New Scafetta paper – his celestial model outperforms GISS

Dr. Nicola Scafetta writes:

Anthony,   I believe that you may be interested in my last published work.

This paper suggests that climate is characterized by oscillations that are predictable. These oscillations appear to be linked to planetary motion. A climate model capable of reproducing these oscillation would outperform traditional climate models to reconstruct climate oscillations. For example, a statistical comparison is made with the GISS model.

Figure 9: (A) Coherence test between the average periods of the eleven cycles in the temperature records (left) and the ten cycles in the SCMSS (right) plus the cycle ‘M’ at 9.1-year cycle associated to the Moon from Figure 8. (B) Coherence test between the average periods of the eleven cycles in the temperature records (left) and the 11 cycles found in the GISS ModelE simulation in Figure 9 (right). The figures depict the data reported in Table 2."

Here’s the abstract at Sciencedirect:

Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications

(Submitted on 25 May 2010)

Abstract: We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5 and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 $^oC$ and 0.25 $^oC$, and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to the Moon’s orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21$^{st}$ century. It is found that at least 60\% of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators.

“]

Figure 12: (A) Global temperature record (grey) and temperature reconstruction and forecast based on a SCMSS model that uses only the 20 and 60 year period cycles (black).(B) Global temperature record (grey) and optimized temperature reconstruction and forecasts based on a SCMSS model that uses the 20, 30 and 60-year cycles (black). The dash horizontal curves #2 highlight the 60-year cyclical modulation reconstructed by the SCMSS model without the secular trend."

A free preprint copy of the paper can be found here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4639 (PDF available in right sidebar)

Basil Copeland and I made some similar observations in the past, but we did not examine other planetary orbital periods. Basil also did a follow up guest post on the random walk nature of global temperature.

This paper opens up a lot of issues, like Barycentrism, which I have tried to avoid because they are so contentious. I ask that commenters keep the dialog respectful and on-topic please.

NOTE: Updated at 10PM PST to add Figure 12, plus some changes to the introductory text per the request of Dr. Scafetta. – Anthony

Advertisements

347 thoughts on “New Scafetta paper – his celestial model outperforms GISS

  1. No matter what the climate does, GISS will probably continue to show increasing temperatures. Eventually they may have only one station left (in a parking lot) and will have to extrapolate the rest of the planet on 12,000 mile smoothing.

  2. But IPCC were holding back, lol. :p
    And Hansen and Schmidt will outdo everyone in the end, if one is to believe in them. Just imagine that if they could live a thousand year, or well to the next ice age, they’d be the first ones standing on top of three miles of ice shouting it’s all! Because! Of the global warming!

  3. As a forced oscillatory system, what makes climate formidably complex is the large number of periodic forcings of different magnitude and nature. Is climate simply passive to all these forcings? In that case, unweaving and analysing the forcing components would be complex enough. But what if the system is a “reactive medium” such that periodic forcing results in nonlinear pattern formation, i.e. new emergent and intrinsic oscillations with periodicities completely different from (although still ultimately caused by) the external periodic forcings? i.e. if it behaved like a reaction-diffusion system of the Belousov-Zhabotinsky or Brusselator type? In such a case, you might have a reasonable chance of modeling it if there was just one (or maybe 2) periodic forcing frequencies. But dozens of different periodic forcings? The resultant complexity could be described – adapting a Churchill quote, as “dynamic chaos inside a bifurcating cascade wrapped up in a non-equilibrium pattern landscape”. Or alternatively .. a “dog’s breakfast”.

  4. “It is found that at least 60\% of the global warming observed since 1970 ” What data is being used to determine the warming? Is it GISS? If yes, any warming unaccounted for is probably an artifact of data collection and analysis, – correct??, and then 100% of the warming would be accounted for by the celestial model. Please advise. Murray

  5. vukcevic says:
    June 4, 2010 at 2:22 pm
    Scafetta is walking on already well trodden ground.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
    Vuk – I find that so many of your curves are so inadequately labelled and/or titled that as an non-initiate I cannot use them. You would add greatly to your credibility and useability by assuming that your readers do not know what you know, and label everything so it would get a passing grade in a high school science report. Thanks, Murray

  6. Eric Gisin says:
    June 4, 2010 at 2:01 pm
    I see, astrology predicts climate.
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

  7. “Dr. Nicolas Scafetta writes…” – his (correct) name appears to be: Nicola Scafetta! 🙂
    REPLY: Yep, I know too many people named Nicolas. Thanks for catching my error. -A

  8. I’m very interested in the work of Scafetta. I’m not interested in rocking the boat unnecessarily. I’m concerned, though, that he’s previously been accused (by Gavin?) of refusing to “show his workings”. If I’m to berate CRU et al for data and methodology concealment, I feel I must hold Nicola Scafetta to the same.
    Could someone/anyone update me on the current state of play regarding Scafetta’s willingness to share his data/methods? Or was the whole thing just more fiction from RC in the first instance? I’d be delighted to have my concerns allayed in this respect.

