guys who are trying to do you right, and you would do well to seriously consider our objections.
Because after all, you knew enough to ask for peer-review here on this site, which was a very wise move. Now, if you are truly wise, you will pay attention to the peer review you have received. I can tell you this. Without the calculations showing that the cosmic impact can have the effect on the Earth’s orbit that you claim, your paper will never get published in any reputable journal. Because the first question the peer-reviewers will likely have is the same question asked over and over here—where are the numbers for the effect on the orbit of the earth? Where’s the beef?
My best to you,
w.
PS—If you are truly allergic to the math, Joachim. then just consider the relative sizes of the Earth and say the Chicxlub meteor. The Earth is ten billion times as massive as the meteor. Next, consider the ratios of their kinetic energies, which are calculated as
KE = 1/2 m v2.
where v is the velocity and m is the mass.
If we assume that the two are moving at the same speed, the kinetic energies are in the same ratio as the masses, so the Earth has ten billion times the kinetic energy of the meteor. Heck, even if the meteor were improbably going a hundred times faster than the Earth, the Earth would still have a million times the kinetic energy of the meteor …
In other words, the Earth hitting the meteor is like a container ship hitting a sailboat … nobody even notices, there’s no palpable change in the orbit. The container ship’s crew don’t even know they hit something until they get back to port and find the sailboat’s mast and rigging hanging from the container ship’s anchor.
PPS—A friendly word of advice. Lose the capital letters, they just make you sound both eccentric and desperate …
To Willis: Your quote:
……..”’ ……there is not enough energy in the impacts you list to change the orbit of the earth.
It’s less than the impact of a fly hitting a car, more like the impact of a midge hitting the car.
Sure, there is an impact, the midge thinks it’s the end of the world. But if you think a midge
hitting a car significantly changes the car’s orbit, you’re not paying attention. …….”’
….. NOW, LET ME SAY THE FOLLOWING TO WILLIS CLAIM:
(1) You have not read the paper, and in case you really went across pages and figures,
then, you did not understand what you saw. This can be proven that the few
coined abbreviations used in the text are unknown/inexplicable to you….. Sad.
(2) Your judgment is solely based on the fly/midge -car comparison. This comparison
rests on Leifs ‘simple” (HIS quote) calculation, that an impact mass must not be
a fly/midge but some huge sized object. Indeed, his simple calculation as such
is correctly done, there is no doubt about it… But, as always in life, his solution
is too simplistic and does not describe full cosmic impact conditions. Full cosmic
impact conditions are more complicated then Leifs simplistic presentation. There
are more dynamic impact forces, gravitation, centrifugal effects, the Earth orbital
motion as osculation [correct term] and many more to be included …..
(3) You ask for presentation of complicated astrophysical calculations on one hand ….
yet on the other hand you trust in Leifs simplistics showing only that flies do not move
a car…..
(4) Willis, you tried to give me your advice, and I will give you mine: You did outstanding
work until now, I enjoyed every article of you and be glad you will be around for many
more to come….but, here the but:
Do your things your own way and do not follow the misleading trail of Leif&Co.
I give Leif a 1,000 points in his proper field of solar science, I will accept every single
of his solar words…. but I give him +/- zero points in the field of the Earth’s orbit, which
is NOT his turf….. His word counts as much as the word of my veterinarian next door.
Do your own, get rid of the outmoded Leif-style and you will stay as the Best…….
(5) Reaching this point, I must not forget to mention our paper: We present EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE, which everybody should respect, that the EEO-cycle, the T”oilet”-P”aper”
-shifting, the CIO-impact – Z-type- pattern, the correlation of impact crater size-to Z
-type (“high voltage symbol”) temperature swing (cold-warm-middle level) EXIST and
are clearly VISIBLE and quantificable in the analyzed 20,000 years of temperature
evolution. We achieved this goal and claim sky-high performance compared to our
GCM-competition, the Warmist -style Microdriver GCMs, which cannot, as model-data
comparisons proved, ( see our paper introduction), quote: “claim any status of truth” .
We instead show the absolute best Holocene temperature reconstruction and will
therefore, in a few years time, sway high above the ashes of discarded GCMs.
We thank you that you concede that you CANNOT FALSIFY OUR PRESENTATION
AS IT STANDS. …point.
(6) Lets settle on the following: I heed your advice and you heed my advice and we both
will have made a great leap forward….JS
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Have you really considered what you are saying?
objects in free-fall follow geodesics of spacetime, and what we perceive as the force of gravity is instead a result of being unable to follow those geodesics of spacetime, because the mechanical resistance of matter prevents us from doing so, but since there is no such resistance in space within the solar system, there is no force acting on the bodies.
Yes I am aware of your definition of ‘freefall’. However, that was NOT what I asked. If a body like the Sun is in freefall ‘following the geodesics of space time’ and the direction of that freefall changes – you are saying that there is no inertia, no effect whatsoever the Sun would merely change direction and follow the new geodesics of space time’ as if it was entirely massless.
No inertia, no momentum, massless change of vector,
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 15, 2012 at 1:57 pm
From Ian W on October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm:
So you are saying when the direction of that ‘free fall’ is altered changing their velocity vector…
You may stop there. A vector has two components, magnitude and direction. An object in orbit is undergoing a continuous change to its velocity vector as its direction continually changes due to the acceleration provided by the gravitational force, its instantaneous direction given by the tangent of its orbit. The magnitude of the velocity vector is the speed of the object in orbit. Please try to make your arguments sound more authoritative by proper use of the proper nomenclature.
There is no reason to be patronizing – I was using simple language to force you Leif and Jimmi to think about what you were saying instead of parroting well worn phrases. Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector. (However, Leif you will note, states this centripetal force does not exist as the body is in freefall following the geodesics of space time )
My entire point was that if that ‘gravitational force which for bodies in the solar system is actually the sum of several gravitational foces; changes its ‘instantaneous direction’ due to the change of position of the other bodies in the solar system, then the orbit of the Sun around the galaxy and the planets and their moons will also alter. In Leif’s parlance the geodesics of space time will change and the body will change the direction of its freefall.
I find it difficult to accept that changing the velocity (that is – just so you understand me – the direction and speed) of any body be it the Sun or the planets or their moons is without any inertia or momentum and these massive bodies just change direction as if they were a massless mathematical point. You Jimmi, Leif, and Anna are of the massless point persuasion (despite your polemic to me above on the centripetal action of gravitational force – obviously no force is needed as the Sun and planers are massless and change velocity (that is speed and direction) without any inertia or momentum.
The reason I was using simple language was to draw this rather strange concept out into the open so it could be bluntly stated.
What I wonder is the centripetal force required to keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun? What force is then required to alter that orbit from its current almost circular pattern to the extended ellipse? The answer from the cognoscenti is that no force is required at all.
I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector.
Imagine a small body [a spacecraft perhaps] orbiting the Sun just skimming the surface. It will complete one orbit in 2 hours 47 minutes. Adjust the mass of the body such that the barycenter of the Sun and the body [remove all other bodies from the solar system if you must] is positioned one meter from the center of the Sun [on the line connecting the center and the body]. Now one way to treat the system is the classical Newtonian way [which is good enough for this]. In this paradigm the Sun and the body both orbit their common barycenter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit3.gif in particular the Sun orbiting in 2h 47m. During that short time the solar velocity vector with respect to the barycenter changes direction 360 degrees. The Sun so to speak rounds a very sharp corner. I maintain that this has no influence on the Sun.
“What force is then required to alter that orbit from its current almost circular pattern to the extended ellipse?”
Actually the real question is : When does this ever happen? Please provide proof that this has ever occurred during the last few thousand years, otherwise you are in the same category as Seifert and his EOO and CIOs.
“I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.” And now you are doing ‘argument from incredulity’, definitely a bad sign.
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector.
Now move the small body slowly away from the Sun. This moves the barycenter away from the Sun’s center. Continue to move the small body away from the Sun, the barycenter moves out as well. At some time [remove the rest of the universe if you must] the body will have reached such a distance that the solar orbit around the barycenter will take 12 years [as around the real solar system barycenter]. I still maintain that that small body does not influence the Sun in any measurable way.
Willis Eschenbach: How much altered? Depends on a host of factors, but consider the masses. The Chicxlub asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs is estimated to have weighed on the order of 6e+14 kg. The mass of the earth is about 6e+24 kg … that’s ten full orders of magnitude larger. The earth has ten billion times the mass of even that huge asteroid.
I am glad you wrote that. I was going to post the same thought today, and you have scooped me.
I think if I were a reviewer I would require some computations of the sizes of the orbital swings forced by these impacts, and a justification that they all produce the same down-up-down swing in the global climate (instead of random perturbations), as a condition of publication. Do all of the impacting bodies come from the same direction at the same season of the Earth year? Publication is always something of a calculated risk, and as presented this paper needs another calculation, in my opinion. Perhaps the other analogy, besides Velikovsky, is Wegener, who also had a semi-quantitative hypothesis with an inadequate quantitative substantiation. The paper as it is looks less substantial than Wegener, all things considered.
Leif:
May I politely disagree with your summary, though please understand I’m not ready to accept a “physical collision” process to explain past repeated changes. Nor to accept physical changes in rotation or changes in the earth’s axis.
The barycenter of the solar system does NOT have to “change” the sun .. You are assuming an effect or change based on the simple Newton solid-body “particle” orbits and inertia.
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though. It is a roiling, flowing mass of plasma continuously compressed inwards by gravity on 10^30 some-odd independent charged particle each moving at incredible velocities and moved themselves by roiling twisting currents and loops at various speeds and various directions that themselves change rapidly over time. Outward force comes from the interior fusion r(randomly directly energy coming from collisions: and those loops and currents of charged particles create the (rapidly changing) magnetic fields and loops we see as the sunspot cycle.
Therefore, the ONLY thing a potential “change” from some periodic outside influence needs to do is “change” those charged loops that are already changing on an 22 year cycle. What seemly everybody misses is the fact that sunspots are only one (but highly visible!) indication or symptom of an underlying change in the magnetic fields and particle flow in the sun.
So, to temporaily change the loops of a flowing current water in a wide river near a whirlpool behind a rock, I do NOT need to build a dam and block all of the river. (This is your constant analogy of showing that the “sun” is not moved by 2-body point-mass calculations. And I agree, I don’t expect to see the sun change due to the barycenter changing from the interior of the sun out past its surface and back inside. But, like a single stick inserted into that whirlpool behind the rock, then withdrawn, I would NOT be surprised to see changes in the changing currents visible on the sun. After all, each current (because it sis looping up, stopping at an altitude, then falling back, is already weightless at the top of the parabola of the loop. And, each particle in that immense loop is only a single ion – with no mass at all to to be pulled or twisted from what would have been its path if the barycenter (or Saturn, or Jupiter, or whatever) were someplace else.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector.
Now move the small body slowly away from the Sun. This moves the barycenter away from the Sun’s center. Continue to move the small body away from the Sun, the barycenter moves out as well. At some time [remove the rest of the universe if you must] the body will have reached such a distance that the solar orbit around the barycenter will take 12 years [as around the real solar system barycenter]. I still maintain that that small body does not influence the Sun in any measurable way.
Leif – if you look at my earlier posts on this thread you will see that I started from the position of a binary star system with two stars orbiting each other. Perhaps you could rework your thought experiment using that example. The answer may be somewhat different to your straw man. 😉
davidmhoffer: 5. I don’t need to ask Leif about anything. He’s presented his rough calcs, as has Willis. Their calcs are more than sufficient to show that the forces that you assume are orders of magnitude too large to have been caused by the impacts you have identified. I followed their math and the numbers are reasonable.
I have read the whole thread, or almost the whole thread. I agree with the thoughts like that quoted that Dr. Seifert has not shown that his proposed mechanism can produce the results he wants from it. Someone mentioned Ceres, with which I am not familiar. Don’t the impacting objects have to be at least the size of Madagascar, including its underwater support down to the ocean bottom? Is there any evidence for impacts caused by objects that size, frequently in the last few thousands of years? The mechanism does not require an object large enough to destroy a fleet, it requires an object large enough to destroy Japan. Does it not?
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:22 pm
“What force is then required to alter that orbit from its current almost circular pattern to the extended ellipse?”
Actually the real question is : When does this ever happen? Please provide proof that this has ever occurred during the last few thousand years, otherwise you are in the same category as Seifert and his EOO and CIOs.
“I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.” And now you are doing ‘argument from incredulity’, definitely a bad sign.
Now we are on interesting ground – you thought the Earth’s orbit was perfectly circular and never changing?
See
Orbital shape (eccentricity)
The Earth’s orbit is an ellipse. The eccentricity is a measure of the departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth’s orbit varies in time between nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.005) and mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.058) with the mean eccentricity of 0.028. The major component of these variations occurs on a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). A number of other terms vary between components 95,000 and 125,000 years (with a beat period 400,000 years), and loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of −0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
and:
The eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit is currently about 0.0167; the Earth’s orbit is nearly circular. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit varies from nearly 0.0034 to almost 0.058 as a result of gravitational attractions among the planets (see graph).[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity
There are lots of other references but those were the easiest to find. Perhaps you ought to go and correct them I am sure Wikipedia would be grateful.
RACookPE1978 says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:50 pm
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though.
This is the usual ‘out’ from the dynamical calculations. Helioseismology shows that to a very high degree of precision the Sun’s interior is in hydrostatical equilibrium, that is: the density varies only with the radius. Already Newton showed that such a mass distribution can be treated as a point mass. But this is not really the issue. The point is that every assembly of particles in the Sun [apart from extremely tiny tidal effects] moves along the same geodetics [‘straight lines’] in spacetime. Because of internal motions [e.g. convection] one has to deal with time averages over a suitable interval. Now, all of this can be made complicated beyond belief, and it behooves proponents of the barycenter idea to show how the physics works. One attempt was made by Wolff and Padrone. Unfortunately their mechanism does not work. Even W&P explicitly state “A star in orbit about its barycenter is in a state of free fall (Shirley, 2006). At the center of the star, the attractive force from all the planets is exactly canceled by the orbital accelerations (centrifugal and angular). At other locations, the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid is the tidal force. It raises a tide 1 mm high at the solar surface.”
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 6:05 pm
if you look at my earlier posts on this thread you will see that I started from the position of a binary star system with two stars orbiting each other. Perhaps you could rework your thought experiment using that example. The answer may be somewhat different to your straw man
Your example is not different from mine. I’m also dealing with a binary star, except one of the two is teeny tiny. The physics stay the same, though.
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 6:05 pm
The answer may be somewhat different to your straw man
As always, the thread has been taken over by the barycenter cult-followers and the discussion degenerated to the same old, tired, and predictable tirades that we have gone over a zillion times. And as always, nothing will come of further ‘discussion’, except perhaps a certain disdain that a casual visitor to WUWT must feel by this unsavory display of science illiteracy.
RACookPE1978 says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:50 pm
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though.
And yet, in calculation of the incredible accurate ephemerides by JPL http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/ that help guide our spacecraft with meter precision and predict transits and eclipse to fraction of a second accuracy it suffices to treat the Sun as a point mass.
“Now we are on interesting ground – you thought the Earth’s orbit was perfectly circular and never changing?”
No of course I did not.
But you keep talking of “extended” ellipsis and “unstable” orbits, which to have any effect in the way you imply, must be happening over a time scale of a few decades. We are NOT talking about the Milankovitch cycles during which the eccentricity may change from 0.005 to 0.05 over 400,000 years. If that is the sort of change you meant , then it is completely out of step with claims that the Jupiter-Saturn period can cause significant changes.