  9. I appreciate that the IPCC and GISS calculations are flawed. However, on from this, it would be interesting to know what are the causal affinities between celestial (and lunar) forcings and climatic effects. Since, it is said, that at least 60% of the warming since the 1970’s are attributable to celestial forcings, then it can reasonably be concluded that 40% are climatic feedbacks from celestial/lunar forcings, mainly from oceans, which govern the air temperature?

  10. @ SimonH
    It’s very easy, download the JPL ephemeris data and analyse it in comparison to temperature data. Several of us have been doing this for a couple of years now and we are all making interesting discoveries. Nicola Scafetta has been in email contact with most of the planetary theory proponents who have contributed to this blog and others. They are mostly running their own blogs now. I keep a list on my own blog: click my name.
    This paper is an excellent summary of the work of several of these people, both published and unpublished, and sets out the roadmap for further investigations by anyone who has the time and inclination.
    Viva Nicola! Fortissimo!

  11. This paper appears to be recycling the ideas of Landscheidt mostly (such ideas used to be out of favour here?). In chapter 6 “Possible physical mechanisms”, it is mentioned “spin orbit transfer phenomena” which appears to be the same “spin orbit coupling” idea promoted by Landscheidt.
    The spin orbit coupling idea assumes angular momentum is constant within the solar system, but transferred between the planets and the Sun as the “solar orbit radius” changes (re. fig 4. of the paper). However, if you perform the calculations, you will find that there is no missing angular momentum to drive any variation of solar spin. The Sun is also in free fall and feels no forces anyway, as Leif has explained many times.
    I do not exclude the possibility of some astronomical connection, but spin-orbit coupling it isn’t, and I would need to see a credible physical mechanism to be convinced, and this paper does not present anything like that. As it says in the conclusions: “The physical mechanisms that would explain this result are still unknown”.
    Correlations are just correlations.

  12. Ashtrology?
    The new rankings are due out any day. The smart money’s on the horoscope guys losing the “ology”, and the telescope guys taking over their job title. There’s concern that too many dud predictions bring science into disrepute, and therefore wishy-washy disciplines are to be downgraded to “ography” or worse. They say that Climatology’s been offered a plea-bargain: if they can guess next year’s temperatures to within a couple of degrees they’ll settle for demotion to Climatography.

  13. Would the upward trend from 1850 to 2010 largely disapear if a period of say 1820 to 2010 were used. 1850 to 2000 goes from the bottom of one 60 year cycle to the top of a later one. I think Chiefio has shown a temperature curve from ca 1820 to 2010 that has no uptrend, and would have a downtrend if data collection and analysis artifacts were removed.

  14. Dr. Scafetta, what a good paper. I feel somewhat vindicated. I have spent a decade studying that very area outlined in your paper but was never able to draw it together so beautifully as you have. Well done.
    Viewing your figure 14, I have come to somewhat the same conclusion. We are now near a peak, I showed it occurring a few years sooner and placed the blame on lag, and should start feeling the influences as drawn out in your paper in the following decade. Whether something along the lines of 1910 reoccurs seems to parallel into whether the sun is entering a minimum period of some sort or not at the same time as being in phase. Of coarse, we will just have to wait to see, studying the solar system is much like watching molasses pour, only much worse!
    I am waiting for someone to shed some light on the reason so many monitored SS bodies showed the same warming and how such tiny factors as you outlined can manifest and magnify themselves into a much larger measurable reality.

  15. Paradoxical that on the one hand the GISS model, which is based on the mechanism that climate oscillations are driven mainly by GHG, produces a poor fit to reality. On the other hand, an empirical model based on celestial mechanics, but with no proposed strong physical mechanism, does give a good fit!
    Perhaps the physical cause is lots of little nudges to our chaotic, non-linear climate from many different overlapping quasi-cycles which reinforce or cancel each other and so produce the climate oscillations we observe. I suspect that we know some of the things which cause some of the nudges, but I suspect there are many others that are unknown to climate science at this moment in time.
    Science in general is still very bad at getting to grips with complex systems which are driven by deterministic chaos. Although difficult, this needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

  16. 1. I hope that Dr. Niki is more willing to share his code and data this time around. or will he use the same tactics he has in the past? The last go round we had with him he was as bad or worse than Jones or Mann.
    2. People need to decide if they want to throw out the temperature record or use it.
    One cannot both criticize the record ( or the idea of a global temp average) AND use it.
    the lack of coherence between the NH and SH is not simply explained by waving a wand as the paper tries to do.
    3. WRT cycles in GCMs. whatever natural cycles a GCM produces are almost always guaranteed to be somewhat out of phase with the observational record. Spinning up a GCM to a equilibrium ( no drift ) state will make reproducing short time scale processes/cycles difficult, if not impossible.
    4. Because of #3, your best bet is probably to take an ensemble of results that is larger than the few runs that ModelE does.
    5. What does this ” model” retrodict for the MWP?
    6. what does this model predict for OHC? or precipitation.
    numerology, gotta love it.

  17. Hans Henrik Hansen said on June 4, 2010 at 2:38 pm:

    “Dr. Nicolas Scafetta writes…” – his (correct) name appears to be: Nicola Scafetta! 🙂
    REPLY: Yep, I know too many people named Nicolas. Thanks for catching my error. -A

    Just think of him as a pioneering out-of-the-box against-the-establishment scientific thinker like Nikola Tesla. In a good way.

  18. To me, this is more suggestive that global mean surface temperature is a cyclostationary stochastic process rather than a true random walk. But the conclusion would be the same. Cyclostationary SPs contain a unit root and therefore ordinary forms of regression analysis should not be used.

  19. SimonH says:
    June 4, 2010 at 2:40 pm
    Could someone/anyone update me on the current state of play regarding Scafetta’s willingness to share his data/methods? Or was the whole thing just more fiction from RC in the first instance? I’d be delighted to have my concerns allayed in this respect.
    I am not trying to answer for Dr. Scafetta but the data he is speaking of IS the JPL Horizons system. If Gavin wants the data, he, as anyone else, can go get all they want. Or, if Gavin has a few years on his hands he can get a very, very good integrator, self written generally proves the most accurate, and integrate the solar system, the sun, planets, and at least the largest five to nine asteroids. Integrate and check your accuracy against known occultations of stars, planets, asteroids on record to whatever accuracy he wishes. Have at it Gavin.
    The rest is pure mathematics best I can tell unless Gavin can point a better finger. If I can do it, Gavin can do it, it only takes his time to understand.
    Eric Gisin says:
    June 4, 2010 at 2:01 pm
    I see, astrology predicts climate.
    Boy, I can tell you are not a scientist. This has to do with astronomy, not astrology.

  20. @ Carsten
    I for one accept most of your criticism, and that the paper is as much a statement about our lack of knowledge as much as a theoretical proposal, except that I seem to remember someone (Semi Semerov?) saying that conservation of angular momentum was an implicit assumption of the way the JPL ephemeris is calculated. I’d be interested to find out more about that.
    It seems to me that it’s a logical possibility that the energy transfer involved in a spin orbit coupling affecting the sun’s activity might be such a small proportion of the total angular momentum, that it could be hidden within the limits of error.

  21. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    June 4, 2010 at 3:32 pm
    The Sun is also in free fall and feels no forces anyway, as Leif has explained many times.

    Leif is wrong. It’s one of his Newtonian thought experiments which fails to take acoount of the fact that the sun is not a rigid point like object.

  22. @ steven mosher says: June 4, 2010 at 3:47 pm
    “WRT cycles in GCMs. whatever natural cycles a GCM produces are almost always guaranteed to be somewhat out of phase with the observational record. Spinning up a GCM to a equilibrium ( no drift ) state will make reproducing short time scale processes/cycles difficult, if not impossible.”
    This is an excuse for the GCMs being worthless.
    “4. Because of #3, your best bet is probably to take an ensemble of results that is larger than the few runs that ModelE does.”
    Why would the results be different each time? What in “climate physics” is random?

  23. steven mosher says:
    June 4, 2010 at 3:47 pm
    1. I hope that Dr. Niki is more willing to share his code and data this time around. or will he use the same tactics he has in the past? The last go round we had with him he was as bad or worse than Jones or Mann.

    Maybe it’s in the way you ask. Perhaps dissing the man as a “numerologist” in the same post isn’t the best entree to an open exchange of code.