Now stop being evasive and answer the following:
1. are your theories provably independent of the choice of origin
2. why do you think that techniques for detecting extrasolar planets tell you anything about the effect of planets on the internal structures of stars
3. why do you not understand the Doppler effect
4. why do you keep referring to planetary orbits as “unstable” when they are not (over the time periods we are talking about)
5. which specific parts of Newtonian planetary dynamics do you disagree with.
I notice with interest that you are increasingly relying on sarcasm in your posts – this is backfiring as it actually is showing you know less than others participating in this discussion – please try to provide answers well founded in mathematical and physical principles and if you are going to disagree with Newton and/or Einstein try to find a better reason than “I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.”
Good point Leif. If NASA were to use the funny money calculations of barycenter believers, we would be landing on a 10 meter square of…space. We would have missed the moon entirely and don’t even bother with objects further away. Mistakes like that multiply the further you get away from the mistake.
You don’t suppose barycenter proponents would like to put money on their calculations being accurate enough for a multi-billion attempt at landing on Mercury?
Pamela Gray says:
October 15, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Good point Leif. If NASA were to use the funny money calculations of barycenter believers, we would be landing on a 10 meter square of…space
If you had a little knowledge on the subject you would not make such a ridiculous statement. The AM calculations that align so nicely with the Holocene are derived directly from the JPL vectors and coordinates that NASA use. Perhaps you could educate yourself, instead of playing team groupie.
From Geoff Sharp on October 15, 2012 at 8:53 pm to Pamela Gray:
Perhaps you could educate yourself, instead of playing team groupie.
Warning, imminent eruption of redheaded Irish volcano detected.
Geoff, your complete lack of survival instinct is noted. I suppose it was nice knowing you.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Tallbloke says “Ian Wilson, a qualified astrophysicist”, attempting an argument from authority, which always goes down badly of skeptic sites.
If he is, then he has some funny ideas. For example appears not to know how Doppler effects used to detect extrasolar planets actually work. And he says “The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits” yet when challenged to prove that this is correct (on the sort of timescale that is implicit in the discussion), he makes no reply. Perhaps you could try?
Jimmi: You have confused Ian Wilson with commenter Ian W. They are two different people.
As to your question, you may note my calculation agreed with Leif’s. We both demonstrated that an impacting body would have to be around 0.1% of the Earth’s mass to cause a deviation of the magnitude Joachim considers necessary to cause the GISP2 temperature swings.
Of course, so far as the (usually) smaller deviations caused by the disposition of other masses in the solar system are concerned, this is the many body problem. The maintenance of stability of planetary orbits relies on these perturbations, which maintain the harmonic relationships which create the *near* stability of the system.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 6:59 pm
RACookPE1978 says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:50 pm
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though.
And yet, in calculation of the incredible accurate ephemerides by JPL http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/ that help guide our spacecraft with meter precision and predict transits and eclipse to fraction of a second accuracy it suffices to treat the Sun as a point mass.
Which is true, and completely irrelevant to the phenomena under discussion by RACookPE1978.
Joachim says:
Willis…
Do your own, get rid of the outmoded Leif-style and you will stay as the Best…….
(5) Reaching this point, I must not forget to mention our paper: We present EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE, which everybody should respect, that the EEO-cycle, the T”oilet”-P”aper”
-shifting, the CIO-impact – Z-type- pattern, the correlation of impact crater size-to Z
-type (“high voltage symbol”) temperature swing (cold-warm-middle level) EXIST and
are clearly VISIBLE and quantificable in the analyzed 20,000 years of temperature
evolution.
Cherry picking impacts (and making assumptions about their dating) which fit the turning points in the GISP2 ice core record doesn’t validate your impact hypothesis of shifts in Earth’s orbit, which is disproven by the simple calculations presented by Leif and myself.
The cherry-pick argument was missing until now…picking time has come folks….
Go ahead and pick just one single impact which counters our claim….this
is part of real science…. find one and we lost the universal claim of empirical
truth….. get a stout Warmist to do this work, do not do it yourself…..is too tedious,
whereas the Warmist will be delighted to clean out global overheating deniers…..JS
tallbloke says:
October 15, 2012 at 10:07 pm
…”it suffices to treat the Sun as a point mass.”
Which is true, and completely irrelevant to the phenomena under discussion by RACookPE1978.
On the contrary, it shows that for dealing with gravitational forces the ‘roiling plasma’picture is irrelevant and we can treat the sun as a point mass.
I am still waiting for the EOO data which does not look to be forthcoming. We can only assume it is dodgy like other aspects of this paper.
Geoff, I know you are very keen…. but I had other things to do, now its 2 am in the
morning and I just sent you an reply to make you happy….JS
To Geoff Sharp: Geoff, the EOO pulsation at both end of the minor axis is the
wave line of our 27-37 ka BP graphic. On it, the vertical temp change is at the same
time the Km- distance change Sun—>End points of the Minor axis., which as I said are
not stiff points, but flexible points.
For my 2013 paper I must provide a lot of astronomics of the Earth’s orbit to explain
the 60-year Scafetta cycle, and this is basic for the understanding of this cycle. I cannot
do it in WUWT comments, it would take to long. My booklet on the subject EOO-cycle
explains it in full and transparently with calculations (108 pages)but its in
German. There are those automatic machine translation of papers nowadays, but
I do not know how the readability afterwards is……
The EOO-cycle is the 556++ growing cosmic orbit cycle (do not listen to Leif, because
he has never heard of it and therefore, it cannot exist, would be his answer) Monckton
classifies this as the ‘argumentum ignorantum” : I never saw an elephant, thats why
elephants do not exist…..Ask him maybe he can explain to you this cycle for bridging
the time to 2013….
He will probably do some “simple” calculations showing that the 556+ orbit cycle is just
an invention of J+L to confuse the public….Thats Life… JS
Tallbloke says : “You have confused Ian Wilson with commenter Ian W. They are two different people.”
Oh, so Ian W is not Dr Ian Wilson who published a few papers in the early 1980’s while a graduate student at ANU, then nothing for 25 years except one paper called “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?” Glad to hear it, as that stops me from insulting Dr Wilson by telling him that he has forgotten all his physics in that 25 years. So we can assume that Ian W is not the same person then, and is not a qualified astrophysicist, which would explain a lot……..
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:12 pm
On the contrary, it shows that for dealing with gravitational forces the ‘roiling plasma’picture is irrelevant and we can treat the sun as a point mass.
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly your technique of misdirection away from the point at issue.
The roiling plasma near the Sun’s surface makes up only a small part of it’s mass. So of course we can navigate spacecraft with sufficient precision using calculations which treat the Sun-as-a-whole as a point mass. This in no way precludes the possibility that all the solar system masses and fields are interlocked in a system of feedbacks which affect boundary-conditions near the solar surface to the extent of producing changes of up to around ~0.3% in its power output and much bigger percentage changes in its output of UV and solar wind speed and density. This is because as well as considering the Sun’s mass, you need to consider its modes of energy production and delivery, and the effect they have on the system as a whole.
I don’t expect you to take just my word for it though. As well as the numerous well written articles on the net amongst the misunderstandings, there is a growing body of published literature explaining various plausible hypotheses which can account for a number of physical mechanisms underlying empirical observations which correlate solar activity levels with planetary mass disposition. There is more on the way, to add to the existing empirical evidence and theory which is already strong enough to refute your misleading objections. There is a growing number of scientists and interested amateur researchers who are not so easily fooled by your false arguments and misdirections. The days of the inviolate lonely Sun unaffected by the system of which it is a part are numbered.
Even blind watchmakers can hear the ticking.
J. Seifert says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:55 pm
The cherry-pick argument was missing until now…picking time has come folks….
Go ahead and pick just one single impact which counters our claim
Impacts up to 20,000 years old, from the Earth impact database (none of them big enough to knock Earth off orbit):
http://www.passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase/Agesort.html
Impact Structures Sorted by Age
Structure Name
Age (Ma)*
Kamil
?
Carancas
0.000004
Sikhote Alin
0.000063
Wabar
0.00014
Haviland
< 0.001
Sobolev
< 0.001
Whitecourt
<0.0011
Campo Del Cielo
< 0.004
Kaalijärv
0.004 ± 0.001
Henbury
0.0042 ± 0.0019
Boxhole
0.0054± 0.0015
Ilumetsä
~ 0.0066
Macha
< 0.007
Morasko
< 0.01
Tenoumer
0.0214 ± 0.0097
Not content with re-writing orbital mechanics, Joachim wants to introduce other 'impacts' that didn't leave craters, and may have been earthquakes, volcanoes or landslips. I don't know enough about geology to know whether the Santorini caldera is the site of an impact which then formed a volcano, and I suspect Joachim doesn't either. But the available evidence seems to indicate that the caldera refilled more than once. Wiki says:
"Volcanism on Santorini is due to the Hellenic Trench subduction zone southwest of Crete. The oceanic crust of the northern margin of the African Plate is being subducted under Greece and the Aegean Sea. which comprises thinned continental crust. The subduction compels the formation of the Hellenic arc, which includes Santorini and other volcanic centres, such as Methana, Milos, and Kos.
Around the time of the radiocarbon-indicated date of the eruption, there is evidence for a significant climatic event in the Northern Hemisphere. The evidence includes failure of crops in China, as well as evidence from tree rings. The tree rings date the climatic event to 1628 BC
The violent eruption was centred on a small island just north of the existing island of Nea Kameni in the centre of the caldera; the caldera itself was formed several hundred thousand years ago by the collapse of the centre of a circular island, caused by the emptying of the magma chamber during an eruption. It has been filled several times by ignimbrite since then, and the process repeated itself, most recently 21,000 years ago. The northern part of the caldera was refilled by the volcano, then collapsing once more during the Minoan eruption.”
So even if the caldera was originally created by an impact, the date does not fit Joachim’s scheme.
“Go ahead and pick just one single impact which counters our claim…”
Joachim,
I already told you there are 28 impacts since 10ky ago that are larger than Kaali. If your theory was any good, you would have been able to detect them all from the data without any further information. The fact is that you only “detected” a few, and several of those “impacts” are not even real (Sirente, Santorino, Helike). You are arguing that:
A) there are atypical temperature changes in a “Z” pattern
B) only orbital changes can cause that change
C) impacts cause orbital changes, therefore
“atypical temperature changes” prove that Helike/Santorino/Sirente/whatever were impacts.
You have nowhere proven assertion B). People here have shown you simple computations showing how that cannot be true, and instead of providing any computations to support your assertion you claim that “simple” calculations cannot be right. The burden of proof rests on whoever is writing a paper. Without that, it is just an unsupported idea.
BTW: you seem to be labouring under the impression that your idea is a climate model. It isn’t: it is simply a set of correlations in a temperature time series. The attribution of the components of the fit to real physical processes is the beginning of a theory. But every process in the attribution must be supported, reasoned, and argued. However, you take offense at most attempts to ask for reasoning and explanation…
PS: You could also find similar correlations in IBM stock prices, but you would have to do more than that to prove to any investor that you knew how to explain the changes in share prices with time.
PPS: You have argued Storegga, before. There are several theories for that, and impact is not at all prominent among them. See Marine and Petroleum Geology 22 (2005) 11–19
PPPS: One last argument that has so far not been pointed out: a 1/1000 change in orbital distance would change the energy reaching Earth by only 2 parts in one-thousand, that is less than 3 W/m2
J. Seifert says:
October 15, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Thanks, Joachim. My comparison does not rest in the slightest on Leif’s calculations. It rests only on my own calculations. I did not use Leif’s calcs at all. My calcs are based on the relative masses. The Earth (6e+24 kg) is ten billion times more massive than even the huge Chicxlub meteor (~ 6e+14 kg), the impact that bopped the dinosaurs on the head.
It’s hard to consider relative masses that huge. So I took a more everyday example. I considered a car. It might have a mass of about a tonne (1,000 kg). One ten-billionth of the mass of the car is a tenth of a milligram (0.0001 grams).
The weight of a midge is on the order of half a milligram. So my example is actually quite accurate. In terms of mass, a car is to a midge as the Earth is to the Chicxlub meteor. In neither case will the impact of the two significantly change the orbit of the larger.
So I’m not making up some imaginary comparison. That’s the actual scale of the masses, ten billion to one. In essence, you are claiming that when a midge hits a car, it changes the course of the car. Well, yes, if you can look on the microscopic level it does, … but only one midge-worth, and that’s laughably small. Not even a measurable amount. Lost in the noise.
To your other points. Have I read the paper? Heck, no. I got as far as your claims about the orbit alterations from cosmic impacts, and only the minor semi-diameter changing as a result. At that point, I found myself unable to read further, because my eyes were rolling and I was shaking my head and laughing all at once … and I fear I never went any further.
You also say:
Ah, my friend, you totally and completely misunderstand me. I thought I had made it clear the second time I explained it, but let me try again, my writing is never as limpid and transparent as my own reading of the words would have it..
What I said was that in their present form, your claims are not falsifiable. I did not say that I could not falsify them. I said that your claims are not capable of being falsified. Why can’t they be falsified? Because they are far too vague and scattered and lacking in numerical specificity. Here’s the example I gave up-thread:
Because of the lack of numerical specificity, your statements are not falsifiable. In other words, in scientific terms they are worthless. Meaningless. Valueless. Purely anecdotal. You need to back up your ideas with the actual calculations that show that your ideas are valid.
Best regards,
w.
To Willis….I always tend to long explications…some people I know always complain.
Now, lets try to be short and concise, 3 points only:
(1) You disrespect empirical knowledge drawn from the Holocene temperature evolution.
You read to end of our paper introduction, clearly recognizing that
competing institutional Warmist -GCMs for the Holocene (read Gavin Schmidt’s work,
we dissected it in detail) are completely below any scientific standards and draw next
to nothing from the Holocene temp evolution. Take our detailed 27-37 ka BP time
span ….. (read, just for comparison the S. Rahmstorf, 2003 and 2002 works on
D-O events:- see refs: he produces a helpless mumbeling that 27-37 kaBP were just
a “mystery”
(2) In your previous works, you showed a sharp sense in dissecting a paper from top
to bottom. This time you opine after you reached the first paragraphs on the
state of-the-art description of the sad Holocene GCM science. This is a 180 degrees
turn, and quality loss….. At this point, I am truely convinced that Leif was stuck under
your bed and released whisperings…
…The inspiration to try to struggle against our great celestial analysis paper came
not by lifting your eyes toward the sky but clearly originates from the opposite
direction somewhere down……..
(3) Each of us took his position now ..we can leave it, like it is….. It WILL BE DECIDED BY
HISTORY, who was on the right camino … whether we were in advance of history and
you are trying to throw sand into its wheel with simpel pocket book calculations, or, the
other way around, you are in advance of history by greasing history’s wheel at the
WUWT blog at Anthony’s and we are the ones who try to throw the spanner into the
gears…
….Time will tell….. let me add the obligatory “but”: The cosmic impact community,
will grow, as does the EOO-cycle. They will identify, measure and assess
more and more impact details over the years, the forcing mechanisms additionally
clearer and history’s wheel momentum will get stronger for us as the time goes by……JS
J. Seifert says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:23 am
To Geoff Sharp: Geoff, the EOO pulsation at both end of the minor axis is the
wave line of our 27-37 ka BP graphic. On it, the vertical temp change is at the same
time the Km- distance change Sun—>End points of the Minor axis., which as I said are
not stiff points, but flexible points.
I do not know how you expect rational criticism of your work when you are not providing the data asked for. I leave the door open that someday you may provide a clear explanation that is open to falsification, you cannot write a paper that has the data missing. Until then your work can not be taken seriously.
I have determined the GISP2 data used in this paper is wrong.
I have graphed the Alley 2000 GISP2 data as available from NOAA. I have confirmed it matches the graphs presented in the paper.