  24. CARSTEN..
    “Correlations are just correlations”
    Correlations which prove to have predictive power have an underlying cause worth discovering, don’t you think?

  25. There is also another paper just published that works very closely in conjunction with Nicola Scaffetta’s paper. Planetary cycles are responsible for the internal climate modulation forces as well as the Solar output cycles.
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1005/1005.5303.pdf
    There is some ground breaking stuff including a study showing how “Spin Orbit Coupling” is very possible through what has been found as missing angular momentum in our solar system.
    Nicola’s latest paper will become a cornerstone of our future understanding of the climate system.
    The physical mechanisms that would explain this result are
    still unknown. Perhaps the four jovian planets modulate solar
    activity via gravitational and magnetic forces that cause tidal and
    angular momentum stresses on the Sun and its heliosphere. Then,
    a varying Sun modulates climate, which amplifies the effects of
    the solar input through several feedback mechanisms. This
    phenomenon is mostly regulated by Jupiter and Saturn, plus
    some important contribution from Neptune and Uranus, which
    modulate a bi-secular cycle with their 172 year synodic period.

  26. Scafetta’s very interesting paper is marred by obvious misuse of the signal-analysis term “coherence.” That spectral metric is defined by the square root of the expression (C^2+Q^2 )/P1P2, where C is the co-spectrum, Q is the quadrature-spectrum and the Ps are the power densities of the two signals. Surely a different term for Scafetta’s unorthodox comparison would avoid much confusion.

  27. An interesting paper, an earlier poster did make a pertinent point, it doesn’t point to any physical mechanisms. I’d say its early yet for any definitive statements, but it is indeed interesting. In spite of Mr. Mosher’s snide tone, he raises a good question, “What does this ” model” retrodict for the MWP?” I’d like to see an answer for that, also. And, as we all know, out performing GISS is, well, a starting point. I appreciate Tallbloke’s “spin” on the energy source, I hadn’t thought of that earlier. (Heh, that’s my punny for the day!) At the very least, this is one of many papers that show our climate is basically cyclic and there is a correlation with orbits and astral bodies and if it isn’t part of the causation, then it points to a much more coherent, purposeful universe. Unless one would believe it is a coincidental happenstance. I for one am not a believer in the “order from chaos” school of thought.

  28. Meanwhile Hathaway has once again reviewed his SC24 prediction, now down to 65 SSN.
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
    He is also not scared to predict a Dalton-like minimum, the planetary cycles are showing exactly that. These predictions have been in place for years, it is only now that the other side of solar science is beginning to come on board (they have no choice)

  29. James Sexton says:
    June 4, 2010 at 5:28 pm
    I’d say its early yet for any definitive statements, but it is indeed interesting. In spite of Mr. Mosher’s snide tone, he raises a good question, “What does this ” model” retrodict for the MWP?” I’d like to see an answer for that, also.
    I think there is a distinction between internal climate cycles and solar grand minima. The MWP is a period without grand minima. The planetary cycles also synchronize with this rare event.

  30. James Sexton says:
    June 4, 2010 at 5:28 pm
    I’d say its early yet for any definitive statements, but it is indeed interesting. In spite of Mr. Mosher’s snide tone, he raises a good question, “What does this ” model” retrodict for the MWP?” I’d like to see an answer for that, also.
    I think there is a distinction between internal climate cycles and solar grand minima. The MWP is a period without grand minima. The planetary cycles also synchronize with this rare event.

  31. tallbloke says:
    June 4, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    Leif is wrong. It’s one of his Newtonian thought experiments which fails to take acoount of the fact that the sun is not a rigid point like object.
    How can a point-like object be anything but rigid? If you stretch it, it won’t be point like any longer!

  32. The physical mechanisms that would explain this result are
    still unknown. Perhaps the four jovian planets modulate solar
    activity via gravitational and magnetic forces that cause tidal and
    angular momentum stresses on the Sun and its heliosphere.

    It has seemed to me like a plausible idea that solar system gravitational forces could produce tidal stress in the sun producing variations in the sun’s behavior. Who would think that the moon could produce such a tidal variation in the earth’s oceans without actually having seen the result? The relative position of the sun and moon will also produce differences in the tidal cycles.
    What are the arguments against these forces being present for the sun in a way which will affect solar behavior and output in any substantial way?

  33. sky wrote: “Scafetta’s […] obvious misuse of the signal-analysis term “coherence.””
    Different fields, same terms, different use. No one field or branch of a field has a monopoly. Hence: Dictionaries have multiple entries for single terms (and dictionaries don’t always keep pace with developments).

  34. Carsten Arnholm, Norway, June 4, 2010 at 3:32 pm, says:

    The Sun is also in free fall and feels no forces anyway, as Leif has explained many times.

    I’m not sure I understand. The Earth is also in free fall; yet the Moon — which is likewise in free fall — causes tides. It would seem obvious to me that the Sun’s plasma would be affected in some way by the gravitational forces of its satellites, no?

  35. Some of the interesting standout points for Nicola’s paper are the multitude of references depicting a quasi-60 year climate cycle including the known PDO cycle that lineup with the solar velocity modulations and LOD plots.
    These are concrete observations that can be used for predictive purposes, the physical mechanisms are getting closer by the day.

  36. After 6000 years of Astrology/Astronomy predicting weather over months, years, decades and centuries there are some that think this might have some basis in fact.
    We don’t need climate computer models, we have the Farmer’s Almanac. 🙂

  37. I still don’t understand the hang-ups about theories describing tidal forces acting upon a fluid object (barycentrics). It seems perfectly logical to me that the object would enjoy a higher rotation rate and less frictional losses when spinning about its gravitational center when its own center is near tidal center than when being nudged in one direction or another due to tidal forces. It’s intuitively clear as a bell.
    I do understand difficulty in translating that to solar output, field strength, or whatever with a well defined theory given such a chaotic input, lag, etc, but when so many make reasonably clear correlations with other celestial objects, I don’t see a major issue. In other words, it’s not a huge stumbling block for me to see correlation, suppose there must causation of some sort, and still be at a loss for root cause. Given enough evidence of correlation, it only means we’re incapable of discerning / measuring the core factors that give rise to causation. I think that’s interesting as hell, even if we can’t ascribe direct links to causation. I don’t have a major problem accepting that we’re not smart enough to understand every link between observation and root cause. More knowledge and theory required to bridge the gap. no problem.
    Wow, that was close. I almost wrote a government grant proposal.

  38. Carsten again:

    Correlations are just correlations.

    Ahh, but there are correlations and correlations
    Svensmark & Shaviv — solar wind/cosmic ray flux, all periods from months to millions of years
    Scafetta — planetary motion, presumably affecting solar activity, 150 years in detail
    Hansen & The Team — CO2-driven warming, 25 years at the end of the 20th Century, and the model is wrong even for Venus
    Steven Mosher asserts:

    People need to decide if they want to throw out the temperature record or use it.

    The problem is “compared to what?” Even though it has been diddled in unknown ways, HadCRUT (with its American friends) is the only available “global” record spanning long enough to clearly identify low-frequency cycles. There are lots of regional possibilities, and good proxy reconstructions (e.g. Loehle), but inherent uncertainty makes them dicey for clear decade-scale cyclic analysis.
    In fact, we won’t really have any reliable data for medium-term analysis until around 2100, when scientists freezing in their offices because of cap-and-tax will have a century of ARGO and satellite data to play with. Until then, Dr. S and everybody else will have to wing it with the best data at hand, however squirrelly it may be.

  39. Eric Gisin says (June 4, 2010 at 2:01 pm): “I see, astrology predicts climate.”
    I will keep an open mind but I think you may be right. Kepler did a lot of work trying to correlate weather and astrological phenomena like the positions of the other plants. He finally admitted that he did not find much. He was not a big believer is astrology, but was not above using it to pay the bills. (I read this is a biography of Kepler by Casper many years ago but don’t have it in front of me now.)
    I’ve only looked over NS’s paper briefly. It you take any times series and look for cycles and compare with the myriad of astrological cycles you may find some matches. But this is coincidental not causative. Astrologers ofter cite Junk’s ideas about synchronicity. If NS can show his model is predictive there might be more to it. I won’t have time to read it until Sunday. (The section on possible physical cause and the curve fitting in section 5 look fishy, but I’ll see.) As far as I know the journal is credible.