But it has the errors I noted before. I have also graphed the Kobashi 2011 “GISP2 4000-Year Ar-N2 Isotope Temperature Reconstruction” dataset. They do not match.
Since Kobashi is in Years AD I subtracted 1950 per Alley to get Years Before Present (BP).
Kobashi shows a major low at 1100BP, Alley as downloaded shows this about 1200BP. Kobashi has a major peak at 1250BP, and it’s a very steep drop from 1250 to 1100BP. Alley doesn’t show that, with only a gentle sloping down from 1500BP. Kobashi’s highest peak is about 2975BP. The highest of Alley is at 3300BP. Etc.
Also Kobashi has a greater range, about -33.4 to -27.2°C. Over that period, Alley only goes from about -32.2 to -28.7.
I have found confirmation of Kobashi for the time of the Little Ice Age. The dip is easily seen in Kobashi. Alley shows what eyeballs as a gentle curve from a 950BP peak which flattens until a sudden rise starting about 175BP (1775AD).
But as discussed in this January 2012 AGU press release about an (at the time) in-press paper, they examined dead plant samples from under the Baffin Island ice cap and other proxies to get the timing of the LIA onset.
There was a large cluster of “kill dates” between 1275 and 1300 A.D., indicating the plants had been frozen and engulfed by ice during a relatively sudden event.
Kobashi shows significant drops around then.
The team saw a second spike in plant kill dates at about 1450 A.D., indicating the quick onset of a second major cooling event.
The Kobashi data shows a high point at 1448AD (504BP) then suddenly dropping about 1.7°C by 1469AD (481BP).
Link to paper’s paywall. Abstract says: “Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD.” Between this paper and Kobashi there’s roughly only a 10-20 year difference.
I noted before how the Alley download had many instances where a time is repeated with a different temperature. If those are where the time should have increased, given the spacing it could explain how the timing is different from Kobashi, with the differences growing further back in time (further down in the Alley download file).
But Alley is also lacking in features that Kobashi has, such as the LIA and assorted peaks and lows.
Thus I have determined that Alley 2000, by the version available for download, which matches the graphs in the Seifert and Lemke paper, is wrong.
With Alley being flawed in timing compared to Kobashi, and this paper relying on the timing of cycles and cosmic impacts with regards to Alley, this paper must also be flawed, as it argues it is in good agreement with a flawed temperature record.
Quick Addendum to previous post:
Alley 2000 was only compared to Kobashi 2011 over the period covered by Kobashi. Thus when I said of the peaks “The highest of Alley is at 3300BP” that refers to that period, not the entire record. Etc.
tallbloke says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:27 am
you need to consider its modes of energy production and delivery, and the effect they have on the system as a whole.
Is just hand waving. And the energy is produced in the core from which it takes 250,000 years to diffuse out of the radiative interior
The days of the inviolate lonely Sun unaffected by the system of which it is a part are numbered.
They have been numbered for at least 150 years with no end in sight.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:27 am
Tallbloke says : “You have confused Ian Wilson with commenter Ian W. They are two different people.”
Oh, so Ian W is not Dr Ian Wilson who published a few papers in the early 1980′s while a graduate student at ANU, then nothing for 25 years except one paper called “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?” Glad to hear it, as that stops me from insulting Dr Wilson by telling him that he has forgotten all his physics in that 25 years. So we can assume that Ian W is not the same person then, and is not a qualified astrophysicist, which would explain a lot……..
You really should have more respect. Ian is doing a lot of good work. In comparison you are yet to rise above troll status.
Ian’s website below.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/
Ray says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm
I also believe that astronomical cycles affect the long term climate rather than the idea that short term events cause ‘runaway positive feedback’ to cause major long term climate change.
My comments to follow are offered respectfully.
I am skeptical about the hypothesis of Earth Orbital Oscillations. There seems to be a preponderance of astronomical studies and calculations that such a cycle does not exist and you offer no explanation or citations to support this idea. Astronomical proof is needed to support this. Without further proof, this is just an unsupported and questionable hypothesis. Perhaps there is another astronomical pattern that is causing the climate cycle that you are observing.
I have done the <b<astronomical proof. There is no correlation between an Earth orbital oscillation frequency and climate frequencies, but there is indeed a strong correlation between the astronomical function of the solar tide function of Earth, Mercury and Jupiter, and the global sea level oscillations as measured by the known satellites:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_me_er_ju.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_solar_tides_me.gif
It can be seen that the main effect is phase coherent with the astronomical heliocentric synodic Mercury/Earth tide function.
.“Reply to Volker Doormann:
We are peers on this website and you are the good, star gazing, esoterical ASTROLOGICAL guy…I know, Pluto told you all, stars do not lie and because Saturn crossed the Venus line, the discussion paper must have many flaws….. My climate peers, Doormann has spoken…JS”
This attitude is unprofessional and detracts from your efforts to put forth an unbiased scientific proof of your theories. The “trolls” on this blog that you criticize are seen by us all as being “trolls”. When you lower yourself to that level, you also appear to us as being a “troll”. Do not lower yourself to that level. Stay above the fray and remain calm, cool, and professional.
As all students of philosophy learn in the first semester is the fallacy of the McCarthy judge, who has argued that the physical work of a Russian scientist cannot be have any worth, because he is a communist. To be professional it is necessary to look on the argument *) and not on that what people talk bad about the speaker of the argument. You lower yourself, if you take such comments for true in that way, that you see for the criticised person bad talk, but not for the arguments.
*) The argument was given (above) in a graph that shows that the temperature reconstructions over millennia like (A. Moberg or E. Zorita) have fundamental periods of about 913 years and not 790 years as J. Seifert claims in his book.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_seifert_790.gif
V.
Derived?? DERIVED??? Now that is a weasel word used by CO2 proponents! So let’s take this to its logical conclusion. You “derive” (coughcough) that some magical emminance from the barycenter (hackhack) is somehow more powerful than puny CO2, more powerful than mighty clouds capable of mitigating shortwave IR, more powerful than vast oceans in the capacity to absorb and move heat energy from one place to the next on our planet, more powerful than overwhelming ocean moving winds, and more powerful than tall buildings and short BBQ’s in their sensor changing abilities to affect Earth’s temperatures around floating and stationary temperature sensors. If your barycenter derived “number” is that powerful, it must, it MUST be calculated into landing trajectories of space craft on distant planets and space travels. That your “number” is not, proves you…WRONG! You have falsified your own theory.
That IRISH enough for you? Hm?
Volker Doormann says:
October 16, 2012 at 6:37 am
*) The argument was given (above) in a graph that shows that the temperature reconstructions over millennia like (A. Moberg or E. Zorita) have fundamental periods of about 913 years and not 790 years as J. Seifert claims in his book.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_seifert_790.gif
Trying to fit the temperature or solar record into a fixed repeating cycle will never work. Solar down turns linked with climate proxies do not follow strict repeating patterns, so any attempt to filter these trends will be wasted. As described to Willis some time ago the mechanism is fluctuating over an 80 year time period that repeats every 172 years that produces solar downturns of infinite combinations but still clusters around the 172 year average. So much time has been wasted by many chasing the elusive sine wave that never quite fits.
To Geoff and your Volker Doormann reply: Our present EOO-790 year cycle period
[you ask for details on EOO-cycle calculations] is put as being a CONSTANT by
Doormann into the past….. Volker did this on his own.on his website..this is not correct,
because EOO-cycles are growing [as identified in chapter 2] and the most visible prove
for this growth is our figure concerning the 27-37-ka BP time span. Over this time, the
EOOcycle grows from already having reached 1,300 years, to a 1,650 years period
into the past…. (the shortest EOO cycle is at its minimum length at about 7,000 BC
(556+ yr-cosmic cycle length), from where EOO cycles periods get longer both into the
future and into the past….JS
AND! Just for giggles, what is the energy capacity of your (gag) derived calculation? In joules please.
And I got more!
Pamela Gray says:
October 16, 2012 at 8:06 am
We are all using the same data Pamela, the “barycenter crowd” as you call it do not have their own exclusive data. The derived value is not a weasel word, the JPL values have a standard formula not questioned by science applied that produces an outcome that Leif will not refute.
If you require the exact formula it is available in my paper.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/173
Just in case I type something like “JI%*)%&*ytuji” and what I meant was “think”, or go beyond acceptable discourse and let a “damn” slip out, it’s because I am home with a cold and filled with cough syrup and hot toddies. Hell, I had to fix this little post a dozen times!
Geoff Sharp says:
October 16, 2012 at 8:20 am
the JPL values have a standard formula not questioned by science applied that produces an outcome that Leif will not refute.
The JPL data is not in question, the relevance of the stuff derived from it is. As Shirley [who is a planetary effect enthusiast] points out “”The freely falling orbital motion of the Sun is unable to supply the required moment arm at any location; there are no differentials of force or acceleration within the Sun arising solely due to the orbital revolution” http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRAS.pdf so the whole Angular Momentum calculation is moot as also Carsten showed here on WUWT some time ago.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 16, 2012 at 8:11 am
period that repeats every 172 years that produces solar downturns of infinite combinations but still clusters around the 172 year average.
Just for the record you could answer the following:
Should we enter a Maunder type Grand Minimum the next few cycles, that will falsify your theory, right?
Geoff Sharp says:
October 16, 2012 at 8:11 am
period that repeats every 172 years that produces solar downturns of infinite combinations but still clusters around the 172 year average.
Another quote from Shirley’s [who is from JPL, btw] paper:
“Thus, there can be no relative acceleration of any two constituent particles of the body of the Sun that is solely due to the revolution of the Sun about the Solar System barycentre and the spin-orbit coupling hypothesis […] must be discarded”
Just to be clear, I am not arguing the JPT factors and the standard formulas used to calculate space travel through various tugs and pulls from gravitational forces. What I question are the joule potentials in your “derived” numbers you apparently believe capable of affecting Earth’s climate but then do not consider how your values would also affect the trajectories calculated for space travel. Joules are joules are joules. If the joule capacity of your numbers are sufficient to change climate status quo in spite of Earth’s mulitple powerful intrinsic variables, your numbers are sufficient to affect travel trajectories. Wonder why NASA is not knocking down your door for your “derived” calculations?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 16, 2012 at 10:03 am
Another quote from Shirley’s [who is from JPL, btw] paper:
“Thus, there can be no relative acceleration of any two constituent particles of the body of the Sun that is solely due to the revolution of the Sun about the Solar System barycentre and the spin-orbit coupling hypothesis […] must be discarded”
Not so fast Svalgaard. 🙂
Shirley is setting an unphysical clause here. No-one ever said that the strong correlations between the motion about the barycentre and solar activity levels were “solely due to the revolution of the Sun about the Solar System barycentre”..
Such games with dead particles are for dummies.
No, the emanation of energy from solar centre outwards is also involved, as Wolff and Patrone so ably demonstrated, and Gough so stupidly missed, because he didn’t bother to read their paper beyond the first couple of pages before his preconceptions got the better of him.
tallbloke says:
October 16, 2012 at 11:54 am
No, the emanation of energy from solar centre outwards is also involved, as Wolff and Patrone so ably demonstrated, and Gough so stupidly missed, because he didn’t bother to read their paper beyond the first couple of pages before his preconceptions got the better of him.
Wolff and Patrone surmised, not demonstrated. In any event it takes 250,000 years for the energy produced in the core to make its way by random diffusion through the radiative zone [out to 0.7 of the radius]. Any periodicity there might have been in the energy production is completely washed out by that slow random diffusion. About Gough and the first few pages: once it becomes clear that the paper has derailed, further study is not worth the effort.
Geoff Sharp:
“You really should have more respect. Ian is doing a lot of good work. In comparison you are yet to rise above troll status.
Ian’s website below.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/”
And which Ian would that be? Ian Wilson or Ian W?
In any case, I have been asking straight questions based on basic physics, and have got nothing but bluster, and now silence, in return. That tells me all I need to know.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:00 pm
In any event it takes 250,000 years for the energy produced in the core to make its way by random diffusion through the radiative zone [out to 0.7 of the radius]. Any periodicity there might have been in the energy production is completely washed out by that slow random diffusion.
Who said the periodicity has to be embedded only in the core?
About Gough and the first few pages: once it becomes clear that the paper has derailed, further study is not worth the effort.
Wolff and Patrone have already said via email that they will respond to properly published criticism. What are you and Gough afraid of? Why won’t you submit the criticism for peer review? I think it’s because appeals to the authority of Chandresekar would be laughed out of the journal. There is nothing of substance there. Wolff and Patrone’s paper consists of a proper description of their model. Gough’s note consists of an armwaving appeal to authority.
It is worthless crap you repeatedly wheel out here to try to discredit two NASA scientists with. It is the action of a cowardly propagandist. Put up or shut up.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm
And which Ian would that be? Ian Wilson or Ian W?
If Daleks are so clever, why can’t they get up a staircase?
J. Seifert: The inspiration to try to struggle against our great celestial analysis paper came
not by lifting your eyes toward the sky but clearly originates from the opposite
direction somewhere down……..
That foolish criticism of Willis Eschenbach is false. He looked at the relative masses of a large known impactor and Earth, and showed that they are in the same ratio as a fly to an automobile. This directly addresses a point that has been made in different ways: nowhere have you shown that the impactors you listed have the necessary energies and momenta to change the Earth’s orbit as you claim they did: they are all smaller than the Ixhculub impactor. They (the energies and momenta) are too small by non-negligible orders of magnitude. Unless you have another source of energy, or posit that the impactors had a high rate of speed, or you posit some other energetic innovation, the events that you propose can’t have happened.
To both Matthew and to Willis:
I apologize that sometimes I am slow and take arguments more than seriously…..
Willis, look: If you had told me from the start: (1) You present a paper and I will
(2) play the DEVIL’S ADVOCATE in order you may watch for arguments
you would expect to be confronted with by the AGW climate villains. Be prepared,
the following argument chain will await you, under all guarantees:
A.) We dont need/want to read any of the paper because its hilarious, based on
B.) doing a simplistic KE calculation and complain that
C.) astronomical numbers do not add up, D.) because all impacts have to be of
at least a half-star size, not less in mass, and therefore, your paper is low quality.
Then I would have understood more rapidly that we have to be preemptive in the
paper, right before our introductory part and counter from the very beginning this
argument tactic We will get this done before Christmas and are happy that we
received all blog comments. We prefer being told this on Anthony’s blog than being outmaneuvered by above indicated A-D tactics through other AGW sites. JS
tallbloke says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Who said the periodicity has to be embedded only in the core?
You hinted at that with the vague and ambiguous statement “the emanation of energy from solar centre” and W&P did it too: “Occasionally small mass exchanges near the solar center would carry fresh fuel to deeper levels. This would cause stars like the Sun to burn more brightly than stars without planets”. Their other mechanism [convection cell movements of zero measure] will not work because the conditions for instability are not met.
Wolff and Patrone have already said via email that they will respond to properly published criticism. What are you and Gough afraid of? Why won’t you submit the criticism for peer review?
We thought of that [with Ken Schatten] but decided that it was better simply to let the paper suffer the fate of all bad papers: oblivion. Furthermore I don’t think you would abandon W&P even after their paper had been shown in published literature to be faulty. Would you?
I think it’s because appeals to the authority of Chandresekar would be laughed out of the journal.
It is W&P that appeals to Chandresekar [“the following analytic approximation provides simple formulas for plotting where the available energy is located. It was used by Chandrasekhar (1961)…” so perhaps the journal would laugh out W&P for that…
It is worthless crap you repeatedly wheel out here to try to discredit two NASA scientists
They do a good job themselves in that department.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 16, 2012 at 1:07 pm
[…]
Quote mining their paper won’t help you understand it.
tallbloke says:
October 16, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Quote mining their paper won’t help you understand it.
It might help you correct your mistakes.
Tallbloke : “If Daleks are so clever, why can’t they get up a staircase?”
If you knew anything about Daleks, you would know they can go up stairs.
They also know how to use the Science Citation Index.
“Science Citation Index”
Ah, the consensus clause.
That’s why Daleks go round in gangs, and all talk with the same monotonous voice. When confronted with something which challenges their world view they cry in unison:
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
Have a look at a some more interesting correlations, and lose the dalek suit.
http://catriskglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/charvatova.pdf
Tallbloke : You don’t know all the uses of the CSI do you – it can be used to find all the papers published by a certain person, and work out how many people with a given name are active in a particular field, say astronomy – quite revealing.
J. Seifert says:
October 16, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Thank you very, very much for your time and effort here, and your courage in asking for criticism and comments.
Is facing a public forum easier, or harder, than facing a degree panel? 8>)
To RACook: The question arises: To whom to talk to, who is the panel, who takes
part in a forum…. word is out “judged by the authors peers”……Fine, who is my peer to
judge my paper? Presenting it to a climate journal…..question: Tell me, which one.
All were outfitted by “AGW gatekeepers”. I read Lindzen/Choi needed 2 years to get
into a Korean paper…..Shall I wait 2 years to get into a Korean paper?
Our paper is not of AGW interest. Whether it is complete, whatever the quality is,
is unimportant, they will not even reject the paper they do not even acknowledge they
have received it. If you ask, “please, just to confirm, that you received a paper….”
will be answered with total ignorance, not one line, not one sound of reply…..
For this very reason, Anthony is the one to be appreciated for open discourse
and climate reason. He gives a chance to all new knowledge and he deserves
respect for this…. whereas AGW gatekeeping gives a chance only to AGW peers….
Anthony is open: He puts : “”Claim…..of XYZ ” and may stay out of all comments.
This would be unthinkable over at RealClimate….they use an AGW-filter and
anything with a sceptical touch will fall through the screen…JS
I raise questions about the GISP2 data used in the paper as available for download, note obvious problems.
I get silence.
I spend hours on a comment noting the differences between the Alley 2000 temperature reconstruction used and the Kobashi 2011 dataset, and between it and reality, concluding the Alley 2000 dataset as available for download is wrong.
I get more silence.
Will someone please tell me what’s going on? Are you accepting without comment that Alley 2000 is wrong? Has it been known that it is wrong and people are too embarrassed to point out I should have known it? Or are people thinking I must be wrong, despite what I’ve shown Alley 2000 as downloaded must be correct, and they are too embarrassed to tell me I must be wrong?
Please, will someone tell me why I am not getting any responses on this issue?
J. Seifert says:
October 16, 2012 at 4:25 pm
who is my peer to judge my paper?
Any competent physics/astronomer scientist is a peer that can judge your paper. Most of the lay people here are good judges too with well-honed eyes and good BS-detectors. Performing the necessary back-of-envelope calculations [that you cannot or have not], checking your sources to the extent all the data is available and you don’t keep something secret or hidden, and generally auditing your use [or lack thereof] of the scientific method. You had a fair shake here and it didn’t turn out too good for you. So, more homework is needed. The way to get a paper published is not to argue with the reviewers, but to follow their advice and improve the paper along the lines they suggest.
Dr Seifert, If you are unsure which journal to try, have a look at the Open Journal of Astronomy
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toaaj/MSandI.htm
You will have to tidy up the manuscript a lot however to meet their criteria
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 16, 2012 at 9:57 am
Just for the record you could answer the following:
Should we enter a Maunder type Grand Minimum the next few cycles, that will falsify your theory, right?
100% right. I am very confident of my prediction of a short Dalton type experience because I have a physics based tool that hindcasts almost perfectly back through the sunspot record and then onto the Holocene proxy record. I have something solid where you only have a false trend that is displayed by L&P (and now questioned by many) to amazingly predict a Maunder type event. You do not even have a theory that can be falsified.
If the tool continues to correctly predict the future solar cycles the mechanism argument becomes increasingly unimportant.
Pamela Gray says:
October 16, 2012 at 11:04 am
Just to be clear, I am not arguing the JPT factors and the standard formulas used to calculate space travel through various tugs and pulls from gravitational forces. What I question are the joule potentials in your “derived” numbers you apparently believe capable of affecting Earth’s climate but then do not consider how your values would also affect the trajectories calculated for space travel. Joules are joules are joules.
I think you are getting a bit lost here Pamela. Have a read of my paper and get back to me. It seems too many jump to criticize without understanding what they are criticizing.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm
In any case, I have been asking straight questions based on basic physics, and have got nothing but bluster, and now silence, in return. That tells me all I need to know.
If you had something constructive to add you might fare better, otherwise its just feeding the troll.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 16, 2012 at 7:25 pm
I have a physics based tool
As the mechanism is not based on valid physics, it can hardly be called a ‘physical tool’.
But it is good to see that you will drop your ‘theory’ if we get a Maunder -type minimum.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 16, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Please, will someone tell me why I am not getting any responses on this issue?
There are so many holes in the paper being reviewed that another shot gun blast might make little difference?
J. Seifert: We dont need/want to read any of the paper because its hilarious,
What makes you think I didn’t read the whole paper? I pointed to three obvious inadequacies, and you have not addressed them. You want I should proof-read it and recommend you use “rebound” for “rebounce” everywhere?
From Geoff Sharp on October 16, 2012 at 8:16 pm:
GISP2 is cited in many historical climate discussions, as in the Alley 2000 temperature reconstruction since Kobashi is rather recent. The version available for download has obvious flaws. In the case of that version being corrupted, I would like to know if a “pure” version is available somewhere. Otherwise I have to disregard anything using Alley GISP2 as not trustworthy, which is a lot of material.
I also think that version is likely corrupted as it seems unlikely that no one else has ever noticed such obvious flaws before.
The alternative is those are somehow not errors, but something known about the dataset that those using it should be aware of. If so, I really wish someone would let me know what I, someone who wants to use that dataset, am supposed to know about it.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 16, 2012 at 9:31 pm
GISP2 is cited in many historical climate discussions, as in the Alley 2000 temperature reconstruction since Kobashi is rather recent. The version available for download has obvious flaws. In the case of that version being corrupted, I would like to know if a “pure” version is available somewhere.
Maybe you could contact Kobashi and ask for advice.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 16, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Tallbloke : You don’t know all the uses of the CSI do you – it can be used to find all the papers published by a certain person, and work out how many people with a given name are active in a particular field, say astronomy – quite revealing.
Maybe you could give an example of why it is useful to know why there are more astronomers called Smith rather than Brewer. I’d also like to know why it is that in a science discussion you think it more pertinent to discuss the gap in someone’s publication history rather than the scientific content of their work relevant to the discussion.
From here it looks like casting aspersions on the person instead of discussing the basic physics or the strength of correlations. If you look at the Charvatova paper I linked, you’ll see that she doesn’t worry about the mechanism, but shows that the regularly recurring trefoil motion of the Sun about the barycentre coincides with periods of warmth in the historical and paleo proxy records, and a lack of floods in Czech and Slovak lands during the same periods over the last 1000 years. The mechanism is an interesting question, but not a crucial one which allows the dismissal of real correlations. Many well accepted and quantified relations exist in science with no well defined mechanism to explain them.
Her conclusions in that 2008 paper read:
The results obtained indicate a primary, controlling role of the SIM (Solar Inertial Motion) in solar-terrestrial and climatic variability.
The exceptional, stable intervals of the nearly identical trefoils in the SIM can
serve as the supporting bases in searching for mutual relations between the
SIM, solar activity, geomagnetic activity, volcanic activity, surface air
temperature, etc. This will be in focus of our future research
The SIM is computable in advance (celestial mechanics). If steady mutual
relations between the SIM and above phenomena are gradually found, then
predictive assessments of their future behaviours could be established, first of
course on the basis of known previous mutual relations (behaviours).
Proper mechanisms are so far not known.
She quite rightly points out that successful predictions, not mechanisms define the usefulness of science.
Since she wrote that paper, several works has successfully passed peer review which offer plausible mechanisms. If Leif Svalgaard is determined to refute them, why is he wasting his time here propagandising instead of rolling up his sleeves and using ‘basic physics’ to write proper rebuttals to submit to the relevant journals? It’s because the false arguments he uses can successfully bamboozle laymen on blogs, but not the scientists who peer review such efforts.
Tallbloke,
I linked to Motl’s piece on Charvatova’s work upstream.
So every 179 years the Sun returns to a trefoil (three-lobed) trajectory, if that’s what you want to call the barycenter-Sun imagined motion, which is noted for a temperature maximum on Earth.
Which is three complete PDO cycles in length, and the PDO does yield temperature maximums.
She also found a longer 2402 year solar cycle, which leads to a long-term thermal maximum.
Which is also a multiple of the approximately 60 year complete PDO cycle.
So obviously the missing element is the linking of the barycenter motions to the PDO. Bob Tisdale should have a worthwhile opinion on the matter.
Then you can explain the many other oscillations that are not of such convenient lengths, that do not match the barycenter motions, that have been shown to match with long-term warm and cold and flood and drought periods.
Then determine if such work is merely closing the loop, or closing the Möbius strip.
Tallbloke: “Maybe you could give an example of why it is useful to know why there are more astronomers called Smith rather than Brewer. I’d also like to know why it is that in a science discussion you think it more pertinent to discuss the gap in someone’s publication history rather than the scientific content of their work relevant to the discussion.
From here it looks like casting aspersions on the person instead of discussing the basic physics or the strength of correlations.”
Well I would indeed prefer to discuss the science, however “Ian W” has vanished and declines to answer simple question about the validity of his methods. As for SCI, the only interesting fact, which I admit is not totally relevant, but which I found interesting, is that there is only one person called Ian Wilson who has ever published in astronomical journals – considering that it must be quite a common name, I thought that an intriguing fact. Not very important though.
I notice that in discussing Seifert’s contribution that you are in favour of order-of-magnitude calculations as suggested by Leif. Good, you should be. It is order-of-magnitude calculations that make me suspicious of barycentre and tidal coupling arguments. For example, tidal forces (on the Sun) are very small (and actually dismissed as a mechanism by Ian Wilson in one of his papers) yet you advocate considering the effect of Jupiter-Saturn on the tidal forces due to Mercury and Venus, basically a tiny perturbation on a tiny perturbation. Does not make sense. Order of magnitude estimate are really, really important in physics – you should pay more attention to them. You should also remember conservation of energy and angular momentum, and Newton’s Third Law. If there is a mechanism whereby Jupiter can have a significant effect on the Sun, the converse must also be true – the Sun must affect Jupiter eg by changing its orbit due to the transfer of angular momentum. And if this is to happen on the time scale of recent climate changes (i.e. decades) it should be possible to observe this. This in fact would be a much better test than trying to detect subtle changes in the Sun. So where is the observation?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:52 am
Tallbloke,
I linked to Motl’s piece on Charvatova’s work upstream.
I ran the interview on my own site around the same time
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/interview-with-ivanka-charvatova-is-climate-change-caused-by-solar-inertial-motion/
So obviously the missing element is the linking of the barycenter motions to the PDO.
It’s more complex than that. There is an interaction between the harmonics governing the PDO, the AMO, the AO and changes in LOD (which also matches the Sun-Barycentre motion closely in the z axis as well as in the x,y plane). Then there are 45 year oscillations corresponding to inner solar system dynamics, and ~75 year oscillations relating to Lunar cycles.
Simple it ain’t.
Why these all work together to produce a strong, global temperature effective signal exhibited most strongly in the AMO is the big question. The bi-annually averaged Pacific SST has been steady for 30 years. The extra energy absorbed there due to reduced cloud cover moves through the Atlantic and into the Arctic. The Earth loses heat as quickly and as efficiently as it can. That mostly happens in the mid north Atlantic where the water/air temp differential is greatest in winter, and heat is radiated to space most effectively. Which is why Bob Tisdale’s regional sst graphs show the biggest warming (and now fastest cooling) in the North Atlantic.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 17, 2012 at 4:07 am
basically a tiny perturbation on a tiny perturbation. Does not make sense.
If you want to understand how it is possible for small perturbations to be amplified, you need to read up on things like boundary conditions and Kelvin-Helmholz instabilities. Then view some footage from SDO and see how the activity on the solar surface flips from one state to another so easily and quickly. Coupled oscillators such as Jupiter-Saturn tidal forces acting on Venus-Earth-Mercury tidal resonances can cause ‘leveraged oscillations’ well beyond their apparent individual magnitudes if they are acting on a system close to boundary conditions, which the solar surface evidently is.
If you’ve ever studied fluid dynamics (I have a qualifiation in it), you’ll understand how apparently chaotic changes in flow can be caused by simple combinations of small but regular disturbances.
Re Charvatova . Since several people here are interested in solar cycles and activity, let’s see if we can get a simple prediction.
When is/was the next solar grand minimum.
If it has already started, then when
If it has not started then when will it?
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 17, 2012 at 5:27 am
Re Charvatova . Since several people here are interested in solar cycles and activity, let’s see if we can get a simple prediction.
When is/was the next solar grand minimum.
If it has already started, then when
If it has not started then when will it?
Charvatova predicted in 2007 that SC24 would be 140 SSN and peak in 2010. She also predicted 65 for SC25 and 85 for SC26. She thought the 3 cycles mentioned would be identical to cycles 11,12,13. Pattern matching and not understanding the cause of the disordered orbit and how to quantify the disruption all eluded her.
Charvatova probably made the biggest contribution of the pioneers by recognizing the correlation between the discorded orbit and grand minima but did not take it any further. Today with Carl’s graph we can clearly see how each AM (angular momentum) disruption (which is unique to one alignment of the outer 4) that causes the inner loop change and quantify the strength of the particular downturn. We have also learned that the SIM motion is not connected to cycle length or timing. Also learned is the amount of AM generated via the solar path (outside of disrupted orbits) correlates with solar cycle strength. You will never see a high sunspot cycle when AM is low.
Carl’s graph shows that SC24 will be weak with SC25 most likely following but some recovery should be expected during SC26.
To Willis: The solution is our bag, we checked and will add the calculations
to the paper in the next weeks….. do not worry…..Our paper is 100% on course…..
The problem was that Leif did not include all calculation elements (on purpose) in
to torpedo our paper…. In a way ,I am content, that you and he did it, because
you previsioned the AGW response in the devil’s advocate position, for which I am
grateful that you and he did so, it saves me senseless quarrel with the Warmists…..
It was obvious, that there was something and a priori missing in Leif’s simple calculation
approach…..I never had the idea, after all the empirical work, that someone and AGW
would doubt the astronomical aspect of impacts…. I was so GLASS-CLEAR to us that
all impacts cause all empirical effects…..
That Warmists “could” come along and present simplistic pocket book calculations
and claim that impacts do not cause all empirical impact patterns ….. never crossed
my mind…..
Good thing you found out and advised us.
Today Anthony presented the new B. Christiansen, F.C. Ljungqvist paper….
with temp evolution for the N-hemisphere, not just for the one GISP2 borehole…..
and check from its hemispherical data whether you could identify two Z-shaped
impact patterns of 2 millenial impacts in 1178AD und 1443AD ( a Blitz-shape)
—- their data is given in FIGURE 5.
I am working hard, you see, to get you out of the tow of Leif, he whispered to much
to you and pulled you off-track. I will prove it to you and then I expect that you
distance yourself from those who want to discard the best climate paper of all with
a few “simplistic” note book scribblings….This is a great INSULT to me …..
If he had advised me that this is what AGW would do with certainty, it would have
been different…but he reckons his results claim truth…. this is what annoys me and
I do not have sympathy for someone going against our great paper with AGW-style
nonsense….JS
To Geoff, there are the dates for the Jup/Sat minimum distance in the
60-year Scafetta cycle…..Question: Are you able to extend those years for 10,000 years
to give us the dates so we can superpose them onto GISP2 (both onto the Allan
version) and the Kabashiri version [which the good Knoebel digged up for us, thanks)
This is important for reinforcing the Scafetta-cycle……with paleodata…..Cheers JS
Spurious correlations: Short term oscillations appearing to coincide with derived long term oscillations plus or minus a few years or decades. Reminds me of the hidden word codes found in the Bible. Trouble is, when someone used an equally developed “book” of books but not the Bible, and translated into the same Engish, one could find the same exact coded words. Numerology is all its cracked up to be. It finds correlations everywhere. Why? Elementary math. But causation? It stinks in that department.
To Willis: You talk a lot about hand waving examples, and let me make
up one: Someone builts, over 5 years, with lots of steel and concrete,
the great temple to the climate god . Now, its public opening time.
Everybody is invited. The first visitor, who comes along is Leif. He gets
the attention of all and says: Folks, this temple of steel and concrete is
all false….it is nothing but a house of cards, the next AGW-wind will blow
it over.! Be carefull everybody, it will fall right on your head….. And the public
will ask: How do you know this? And Leif will reply: Look, my notebook, I
made 4 lines of calculations, they prove, the temple will cave in anytime!
And there along comes another one, saying: Folks, the temple makes
me laugh, I do not have to go inside and read the writings on the wall…..
It is all false and soft plaster….the four lines of the notebook prove it!
……And then, the two guys start to huff and to puff…..
…. Willis, please put YOUR end to the handwaving story….I am interested
how it will end…..JS
Willis, you may have the last word, to close the blog….JS
J. Seifert says:
October 17, 2012 at 11:34 am
I expect that you distance yourself from those who want to discard the best climate paper of all with a few “simplistic” note book scribblings….[…] I do not have sympathy for someone going against our great paper
I thought Vuk or Scafetta or Archibald laid claims to having produced the ‘best climate paper of all’. But let that pass. Your uttering here is ludicrous, but typical of the worst kind of pseudo-scientist.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 17, 2012 at 1:03 pm
I thought Vuk or ……… laid claims to having produced the ‘best climate paper of all’.
Now you are confusing one or two only sensible people here, I would normally include good yourself there, but you spend an extraordinary amount of your valuable time ‘trashing empty straw’.
I thought …. Scafetta or Archibald laid claims to having produced the ‘best climate paper of all’.
Having a Dr. in front of a name isn’t guaranty that badly informed wouldn’t write baloney.
I thought Vuk …..laid claims to having produced the ‘best climate paper of all’.
Having a Dr. in front of a name isn’t guaranty that one would readily and without prejudice accept something even when based on the solid data (SIDC-Harvard scientist) clearly undermines firmly held view.
Time to move on.
J seifert said
‘Today Anthony presented the new B. Christiansen, F.C. Ljungqvist paper….
with temp evolution for the N-hemisphere, not just for the one GISP2 borehole…..
and check from its hemispherical data whether you could identify two Z-shaped
impact patterns of 2 millenial impacts in 1178AD und 1443AD ( a Blitz-shape)
—- their data is given in FIGURE 5.’
Would the people of the time have noted a collision big enough to ‘nudge’ te climate? If so what would have been the effect-a noticeable change in the weather?
i ask because I have compiled thousands of contemporary weather quotes related to Britain from the 10th to the 17th century and in there would surely be references to such events
tonyb.
To tony B: There are 2 people in the world who would note nothing at all:
One, is Mike Mann, he would straighten out the Z-effect from the hockey stick and
the other would be Leif, because impacts, leaving a 20 km diameter crater do
not leave climate changes from the impact date on for the ensuing 100 years,
according to his “simple calculations”…….JS
More to TonyB. Measurements of Christiansen und Ljungqvist were issued as blog
today….. propose to Anthony that Willis [as he did otstanding historical studies on
volcano action] do a check on my claim of the cosmic action of the 2 visible impacts
of 1178 and 1443. Convince yourself with the freshest data whether the Z-shape
after impacts over a 100 year period are there or not…. Leif claims that is impossible,
according to his notebook, temps do not go in Z-shape after impacts…..because
impacts are like a fly/midget hitting a car….
Mention that there is massive blogger’s interest to clarify the Z-claim after impacts and
say that Leif and Willis are not allowed to chicken out with a rejecting response…..JS
Tony B.: Please propose to Anthony that Willis investigates the Z-pattern as standard
temperature evolution after each sizable cosmic impact. Two of them were registed,
as example one in 1178AD and the second in 1443AD. Temperature evolution given
by Michael Mann and now Christiansen, Jjungqvist. Detail check is better than
a discarding after 3 line scribbelings…….as above….JS
vukcevic says:
October 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm
amount of your valuable time ‘trashing empty straw’.
It is easy to trash your empty straw. takes no time at all.
based on the solid data (SIDC-Harvard scientist) clearly undermines firmly held view.
Even good data can be used to draw unfounded ‘conclusions’ by ignorant [but self-serving] people. To with this and similar threads.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:27 am
Tallbloke says : “You have confused Ian Wilson with commenter Ian W. They are two different people.”
Oh, so Ian W is not Dr Ian Wilson who published a few papers in the early 1980′s while a graduate student at ANU, then nothing for 25 years except one paper called “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?” Glad to hear it, as that stops me from insulting Dr Wilson by telling him that he has forgotten all his physics in that 25 years. So we can assume that Ian W is not the same person then, and is not a qualified astrophysicist, which would explain a lot……..
It would also explain a lot to me – someone who runs off to check the citations list to assess the authority level to argue from rather than answering simple questions should perhaps consider a career in climate science 😉
As it happens I have peer reviewed papers but in a totally different area (as Rog could check if he so wanted).
So having got the fact that I am not in the same girl-scout troop out of the way…
The Journal Nature reports:
An Earth-mass planet orbiting α Centauri B
Exoplanets down to the size of Earth have been found, but not in the habitable zone—that is, at a distance from the parent star at which water, if present, would be liquid. There are planets in the habitable zone of stars cooler than our Sun, but for reasons such as tidal locking and strong stellar activity, they are unlikely to harbour water–carbon life as we know it. The detection of a habitable Earth-mass planet orbiting a star similar to our Sun is extremely difficult, because such a signal is overwhelmed by stellar perturbations……….
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11572.html
So the planet was found by seeing perturbations in the motion of the star.
Do these perturbations in stella velocity exist or not Jimmi?
Ian W says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm
So the planet was found by seeing perturbations in the motion of the star
As binary stars have been found by seeing perturbations in the components, e.g. Sirius B in 1844. This is beneath contempt really as there are no effects on the stars themselves by the free-fall dance around each other. To quote W&P: “A star in orbit about its barycenter is in a state of free fall (Shirley, 2006). At the center of the star, the attractive force from all the planets [or other orbiting bodies] is exactly canceled by the orbital accelerations (centrifugal and angular). At other locations, the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid is the tidal force.”
Ian W:
“Do these perturbations in stella velocity exist or not Jimmi?”
Hello welcome back. I wondered if you would refer to that article. However you keep missing the point. It is not the motion I am questioning. It is the fact that you assume that the motion causes changes in the star. Now could you explain why you keep claiming that the Doppler effect is relevant. As I asked a longtime ago – when you hear the pitch of the siren from an ambulance change as it goes past, does the ambulance itself change? Simply going in an elliptical orbit constitutes a change in velocity.
“someone who runs off to check the citations list to assess the authority level to argue from rather than answering simple questions should perhaps consider a career in climate science ;-)”
I only looked as Tallbloke claimed that someone called Ian Wilson was an astrophysicist i.e because he was attempting an argument from authority – but he then said that you were not that person, so it becomes irrelevant. As far as I can see however, it is you who is not answering simple questions. So we will try again – why do you think that the techniques used to detect extrasolar planets tell you anything about the effect of planets on the internal structure of stars, given that being in motion does not by itself affect the properties.
J. Seifert says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:54 pm
the Z-pattern as standard temperature evolution after each sizable cosmic impact
At the impact the orbit might change [extremely little], but there is no force that makes it rebounce [sic].
Leif: TODAY came here at WUWT a new Jan Esper, Ulf Buentgen study on temps
during 2,000 years and you may check the record…whether there is a cooling, which
you finally agree that this has to be considered…..To the “impossible” rebounce : Lets
take the impact 1443 Mahuika (Snares Islands) ….here…temps should go down for
50 years, (please check) and then REBOUNCE TO A HEIGHT for the next 50 years
above the impact time temps…and the literature for this is:
O.Wetter, C. Pfister: “An underestimated record breaking event: WHy Summer 1540
was very likely warmer than 2003” Clim Past DIscuss, 8, 2695-2730, 2012… showing
the impact rebounce peak after 50 years EMPIRICALLY DOCUMENTED. Please check….
Further, for detection of the Z-shape impact pattern, I did NOT focus onto those two
rather minor 1178 and 1443 impacts, because the Allan GISP2, which we selected for
our study, is NOT detailed enough for the time period 1000-2000 AD, as blogger Knoebel,
some days ago, pointed out. Previous Holocene impacts are better, clearer, more
convincing than mini-impacts, which just move temps 50 years down and then 50 years
up as rebounce and might be corrupted by volcano eruptions, ENSO and all the lot of
short time events, TSI, etc which are noticed over short time spans….
The pattern is better documented in previous Holocene proxies…..
Nevertheless, since the impact pattern feature is precondition/standard effect…then it
must be valid as well in the last millenium’s time span after mini=impacts. I suggest you
approach Willis to scrutinize our Z-shape claim in detail… Whether I, not any other
study did this before…this would be an original scientific piece to for Willis, he may
claim to be the first on doing a impact pattern model-data comparison for the impact
claim. He did a similiar good study for the same time frame with the volcano climate
impact claim. After all, NEITHER Jan Esper, NOR M. Mann NOR Christiansen/Ljungqvist
provide answers of why there are temp dips in the hockey stick and a reverse rebounces
…. [temps, for example, could also hoover along or continue in a different multitude of
graphic shapes]…..
…
Scrutinizing this claim is new knowledge and someone should/must/will do it one
day…..Concerning your calculations: They are correct by using not all orbital
factors…you are right, for example for billiard-pool balls…. where a fly cannot
change the direction of the ball with its impact….. but the Earth orbit is a different
case, where you left out important orbital factors…. as we will demonstrate, once
we have it ready for presentation……meanwhile, check the empirical data……JS
J. Seifert says:
October 17, 2012 at 12:35 pm
My goodness. What is it with you and Leif? I know nothing about Leif, he has nothing to do with me. I wrote what I wrote before reading what Leif wrote. Quit trying to link me with him. I independently made different calculations than Leif’s. We separately came to the same conclusion—there’s not enough energy in the cosmic impacts to change the orbit by the amount you clan.
I asked you for a simple estimate. A simple order-of-magnitude estimate. An estimate of how much a tiny midge fly can affect the orbit of an automobile. We know that the automobile weighs about ten billion times as much as the midge. Even if the midge is going really, really fast, so what? That just makes it the equivalent of a swarm of midges … how much will even a swarm of midge flies affect the orbit of a car?
You have consistently chosen to ignore the question. I understand why you want to ignore the question. The forces are inadequate by orders of magnitude to do what you claim.
Next, my calculations are not “hand waving examples”. They are real numbers, best estimates for the mass of the Earth (6e+24 kg.) and the Chicxlub meteor (6e+14 kg.). Read’m and weep, the Earth is ten billion times more massive than even the huge meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. It’s the same mass ratio as a midge and an automobile. Even that huge meteor is far too small to change the orbit as you claim.
Finally, I judge claims in part by how the author answers my objections. I asked you about what I saw then (and see now) as a fatal flaw in your theory about the effect of cosmic impacts on the Earth’s orbit. The flaw was that compared to the Earth, the biggest meteors are not even flyspecks—they are midgespecks.
In answer to my question presenting the data and calculations, I had hoped to get reasoned discussion. I got nothing of the sort. I got ad hominem attacks, and discussions of the ToiletPaper Effect and whatever the EOOO is, or maybe it’s the EOO. I got references to EVIDENCE in the GISP2 data. I got expositions on what sounds line a Z-shaped pattern in temperature.
But what I’ve never gotten is an explanation of how a midge is going to disturb a car. Or how a meteor is going to disturb the Earth. You have not grasped the nettle of the huge disparity in the masses.
Your repeated unwillingness to grapple with this serious challenge to your ideas about the Earth’s orbit is a clear danger sign to the discerning reader. I use questions like this to see how smart the guy making the claim might be.
A smart guy in your place would do what we used to call “embrace the suck”. Acknowledge that your idea didn’t work, thank the reader for pointing it out, and move on. Run the numbers yourself, and satisfy yourself that what Leif and I and others are saying is true. Admit it, modify your theory, and keep on moving.
Hey, I’ve had to do it, more than once. Usually I learned a lot in the process. Sometimes my mistakes led to deeper insights. But the only way to get there was to admit when I was wrong.
All the best,
w.
To Willis: I wrote it somewhere previously before: The GISP2 empirical data, together
with the [EOO] Earth Orbital Oscillation cycles [556++growing by about 18 years each
over the Holocene] convinced me in such a way, that it never occurred to me, that
someone would ask for impact calculations…..As I wrote before, I am happy now that
you did because this is what AGW would do trying to kill the paper and you felt immediately
that this aspect had to be included for rounding the study off… Thanks again, we will
aggregate the necessary pages on this over the next weeks. We already found the
missing factors for impact calculations and will present it when everything is ready in
the presentation…..
You could have grasped a hint about something missing in your calculation: What about
this slow, over 556++ going orbital oscillation? Aren’t there factors not being accounted for,
since you have not familiar with those cosmic cycles, identified first, not from us, but
by spectral power analysis? [see paragraph 2, which you never reached….]
Your calculation, independent from Leif [excuse me, I assumed you all sit together
on one table…mea culpa….] is correct, I do not object….but input factors are missing,
as in computer GCMs, which, and I copied your great quote into my book: ”’….[that
they]… are no evidence of anything but the biases, beliefs and the mistakes of the
programmers…..” This quote is the mother of all climate quotes…
I wrote to Leif just minutes ago: If the Z-shaped impact pattern would grasp your
attention, there were, yesterday, 2 new studies with high-resolution data over the
past 2,000 years…… for checking on the empirical truth of the 1178 and 1443 impact
effects and whether the Z-shaped temp oscillation really materializes as described
as necessary result ensuing after each sizable impact [here both are mini-impacts].
Just have a look as you did on the climate changing volcano claims, filled with
professoral ineptitude and Warmist peer blessings…….JS
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 17, 2012 at 5:27 am
Re Charvatova . Since several people here are interested in solar cycles and activity, let’s see if we can get a simple prediction.
When is/was the next solar grand minimum.
If it has already started, then when
If it has not started then when will it?
“We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong. The outcome of this further long-range climate forecast solely based on solar activity may be considered to be a touchstone of the IPCC’s hypothesis of man-made global warming.”
Theodor Landscheidt 2003
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/solar-physicists-finally-get-the-message-landscheidt-was-right-after-all/
Dr’s. Ian Wilson, Bob Carter, and I.A. Waite.
From their paper: Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle? Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 25(2) 85-93 June 2008).
Dr. Wilson adds the following clarification:
“It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20-30 years.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/past-prophesies-of-future-solar-inactivity-and-cooler-climate/
By the way, you haven’t found all the papers Ian Wilson published in Russian journals not covered by the IMSI database. So much for assumptions.
Ian W says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:27 am
Tallbloke says : “You have confused Ian Wilson with commenter Ian W. They are two different people.”
As it happens I have peer reviewed papers but in a totally different area (as Rog could check if he so wanted).
Hi Ian, absolutely no offence intended, I was just wanting to disabuse the dalek of his misconception. Please tell us what area you have published in, and link a paper if you don’t mind losing anonymity.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:41 pm
To quote W&P: “A star in orbit about its barycenter is in a state of free fall (Shirley, 2006). At the center of the star, the attractive force from all the planets [or other orbiting bodies] is exactly canceled by the orbital accelerations (centrifugal and angular). At other locations, the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid is the tidal force.”
And they also say:
“We demonstrate the energy with a very simple model in which two fluid elements
of equal mass exchange positions, calling to mind a turbulent field or natural convection.
The exchange releases potential energy that, with a minor exception, is available only in
the hemisphere facing the barycenter of the planetary system. We calculate its strength and
spatial distribution for the strongest case (“vertical”) and for weaker horizontal cases whose
motions are all perpendicular to gravity. The vertical cases can raise the kinetic energy of
a few well positioned convecting elements in the Sun’s envelope by a factor ≤ 7. This is
the first physical mechanism by which planets can have a nontrivial effect on internal solar
motions….The helioseismic sound speed
and the long record of sunspot activity offer several bits of evidence that the effect may have
been active in the Sun’s core, its envelope, and in some vertically stable layers.”
Tallbloke: “Hi Ian, absolutely no offence intended, I was just wanting to disabuse the dalek of his misconception. Please tell us what area you have published in, and link a paper if you don’t mind losing anonymity.”
There is no need for that – Tallbloke was the one who mentioned Ian Wilson in circumstances which were obviously confusing. As Tallbloke has explained that “Ian W” and “Ian Wilson” are different people then I can accept that. I am simply waiting for Ian W to explain why he thinks that the techniques used to detect extrasolar planets tell you anything about influences on the internal structure of the star itself. Note that I am not stating absolutely that there cannot be internal changes – just that you cannot detect them that way, and so the “detection of extrasolar objects” arguments tell us nothing regarding that subject.
J seifert
After several decades of cold there was an extended mild period that lasted for several decades and was brought to a halt somewhere around 1450. Its difficult to be precise as records tend to be sporadic that far back. I note this from my research in the archives of the Met office
1456 ‘greate frost and great snowe.’ The thames was not frozen again until 1506.
That is of no help of course to specfically see what was happenning in 1443 I will no doubt be in the archives again in the next month or so and will look more specifically for events arond 1178 and 1443
tonyb
J seifert
Further to my post a few mnutes ago.
You are no doubt aware of ths intriguing event in 1178
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno_(crater)
so somehing very large impacted on the moon. It is possible that something hit the earth as well at the same time. The Monks who noted ths observation would not have been aware of an impact on the earth.If there was one it is prsumably recorded in a variety of places and if it was significant would have impacted on the weather. Exeter (my local city) has historic scrolls coverng that period so I will have a look for contemporar observations from there and elsewhere and reread your paper
tonyb
J Seifert
|i carried out a big researc project looking a achive material in order to create my own temperature rconstruction of CET. So the folowing notes relate t the area covered in CET-roughly a triangle from London to Bristol to Manchester.This cvers primarily winters. I gathered material from all seasons for my reconstrction of CET which commenced 1538.
1422/3 A severe winter in western Europe / implies parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) booty
1430’s Majority of winters, [ perhaps 7 or 8 ] contained several weeks of widespread severe weather (NB: ‘weeks’, not the paltry ‘days’ we get end 20th / early 21st centuries.) According to Lamb, an experience not repeated / matched until the 1690’s, in the depth of the Little Ice Age (and certainly not in modern times). Booty
Neither frost nor snow all the winter for more than six days in all.’
1431/2 A cold (possibly severe) winter in western Europe / implied parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) booty
Every winter from 1433/4to 1437/8 described as severe. Lamb-chmw
1434/35 (may be 1433/34) (Winter)A very severe winter: the Thames froze solid (from December to February) and was closed to shipping from Gravesend to below London Bridge, and wine had to be transported overland (or over the ice-covered Thames) from Gravesend to London. [ Some sources have this as 1433/34 ]
1442/3 A cold winter western Europe / implied parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) booty
1456 great frost and great snowe wof
1457/8 A cold winter in western Europe / implied parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) booty
1464/5 A cold winter over western Europe / implied parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb)
So there had been many cold winters in the decades around 1443 and much varability of weather after the more setlled periods of the 11th/12th/13th centuries.There doesn’t seem to have been anything out of the ordinaryin the British record although Dr Mann notes a severe downturn around 1450 for the NH whihc was not noted by Lamb in CET
Tonyb
Leif
Helioseismology shows that to a very high degree of precision the Sun’s interior is in hydrostatical equilibrium, that is: the density varies only with the radius. Already Newton showed that such a mass distribution can be treated as a point mass.
It is not because the essay in this post is bad science that you can afford doing bad science yourself too.
First Newton showed that point mass approximation in the center can be ONLY used for spherically symmetrical bodies.
Second he said nothing about hydrostatic equilibriums and he did well – if spherical symmetry implies hydrostatic equilibrium (for steady states) the converse is wrong.
So whether the Sun is or is not in hydrostatic equilibrium locally (this is a local law) is irrelevant to the existence or non existence of a global spherical symmetry. Specifically it says nothing about the validity of the point mass approximation.
I am not astrophysicist but fluid dynamist. So I look at the Sun’s outer layer as at a giant spherical Rayleigh Benard convection additionnaly complicated by electromagnetic forces.
As this must also exist in the Sun, clearly neither spherical symmetry of density nor the one of pressure can exist there, else there would be no convection cells.
I don’t know how large the size of the convective volume is but I’ll assume that it’s 1% of the total Sun’s mass.. This would lead to a big departure from spherical symmetry and one could certainly not approximate the Sun to a point in its center when considering gravity in Sun’s proximity.
Of course for planetary orbits when one is very far from the Sun the point mass approximation could be acceptable if one stays on short time scales because dF/F= -2 dr/r .
However even for short time scales to achieve a correct accuracy for the Earth Moon system, it has been a long time that the point mass approximation had to be abandonned.
But for short time scales epicycles will do too.
On larger time scales the point mass approximation leads to inacceptable errors for the planets’ positions on orbits.
TomVonk says:
October 18, 2012 at 4:12 am
First Newton showed that point mass approximation in the center can be ONLY used for spherically symmetrical bodies.
That is the point, observations show that the Sun is very nearly spherical. Any significant deviation from that would affect the perihelion advance of Mercury and destroy the observed agreement with that computed from General Relativity.
On larger time scales the point mass approximation leads to inacceptable errors for the planets’ positions on orbits.
Perhaps after tens of millions of years, so not of interest.
tallbloke says:
October 17, 2012 at 11:43 pm
And they also say:
“We demonstrate the energy with a very simple model in which two fluid elements
of equal mass exchange positions, calling to mind a turbulent field or natural convection.
It is that ‘demonstration that is in error, because the conditions for instability are not met. Their appeal to Chandrasekhar’s authority doesn’t help when the misuse his equations in circumstances where it is not valid.
The vertical cases can raise the kinetic energy of a few well positioned convecting elements in the Sun’s envelope by a factor ≤ 7.
Even if so, they do not show how that would impact the solar cycle, not to speak about creating Grand Minima. So, no real theory, and no connection with Geoff’s invalid arguments about angular momentum changing the rotation of the Sun [supposedly in turn affecting the solar cycle].
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 9:18 am
Leif: TODAY came here at WUWT a new Jan Esper, Ulf Buentgen study on temps
during 2,000 years and you may check the record…
All this is completely irrelevant. My issue is with the impacts only. 1) they require impossibly large masses to have any effect on the orbits, and 2) the orbits will not rebound after a perturbation, there is no force to make them do that. When we send spacecraft to other planets and make mid-course corrections by firing rockets [the ‘impacts’], the solar system is not trying to undo our correction and have the spacecraft ‘rebounce’ [and overshoot].
Leif….OK, let’s leave the question open for now…..
You will get our calculations and then we have a better
ground for our discussion…and resume it later
with new numbers… Cheers JS
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 10:10 am
Leif….OK, let’s leave the question open for now…..
the point is that this is not an ‘open question’. It is a shut case. Period.
And here we can see that the open mind is missing….you have good knowledge
about the Sun, but limited knowledge on the Earth’s orbit… And you reckon, that
you can close the case based on limited knowledge…. this is my complaint…..Period.
The prove for all readers You dont know, what the Earth Orbit Oscillation cycle is all about
(EOO with 556 years ++)….. clear limited knowledge….Period. Double period.
To Leif: More than half of our paper concerns the EOO oscillation cycles of
the Earth’s orbit. You have not read the paper, you can’t explain this cycle which
is confirmed by power spectra analysis……. exposing your restricted LIMITED
Knowledge on orbit OSCILLATIONS…….
……..At the same time, you claim that you dont know oscillations and that “there
are no orbital oscillations” according to your impact calculations……And that your
3 line minimized calculations answers the case enough to be closed…..This is the
typical AGW-attitude…. am I on the right blog? JS
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 11:03 am
And here we can see that the open mind is missing….you have good knowledge
about the Sun, but limited knowledge on the Earth’s orbit
The open mind has nothing to do with this [expect perhaps that the mind could be so open that the brain has fallen out]. As a professional astronomer I have very good knowledge about the Earth’s orbit. This is fundamental to my work. But what is your knowledge based on?
Furthermore, the result of an impact has nothing as such to do with the Earth’s orbit, but is basic freshman’s physics. Of course, none of this seems to have any impact on the author of ‘the best climate paper of them all’. As I said, this sort of overconfidence in own’s own genius is the surest sign of pseudo-science, displayed by several here on WUWT. You are near the top, though.
About E[OOPs], it seems nobody knows what it is. Fairbridge once babbled about an Earth-Moon connection provided by a 111.25-yr cycle (×5=556 yr), is that what you have in mind? Anyway, that still has nothing to do with the mass of an impactor needed to change the orbit. As I said: your paper is DOA.
We never refer to Fairbrige and what he might have said…. we refer to cycle
detection of different authors doing spectral power analysis…. its all in our the
not-read paper…. I wonder why would you quote a Mr. Fairbridge who had some
strange opinions and whom we never quoted? Also, what other people claim on
our blog, has nothing to do with me…. Each one can claim what he wants…
Further, to your argumentum ignorantum you add the argumentum of authority:
The one “is right”, who is the greater astronomer…..I bet, you cannot draw an Earth’s
orbit on a sheet of paper…..if yes, then tell me, it would be interesting…..JS
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:00 pm
am I on the right blog?
Stick to http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/joachim-seifert-and-frank-lemke-new-cosmo-climate-theory/ and join the other pseudo-scientists there.
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm
We never refer to Fairbridge and what he might have said…. we refer to cycle
detection of different authors doing spectral power analysis
You make it hard to re-check your paper by having it pay-walled. Perhaps your real purpose here is to try to increase sales of it. In any event, no matter what cycles you or others might claim, the fact remains that the mass of the impactor must be impossibly large to have any effect on the orbit of the Earth, and even it it had, there would not be a Z-rebounce. It does not take a great astronomer to see this, freshman physics is enough.
I bet, you cannot draw an Earth’s orbit on a sheet of paper
If you supply a sheet large enough [300 million km across] I’l give it a try.
Now, there is an interesting 556 year orbit in the solar system: http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/kbos_dwarfplanets.php#eris
but that has, of course, nothing to do with anything, unless you assume some resonance with the Earth [don’t laugh, there are people who would readily do this, Volker comes to mind – or is that with Pluto – never mind]
Leif: We do not make science hard…. more that 1,000 WUWT readers
downloaded our paper for free…. Now you complain and cannot check what
the paper says on the orbital oscillation….. too bad. To orbit drawings: A DIN
A 4 pencil drawing would suffice for us…..The orbit oscillation EOO is explained
in detail in the paper, you can even spot it in the summary with its 27-37 ka BP
graph as back up….Volker and the outer planets do not impact our Earth’s
orbit….gravitation is the force controlling the Earth’s orbit…..JS
To climatereason tony B.
Somehow I overlooked your comments….. possibly my red light comes on when
Leif has his latest comment and he difficult to handle with an obstinate touch….
Please check and enlarge the 2 latest temp reconstructions, which came up on
Anthony’s yesterday and today (Christiansen….the other Jan Esper) Mayby you
could check whether both graphs produce a 50 year downswing followed by a 50
year upswing with a temp peak at year 1540 as peak of the temp rebounce of the
Z-shaped impact pattern….
To 1178….there even is a intenet page, something like “Was there an impact in 1178?
Which is the Canterbury event…the Moon shoock and parted..that was the impact,
on the Moon….I do not think that the Earth shook by the object hitting the Earth….
but the most important thing was that many hours/days afterwards the moon vision
stayed blurry….. there come some know-it-all and said that the Moon does not have
so much dust on it to blurry the Moon….and now: The explanation is that the impact
into the Indian ocean lifted so much ocean water wapour into the stratosphere to
blurry the sky for the observer….
Myself, I find this all very interesting, although both events produced only mini-drops
and temp rebounces….due to their small size… Impact events over the Holocene
before were much more pronounced and visible in the temp records…Cheers JS
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Leif: We do not make science hard…. more that 1,000 WUWT readers downloaded our paper for free…
First, it is not science, and second I deleted the paper after reading it as it was junk, not worth saving.
The orbit oscillation EOO is explained in detail in the paper
As I recall, it is not. Perhaps you could describe it right here in one paragraph or two.
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm
We never refer to Fairbridge and what he might have said…. we refer to cycle
detection of different authors doing spectral power analysis…. its all in our the
not-read paper…. I wonder why would you quote a Mr. Fairbridge who had some
strange opinions and whom we never quoted?
One of the strange ideas that Fairbridge had was to write your reference to the EOO: [15] Oliver, John E. (ed.) Encyclopedia of World Climatology,(2005) p.259.
Climate Variation: Historical by Rhodes W. Fairbridge pages 247-262.
http://tocs.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/21599194X.pdf
As far as I can see he and the other references you mention refer to cycles in climate and not in the Earth’s orbit, but you can correct me on that by showing where they refer to the orbit and not the climate.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 18, 2012 at 3:11 pm
The orbit oscillation EOO is explained in detail in the paper
————————————————
As I recall, it is not. Perhaps you could describe it right here in one paragraph or two.
The EOO is probably the main thrust of the paper, yet the EOO data and what produces it are nowhere to be seen.
As a sideshow I plotted the EMB to Sun centre distance from JPL from 1800-3000, the results show a gradual smooth diminishing of the aphelion and the perihelion growing on a similar scale, this would be expected with the Earth’s orbit heading away from an elliptical orbit to more round.
Even though the minor axis is on anther plane there would still be a pulse in the aphelion/perihelion distances if an EOO existed.There is no EOO pulse in the JPL record.
J Seifert
1540? Interesting. Here is my own reconstruction of CET commencing 1538.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/11.jpg
My notes from the earliest years are as follows-these are taken from contemporary observations of the time;
1538-1541 These four years apparently experienced drought, with 1540 & 1541 particularly dry – in both these latter years, the Thames was so low that sea water extended above London Bridge, even at ebb tide in 1541. Three successive fine / warm summers from 1538-1540: the weather in 1540 was so fine that picking of cherries commenced before the end of May and grapes were ripe in July. General warmth over Europe during the spring & summer of 1540. For England, there are several references to a hot summer, with great heat & drought; also many deaths due to the ‘Ague’. (The next warm summer of equal worth is possibly that of 2003!) (also noted in usw via Holland .. ” 1540 is described in contemporary chronicles as the ‘Big Sun Year’; the lower part of the Rhine from Cologne into the Netherlands is ‘dry’ – it didn’t rain over Italy, with Rome dry for something like 9 months. Forest/city fires, with many people dying of heat stroke, heart failure etc.”) 1541: as indicated above, another drought year with rivers drying up (must have been quite extreme given that the previous year was notably dry). Cattle / other livestock dying for lack of water: dysentery killed thousands. Booty
Good harvest according to Lamb chmw, citing Hoskins wheat harvest survey.”
There is another Historical reference as follows;
“Around 1560 the Rev Schaller, pastor of Strendal in the Prussian Alps wrote;
“There is no real constant sunshine neither a steady winter nor summer, the earth’s crops and produce do not ripen, are no longer as healthy as they were in bygone years. The fruitfulness of all creatures and of the world as a whole is receding, fields and grounds have tired from bearing fruits and even become impoverished, thereby giving rise to the increase of prices and famine, as is heard in towns and villages from the whining and lamenting among the farmers.”
So evidently the temperatures reached a peak some years before 1560 and then declined.
During my research at the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge a few weeks ago I came across a reference to the British making a first attempt at a journey to find the North East passage over the top of Russia to China in 1553. This was based on information that the Russians had managed to find a route a decade previously and the British wanted to ensure they could secure trading rights. so around this time it was so warm that journeys through the Arctic were contemplated.
As you can see from my chart the temperatures declined for some decades after around 1540, recovered, then declined again to the depths of the LIA.
I will search around for 1178 information
tonyb
Geoff Sharp says:
October 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm
The EOO is probably the main thrust of the paper, yet the EOO data and what produces it are nowhere to be seen. […]
There is no EOO pulse in the JPL record.
As I showed in my previous comment, the EOO is dreamed up by Seifert who said “In order to name this growing astronomical cycle, we propose: The Earth Orbit Oscillation cycle (EOO)”.
I also showed that he got the 556-yr period from Fairbridge [although he claims he never cited Fairbridge] and that those ‘cycles’ were of climate, not of any Earth orbit variables. I think we have demonstrated that Seifert is but a fraud, trying to sell his paper.
He also said: “In order to regain a smooth, stabilized orbital flight around the Sun, the planet reacts with a Cosmic Impact Oscillation paGern (CIO+paGern). This oscillation will compensate in its duration the impact energy received. This energy is substantial and, in cosmic impact analyses, counted in units of megatons TNT or in multitudes of Hiroshima bombs”.
First, the planet does not ‘react’ to a blow, it takes it and that is it. And the energy is in ‘units of megatons TNT, which is paltry. We have exploded bombs of 100 megatons which altering the orbit. Hurricane Katrina expended 300 Megatons of energy. So Seifert’s sense of proportion is way off here, but what does that matter when the purpose is just to sell his paper. As the Goracle has demonstrated, the more you lie, the more you sell.
To Leif: This blog is at its end after the week and only we five are left
in our exchange….. plus tony b is still on, with highly interesting to read
historical observations to compare how they fit into the general picture
of our Holocen temp reconstruction…..
Leif: All quotes concerning 556+18 say they are ASTRONOMICAL cycles and
not TEMPERATURE cycles…. My very first graphic #1 shows the cycle period
lenghts …..as well as for 10,000 years in graphic 7…..All as you say: unimportant,
without any heuristic value….please explain your variant of the growing cycle
periods OVER 20,000 YEARS and I chip in the 116-127 kaBP Eemian as well,
making it 30,000 years….
…… Here along comes Leif, the Kopernikus of the 21 Century, and explains
to the world that an EOO-CYCLE FOR 30,000 years DOES NOT exist….because…
yes, because why? Because, as he calculates, with quote “simple calculations” and
“first grade physics”, that 30,000 year of continuing EOO-cycles, demonstrated all
in graphics were just an invention of this person S., who does not know what he is
talking about….
Every reader will notice how entrenched you are in the view that one never ever
should read our paper! One notices how you struggle, with head, with hands, with
your feet — soon kicking from the ground, when we get the numbers ready–
to defend your position that the paper must not to be read…!!
Secondly: You put up a skillful rhetorical trap, into which I fell twice by not knowing,
and Willis learned from you…. Now I will reply to Willis onto this same subject
because I do not want to write it twice….. JS
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 18, 2012 at 4:43 pm
We have exploded bombs of 100 megatons without altering the orbit
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 10:05 am
First, getting “convinced” by ice core data that there is some climate effect of cosmic impacts is one thing. I can see a reasonable case for that.
But assuming, without running the numbers, that the cause of the aforesaid climate effects was a change in the Earth’s orbit? That was a bridge too far. Even a big meteor like the Chicxlub meteor has only one ten-billionth of the mass of the earth. It is far, far, far, far too small to produce the effects that you claim.
I did not, however, do “what AGW would do trying to kill the paper”. I did what any scientist would do. I asked to see the numbers showing that the forces involved were large enough to materially affect the Earth’s orbit. In addition, I calculated them myself.
Well, we are kinda getting somewhere. You agree that my calculation (one ten-billionth the mass) is correct. Then you say I am missing some “input factors”. But then you get all coy, you don’t say what the “input factors” are, not even a hint. Instead, you say that you “will present it when everything is ready in the presentation.”
Color me totally unimpressed by this tease. If you have the answer to how an object one ten-billionth the mass of another can materially affect the orbit of the larger object, bring it out and present it, or go away.
Well, you could start by precisely defining whatever it is that you are calling the “Z-shaped impact pattern”, so that it can be recognized mathematically and programmatically. Then you could provide a link to the dataset you are using. Once you have done both of those, I’ll take a look and tell you what I think.
All the best,
w.
w.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:00 pm
am I on the right blog?
Stick to http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/joachim-seifert-and-frank-lemke-new-cosmo-climate-theory/ and join the other pseudo-scientists there.
Heh, if you read the comments you’d see Joachim hasn’t had an easy ride there either. But your jibe misses its mark in other ways too. We have several quantified solar-planetary models which are able to predict the evolution of solar activity levels many decades ahead and which are being well validated as time goes on. You have a heuristic using solar polar field data which gives you a rough idea of what the next cycle will do, but no more.
The other dynamologists, poor old Hathaway and Dikpati took a real beating over cycle 24.
So where is the well developed dynamo model giving predictions for the next century? Nowhere, there isn’t one. All that taxpayer money seems to have gone down a research hole.
I understand your chagrin and professional jealousy. 😉
tallbloke says:
October 18, 2012 at 11:36 pm
We have several quantified solar-planetary models which are able to predict the evolution of solar activity levels many decades ahead
that is, of course, an unfounded and wishful claim. I wish you were right, but most of us will not live to validate your claim many cycles ahead, so your claim is pretty safe and in practice unfalsifiable. I predict cycle 35 will have maximum sunspot number of 123, prove me wrong!
You have a heuristic using solar polar field data which gives you a rough idea of what the next cycle will do, but no more.
There is good physical theory [with numbers etc calculated from Maxwell’s and Newton’s equations] that predicts the cycle one cycle ahead given an observed polar field, so ‘heuristic’ is not the right word here. As for further ahead, one can use statistics [e.g. Kalman filtering for one more cycle], but those will only be educated guesses. Real, <b<actionable prediction that companies and governments can bet billions of dollars on does not yet seem to be in the cards longer term. You see, this kind of prediction is what we need, and you [and your several competitors] simply don’t have that. Hand waving and mere correlations don’t cut it. People that have tried planetary prediction [discounting the obvious fraudsters]: Jose, Landscheidt, Chartatova, etc have all failed and had to move the goalposts when the ‘predicted’ cycle rolled around. To make it in the real world you have to have your ideas written up, connected with other peoples’ work, forming a body of solid knowledge that is agreed upon by a sizable segment of the community, etc, and you don’t have that. You don’t issue safety regulations for building a bridge based upon contentious ideas, or should not try to mitigate global warming based on dubious alarmist propaganda.
The other dynamologists, poor old Hathaway and Dikpati took a real beating over cycle 24.
At least Hathaway long ago admitted he was wrong: http://www.leif.org/EOS/20111212_NSO-Hathaway.pdf rather than just moving the goalposts. I still have to see that kind of integrity in your crowd.
tallbloke says:
October 18, 2012 at 11:36 pm
So where is the well developed planetary model giving predictions for the next century? Nowhere, there isn’t one.
Try this exercise: take all the planetary models you know about, plot their predictions on the same graph, and show us.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 19, 2012 at 2:33 am
tallbloke says:
October 18, 2012 at 11:36 pm
So where is the well developed dynamo model giving predictions for the next century? Nowhere, there isn’t one. All that taxpayer money seems to have gone down a research hole.
Try this exercise: take all the planetary models you know about, plot their predictions on the same graph, and show us.
Hah! So in response to my criticism, Leif tries to change the subject instead of addressing the issues. Where’s the dynomologist prediction for solar activity over the next century Leif? Theories must be tested against predictions. The reason the dynamologists haven’t provided a prediction is because they have no confidence in their theory.
I’ll make a spaghetti plot of our predictions when you show us a century scale one from your dynamology team.
Leif
That is the point, observations show that the Sun is very nearly spherical.
I did not say spherical. I said spehrically symmetrical. And here observations say something completely different. If there are convection cells with different size hierarchies (what I believe is the case) and differential rotation (what I believe is also the case) then it is trivial that there can’t be spherical symmetry (for density and pressure distribution purposes)
I am not familiar enough with the internal Sun’s dynamics but I guesstimated this non spherically symmetrical region of the Sun at 1% of its total mass. Even smaller differences force to abandon the point like approximation for the Sun-Moon system.
So clearly the Sun (or any other not perfectly symetrically symmetrical body) can’t be generally approximated by a point in the center of a sphere to compute the gravity potential (or curvature for general relativity) everywhere.
For a given measure accuracy and a given observation time, there will be a minimum distance beyond which the the effect will not be measurable but that’s all.
That’s why nobody accepts (and uses) the point like argument without mentionning the distance and the time scale. When used on wrong time and space scales it is clearly invalid (f.ex Earth-Moon).
Perhaps after tens of millions of years, so not of interest.
Not so. Probably of little interest with regard to mechanical energy conservation which is enough for the essay posted here. But certainly of interest when one bifurcates to discussions about planetary orbits.
tallbloke says:
October 19, 2012 at 3:08 am
The reason the dynamologists haven’t provided a prediction is because they have no confidence in their theory.
No, it is because we think that the solar cycle in general cannot be predicted with enough certainty to be actionable on, more than one cycle ahead. It is the same with weather prediction. There is a lot of confidence in weather prediction theory and it works well a few days ahead, but cannot predict with any certainty what the weather will be on a given day, say 25 days ahead [except in California in the summertime 🙂 ].
A wrong solar cycle prediction can have rather severe consequences, e.g. insurance premiums for satellites are sometimes set based on our predictions. If the prediction is wrong, the satellite owner will certainly sue to get his money back, not to speak about the eventual loss of the satellite because of insufficient shielding or hardening. You see, our predictions are not amusing games, but have real-life consequences.
I’ll make a spaghetti plot of our predictions when you show us a century scale one from your dynamology team
As you say: put up or shut up.
TomVonk says:
October 19, 2012 at 3:40 am
So clearly the Sun (or any other not perfectly symmetrically symmetrical body) can’t be generally approximated by a point in the center of a sphere to compute the gravity potential (or curvature for general relativity) everywhere.
It is always a matter of degree. One measure of departure from being spherically symmetric is the gravitational quadrupole moment of the Sun. For a perfectly spherically symmetric Sun that moment would be zero. It is, in fact, very close to zero: 0.0000002.
That’s why nobody accepts (and uses) the point like argument without mentioning the distance and the time scale.
JPL in their calculation of planetary emphemerides thousands of years in the future [and the past] does that with high precision assuming the Sun is a point mass. It is only in the few years that we have been able to determine the minute higher order gravitational moments accurately from helioseismology.
TomVonk says:
October 19, 2012 at 3:40 am
That’s why nobody accepts (and uses) the point like argument without mentioning the distance and the time scale.
Read section 8.3.1 of http://vadimchazov.narod.ru/text_pdf/XSChap8.pdf
“8.3.1 Point-Mass Interactions
The principal gravitational force on the nine planets, the Sun, and the Moon is modeled by considering those bodies to be point masses in the isotropic, parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) n-body metric (Will, 1974).”
For long-term integrating of the Moon’s orbit, the shape of the Sun [quadrupole moment J2] has to be taken into account, but that is not needed for the other bodies. In any case, those corrections are very tiny.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 19, 2012 at 12:27 am
People that have tried planetary prediction [discounting the obvious fraudsters]: Jose, Landscheidt, Chartatova, etc have all failed and had to move the goalposts when the ‘predicted’ cycle rolled around.
The evolution of a principle can sometimes have set backs which make it easy for those in opposition to highlight, but the detractors (and others) can miss the underlying science. The authors mentioned as well as Fairbanks made fundamental errors, but they were heading in the general direction but lacked the key or Rosetta Stone to pull it together.
Jose mapped out a crude SIM diagram and a very crude AM chart that was incapable of seeing the big picture. He went back a few centuries and proclaimed the planets return to their original positions every 179 years which is now known to be incorrect. The closest cycle of the returning positions of the big 4 is around 4628 years.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/226
Landscheidt went down a different track and used torque extrema as a marker of grand minima. We now know that torque extrema is an extremely rough guide for predicting grand minima and he and Fairbanks both predicted a grand minimum around 1990. He also predicted another downturn at 2030 which may be a bit late. Of interest he had the right tool in his bag but used it for different purposes, he would be rolling in his grave right now.
Charvàtovà was the closest by discovering the disordered orbit correlation with grand minima, but then stalled in her research. She repeats the same mantra for 30 years without drilling down and finding the reason for the disordered orbit and how to quantify it. By continuing to work at a very high level she misses the detail and uses past SIM patterns to predict the future instead of looking at the detail of today. This lack of understanding leads her to predict a SSN of 140 for SC24 and a cycle max of 2010. For all purposes her initial discovery has not progressed at all.
So while on the right track most of the pioneers work needs to be mainly abandoned which makes it easy for the likes of you to criticize, but they set the scene and inspiration for others to follow which led to what will be considered the major discovery of Carl Smith’s AM graph.
The pioneers set the scene, but are in fact quite removed from the modern planetary AM theory that works in the same direction but working with a different data set does not suffer the errors and inconsistencies. The new AM planetary science is quite divorced from the old, so you can no longer place us in the same basket. Every day that passes since 2008 has strengthened AM theory with real data, the crap shoot Babcock theory is living on borrowed time.
J. Seifert says:
October 19, 2012 at 7:28 am
All quotes concerning 556+18 say they are ASTRONOMICAL cycles and
not TEMPERATURE cycles….
Your paper says: “the text provides a figure 7 with a GISP2 Holocene power spectrum…”
GISP2 is temperature. Enough said on that, I think.
You claimed you never quoted Fairbridge and that he has strange ideas, but your reference [15] is written by Fairbridge. How about some simple honesty?
EOO-CYCLE FOR 30,000 years DOES NOT exist
Whatever it is, is not caused by impacts altering the Earth’s orbit, that is what I claim.
how entrenched you are in the view that one never ever should read our paper
One should absolutely read it [but not pay $85 for the privilege, because it is not worth it] for the entertainment value and to get a good view of how low a level scientific literacy has sunk to. As pseudo-science your paper is superb, otherwise it is junk.
It is tiresome to talk about our paper, to someone, who refuses to read it,
gets everything confused and then takes arguments out of the air:
Proves: (1) This encyclopedic hint is described as just a hint, into which direction
to look for Holocene interpretation….this hint, twice reinforced in the text, quotes
Jan Esper (released a paper yesterday with Anthony) and Wanner (important
Warmist a la Stocker) …. and AFTER THE HINT…we proceeded to results of
astronomical cycle power spectra analysis …..and continue from there….and
do not only remain with Fairbridge (whether is is good or bad, is not the topic
of the paper…..)
and now I copied this from your reply:
””” by Fairbridge. How about some simple honesty?
EOO-CYCLE FOR 30,000 years DOES NOT exist
Whatever it is, is not caused by impacts altering the Earth’s orbit, that is what I claim.””’
Prove (2) EOO-cycles “do not exist [to your knowledge]” and ‘WHATEVER
THIS IS, is not caused by impacts altering the …orbit.’
Why do you claim this? This is what WE prove in our paper!!
WE PROVE, that EOO-CYCLES ARE NOT CAUSED BY IMPACTS,
because : There are 5 different/independent/overlayed forcing mechanics,
OF WHICH, the EOO is just one, the FOURTH, distinct forcing cycle and
the FIFTH, is an completely other, an stochastically appearing, random
impact cycle….random, because a random impact cannot produce a
steady, continuosly on-going and periodicity increasing
EOO -oscillation….. both forcings, the forths and the fifths DO NOT
CAUSE each other….
Our result: You are confused by throwing all different forcings into
your pot and stir around…
It discourages me to justify our great paper to someone, who, AS A
MINIMUM requisite for a quality discourse, rejects reading it and dares
to opine as the strongest on the blog to debunk it because it does not
fulfil his 3 line, quote: “simplistic” countings….JS
Now to Willis: Where to start….lets go further up and see now:
1. The Z-shaped impact pattern (high voltage symbol)… Since it is a strongly
visible impact feature, I dedicated a whole graphic to it #5, explaining its
composition, effects and what happens with the temperature, when the
Z-symbol line crosses with vertical lines of EOO-period ends……Check there
please….and now we come to the rhetorical trap you copied from Leif: [and
btw, you applied this multiple times 6 months ago with N. Scafetta….. and I
took pity with him at this time and trying to back him up somewhat morally….)
The trap is the following:
2. In order NOT to read a paper [for whatever reason, overload, lack of time,
etc.pp) you ASK the author to EXPLAIN his XYZ-point….. This is a trick,
because you will get only a reduced, minimized version of the argument,
where you can pick on easily on individual words, which, in their short
“abstract’-version CANNOT fully resemble what the full text and full
paragraphs explain. I fell into this trap with Leif before and now I am on
guard. If you dont believe me, go to the springtime Scafetta dispute
and he over and over repeated: I explained XYZ already X-times, see paper,
there, and there…..but the TRAP is to ASK to EXPLAIN…saves you reading
and facilitates a negative answer because you try to take off weight from the
scales of the author.
Therefore, my answer, learnig from above (1) would be: See graphic #5 plus
the chapter of its explanation and please go ahead….
3. Our EOO-cycle can be (1.) detected over 30,000 years of temp evolution,
plus (now I have to mention my booklet, which I proposed to you 2 or 3 times
back into the past) plus, (2) the astronomical calculations are given in very
readable manner, explained in my book, and now I do not dare to add the
ISBN-number, because envidious guys are out there who instantly blame
I want to promote the book) .
4. Against our calculations and 30,000 years of CYCLE EVIDENCE in paleotemp
evolution stands the minimized, 3-line, “simple” and “first physics-grade”
[his quote] calculations of a would-be Kopernikus.
His, and also your calculations are CORRECTly done (no question ever from
my side), but do NOT fully resemble orbital conditions, which are more
complicated in space and cannot be fully described with a SIMPLISTIC
mechanical view. There is more in it…..
My reply, as usual, got long again and therefore I remain JS
J Seifert
Regarding 1178 and the link previously posted about a large impact on the moon.
This was interesting;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1313256/posts
Lots of theories and references that the earth was impacted by meteors/comets around 1178. This is a right wing blog with an agenda, but it seems the academic work they refer to was bona fide. Lots of conjecture, but there is no confirmation that there is a corresponding very large impact crater from that date yet found on Earth.
The comments at the end of this article are interesting. This for example
“Astronomers Clube And Napier call this a ‘cosmic winter’ in their excellent book by the same title,Cosmic Winter
“Synopsis
“During five days in late June 1975, a swarm of boulders the size of motor cars struck the moon at a speed of 67,000 miles per hour. On 30 June 1908 an object crashed on Siberia with the force of a large hydrogen bomb. The moon was also struck on 25 June 1178 struck, this time by a missile whose energy was ten times that of the combined nuclear arsenals of the world. Why late June? What is the nature of such events? And what threat do they pose to mankind? The authors aim to reveal the answers in this book. They argue that rains of fire visit the earth from time to time, destroying civilizations and plunging mankind into Dark Ages. They uncover a lost tradition of celestial catastrophe, and underpin these claims with foundations based on the latest discoveries in space. They produce a risk assessment which reveals that civilization could well come to an abrupt end, destroyed by a rain of fire followed by an icy, cosmic winter.”
So again the reference seems to be to a collision with the moon rather than the Earth. I have no idea what effect (if any) that would have on the moons position relative to the earth or whether that would have a knock on effect to weather on earth/tides.
If the earth passed through a meteor shower that hit the moon its possible it hit the earth as well. Whether it did or not, where the crater is and what effect it would have I can’t say.
We risk straying into Erik Von Daniken territory here, but the climate seemed to have changed around 1200 and again around 1550. Mind you the climate oscillated frequently outside of the settled core time of the MWP.
tonyb
J. Seifert says:
October 19, 2012 at 9:27 am
It is tiresome to talk about our paper, to someone, who refuses to read it,
Oh, I have read it. Where do you think I got the quotes from.
I intend to use it a poster child for our students of what a bad pseudo-scientific paper looks like.
and do not only remain with Fairbridge
So you admit that you lied about Fairbridge!
WE PROVE, that EOO-CYCLES ARE NOT CAUSED BY IMPACTS
So you admit that impacts do not change the orbit with resulting climate changes.
We are making progress.
It discourages me to justify our great paper to someone
Your paper is junk, perhaps even great junque. Then we can agree it is GREAT.
Joachim, you wrote to me that:
I replied by saying:
In response, you say:
October 19, 2012 at 8:22 am
I’m sorry, but that’s not what I asked for. As I specified in my request, I need a mathematical description of your claimed pattern, not a bunch of words and pictures. I need a clear mathematical description that I can apply to a dataset to identify exactly what you are talking about. Written descriptions and pointing at some pictures doesn’t help.
You think I should pay you $85 to get a peek at graphic 5? Not gonna happen, but it doesn’t matter. I don’t need a graphic. I need a clear mathematical description of what you are talking about.
Look, Joachim, if you seriously want me to analyze your work, I need two things:
1. A link to your data, and
2. A clear mathematical description of your “Z-shaped impact pattern”.
Without those, I have nothing to analyze. I can look at your pictures and read your words, but when I show up with a pattern that doesn’t fit with your history, what’s to stop you from saying something like “oh, that’s not the kind of Z-shaped impact pattern I’m talking about”?
What you have written in response to my two simple requests is a joke. It is not science, it is not even imitation science. It is a pathetic rant, full of “poor me”, all about how Leif has figured out some trap and I’ve learned the trap from Leif … dude, you are seriously getting paranoid.
It is also ludicrous. You claim that someone having the infinite gall to, as you call it, “ASK [you] to EXPLAIN” your paper is some kind of sneaky trick … yeah, me asking you to explain your work is all just a subtle trap put together by Leif and me in our secret lair in a hollow volcano, you don’t want to get caught in our deadly snare of actually explaining your work …
Do you realize how pathetic and paranoid that sounds? You think that people asking you to explain your work is just some devious trap to discredit you … where in fact, refusing to explain your work is the fastest path to losing all credit, as you are in the act of proving here on WUWT with your post and your lack of explanations.
Finally, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I want you to EXPLAIN your work, as you put it. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am totally uninterested in your explanations of your work. I was responding to your request that I look at your claimed Z-shaped patterns.
In order to “just have a look” as you requested, all that I asked for was a mathematical description of your “Z-shaped impact pattern” so I’d know what I was looking for, and a link to the dataset where I was to be looking. I expected a mathematical description on the order of:
“A Z-shaped pattern is formed when the ∂O18 level rises a minimum of X parts per billion, then falls at least twice as far as it has risen, then returns to within X ppb of its original value. Each of the phases must take place over a span of more than X but less than Y thousand years. A five-point Gaussian smooth will be applied to the data.”
or something of that nature, plus a link to the data. Bozo simple, I’d have thought. But instead of giving me scientific information, I get a rant about Leif, and about how asking you to EXPLAIN your ideas is a fiendish plot, I get anything and everything but the two simple things I had asked for.
I’m happy to take join your hunt through the ice cores for the mark of Zorro, but I need a couple of answers first—what am I looking for exactly, and where am I looking? Answer my questions or go bother someone else. Hey, you asked me to take a look at your work with the putative Z-shaped impact pattern, and now you’re all up in arms because I asked a couple of innocuous questions that are necessary for me to do the investigation you requested?
WUWT?
w.
To Tony B.: Human History and Climate….a wonderful topic. We can see where
we came from, how it came about and, with the right approach, we can see,
where we are heading to…. The 1178 impact event also makes a good example:
Unusual events stirs the fantasy of the doom&gloom sayers: The 1178 event
was taken over by the esoterics, the space ship accident people, the end-of-the
world predicators….mostly connected to the Bible” Folks, the end is near….get
ready…!” God gave us a sign….[for this reason, you have to tolerate a lot of
nonsense internet pages]….. but, all those nutty people are easy to identify,
while, since the development of the computer, all Warmist doom and gloomers
are less clear to identify as the bad guys, because they claim “Scientific ” value
of their planet OVERHEAT and SAVE predictions and KNOW know that global
CO2 emissions cannot be reduced [China& India are going to built 900 new coal
fired power plants, the Third World achieve development without more carbon
derived energy…..]
The real bad guys of the world today are not the few esoterics dwelling on 1178,
but the AGW “brigade”, because they are worse than Nostradamus or the Maya
calendar followers, produce doom-and gloom, with an outside paint of “science”…..
The 1178 impact went into the Indian Ocean, there are various large craters
underwater with need to date. There is a large meteorite and cosmic impact
community….if they achieve to date just one crater each year, this will be
tremendous and we can by and by, complete the still outstanding visible impacts
detectable in GISP2…..its a matter of time and funding….If governments would
redirect just 1% of Warmism-funding into impact study-funding, we were so much
further….
Your studies are important, because the two, the1178 and the 1443 impact only
affect the climate each for not more than 100 years. Additionally, there is the
decadal Scafetta cycle, which we also have to compare to historical events,
additionally to Jan Esper and Christiansen data, and before, 1,300 AD, to GISP2….
Still lots to do, but I am convinced, we making progress, and we all have to join
forces to clean out the Warmism doom-and-gloomers….regardless of our
differences….JS
To Willis: (1) Impact dates are listed in the papers’s impact section….
(2) Duration of impact effects are given in the impact graphic
on GISP2
(3) The GISP2 Allan version of 2001 is given on the NOAA page
or easier to find further up in the, I believe, in a link of a
Knoebel comment.
I would suggest, after a full week, we can close the discussion, I, how do they
say, lost the “ganas”after a heavy dose of Leifs sour grape comments….which
were highly toxic and my offer, to leave the case open until I come up with
numbers was also turned down…no problem with me…..
One thing is glass clear: Not one single GCM is capable of reproducing a
Holocene temp evolution, based on their micro-input parameters….But our
reconstruction is capable. This is amazing climate news: Application of our study,
see how it works and compare it to Warmism GCMs.
Climate reconstruction GCMs today are fully in the hand of atmospherical physicists.
They base their work on micro-drivers such as air-CO2-mixtures, laughing gas
content, land use changes, ozone levels etc. pp. NONE of them includes numbers
that PROVE EMPIRICALLY AS WE the given/stated/presented 3.7 W/m2 warming
for CO2 doubling nor do they PROVE climate sensitivities from numbers between
way below to number sky high…..
You did your own calculations….some time before….
I repeat again: There is not a single GCM which proves anything of their
ASSUMED CAUSES. They assume, as the 3.7 W/m2-value only is asssumed.
The ACCURACY of our study has to be compared with the accuracy to those of
our competitors. There also exists the difference in opinion between the second
author and me. He regarded MORE astronomical details as indispensible, whereas
I, for my part [knowing public/professoral DESINTEREST in everything connected
to the Earth’s orbit], insisted on reducing the orbital side to the bone in order to
embark on a less dry, more lively, more readable, temp evolution road…
We are now a handfull bloggers left on this blog….the oldtimers…. more that 300
opinions were given, we provided more than 1,000 free downloads for all WUWT
visitors [and TB, we don’t like to exclude anyone interested, whether sceptical or
non-sceptical] Nobody can complain (except a few) that he did not get his fair
share…..meanwhile…..I prepare for the Scafetta cycle, which I will do next spring,
with PLENTY of numbers, not for the greater public, they would get bored….
Willis, your papers are always highly readable and papers must be readable,
OMITTING numbers and formulae to maintain readers interests and this is
difficult to maintain over 18 pages …..JS.
Joachim, I truly don’t know what to say. I asked for two simple things. A mathematical description of the “Z-shaped impact pattern. A link to your data.
In response, you gave me hundreds and hundreds of words … but no description, no link. So I asked again. You had requested that I investigate your theory. This is what an investigation looks like. I ask questions.
In reply to my second request for a mathematical description and a link, you have again given me hundreds of words. Words about micro-drives, words about DESINTEREST, words about climate reconstruction GCMs, and that’s just a small part of your subjects. Truly, you have covered an impressive range … and yet, there’s no mathematical description, and there’s no link.
I can only assume that your request that I investigate the Z-shaped mark of Zorro was not a serious one, and I’ll leave you to your theories. A couple of parting comments if I might:
1. Thank you for the random capitalized words. Very impressive.
2. Things work better if you actually answer people’s questions. Not answering questions gets your vote questioned.
All the best to you,
w.
To Willis….. thank you for your offer to run an analysis on statistical significance
for our findings…..Lets do it at a later date…. Today, the Christopher Bronk Ramsey
study was annonced at Anthony’s, presenting ultra- high resolution paleo values
for 11.2 to 52,8 kaBP, and the same author did the Holocene in a previous paper….
This might beat GISP2 in accuracy….this is what we need….and we all will move
closer in identifying the real 5 climate forcing mechanisms of the paper….
BTW, for the topic of “abrupt climate change in the past”, there even exist a
Congressional working group and they always conclude: “the driving mechanisms
are not fully understood…..”….[coined in clearer words: “professoral ineptitude”].
Imagine, if we had put this conclusion somewhere in our paper…..
We claim new, substantial knowledge for our paper, which does not rehearse,
remasticate what most other institutions do….
The year is almost at its end, and I am obliged to let the dust accumulate on my
laptop for 3 months, to make up for avoided social activities because of time
consuming work at our paper..
Next spring I will do the Scafetta cycle…I will start by taking the GISP2 Allan version
and overlay it with vertical 59.57-year lines….try to do it yourself…. this cycle is
clearly identificable in a complete sequence of mini-spikes for 10,000 years…..
.Cheers JS