  40. There’s no time to waste beating around the bush with niceties, so:
    2 Criticisms:
    1) Geographic breakdowns need a rework reflective of Earth’s features. Examples: (a) Arctic drainage basin and (b) Southern Ocean (60°S – 90°S) & Southeast Pacific Ocean (160°W – 70°W, 45°S – 90°S).
    2) Consider select elements (relevant to the terrestrial hydrologic cycle & more generally the relative motions of Earth’s shells) of the works of Russian scientist Yu.V. Barkin. Consider the way lunisolar harmonics fold spatiotemporally (on a nonuniform, non-spherical, heterogeneous, asymmetric Earth) and beware confounding.
    Cautionary Note: The lack of additional criticism should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of everything else in the paper. I have simply chosen to target strategically.
    Recommended to ALL:
    Read Scafetta’s “Appendix A. Collective synchronization of coupled oscillators”.
    Next steps:
    Considering the role of:
    1) seasons.
    2) discreteness (as opposed to continuously-varying oscillations).
    Elaboration:
    Bear in mind that as oscillations of similar wavelength “slip” past one another, the effect will be switch-like &/or seasonal for some types of phenomena, for example those involving precipitation-temperature-cloud relations. (Clarification: This has nothing to do with GCRs! It’s way simpler than that.)
    Remember the significance of the Humboldt current & the “spinning hub” (Antarctic Circumpolar Wave (ACW) & Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC)). Keep in mind Antarctic Bottom Water (ABW) and relations between Antarctic ice specific mass and & Southern Ocean SST.
    The seasonal continental swings of extreme-NH are only intermittently strongly coupled to equatorial patterns like ENSO – for example during the intense warming that began in the late 80s.
    Apparent amplification of lunisolar harmonic superposition appears to vary with the stark contrast of: continental (Arctic/NH) vs. maritime (Antarctic/deep-SH), the former of which hi-jacks patterns north of 45°South due to its amplitude.
    Maritime climates are damped, so wild oscillations of the NH (which is largely continental) play an exaggerated role in masking important global patterns in many standard summaries. Perhaps we need to move towards physically-weighted summaries that are mindful of continental/maritime contrasts, so as to highlight globally heavy (oceanic) patterns that are getting swamped by light (air) patterns in mainstream conventional summaries.
    In short:
    Aggregation criteria do affect spatiotemporal pattern.

  41. Stockwell et al. at Niche Modeling is exploring Scafetta’s papers:
    *

    Celestial Origins of Climate Oscillations
    Posted by David Stockwell in All, Climate, Reviews
    Table of contents for Scafetta
    1. Frequency dependent climate sensitivity
    2. Celestial Origins of Climate Oscillations
    Now reading…
    Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications by Nicola Scafetta . . .

    Roy Spencer’s recent model of “random” showing millenial “climate” changes is a strong reminder to examine the statistical significance of models. See
    Millennial Climate Cycles Driven by Random Cloud Variations
    Spencer also just put up:
    Updated: Low Climate Sensitivity Estimated from the 11-Year Cycle in Total Solar Irradiance

  42. For those who keep looking for one grand answer. There is no ‘one’ answer. No ‘one’ factor is more correct than another (however, some are incorrect) and some factors have more influence than others, physics applied. This paper points out one factor in a much more complex solution.
    Do El Nino(s), and PDO oscillations and such still occur and influence while factors such as solar influence is occurring? To myself, there is no reason to think they do not always occur in tandem along with the other many factors that are always occurring at the same instance in time, positively or negatively and sometimes not at all. When the factors come in synch and coincide or interfere you get greater than normal maxima and minima of temperatures, ice melt, sea level, etc from aligned sine forms of these oscillating factors than if you look at each one at a time.
    Dr. Scafetta and others merely point out other factors whose magnitude of influence are still not fully understood on the solar system scale. Understanding all of these factors is critical to truly understand what has occurred in climate since mankind grew up in the electronic / space / urbanization era, each has it’s positive and negative imprint on the data measurements.
    Some factor I lean on, in order, UHI and thermometer placement/location (~0.6ºC), solar influence (~0.3ºC), natural global oscillations (AO, NAO, PDO, PNA, AAO, ENSO, currents, trade winds, etc.), they average out over time, then comes the weather (the rest deviation). All of these will influence sea temperatures at various levels, air temperatures at various levels, and of coarse, polar ice formation and melting, they are the effects.
    We are miles and miles from understanding this.
    And, no, I have never read IPCC’s reports, I actively protect my mind from perceived bad influences. That’s just my take on the matter.

  43. The layman’s description (the only one I understand) of how scientists are discovering exo-planets involves those planets orbits producing a ‘wobble’ in their star’s path which can be detected. Then if we’re lucky they can observe a transit. If so, then our gas giants would have some observable effect on our sun’s output, when observed from a few lights year away.
    It seems possible that the planets have some effect on the sun and anything between them and the sun. How big an influence? I couldn’t guess.
    Surely the UN is working on this, right? Maybe the Jovians will buy our carbon credits?

  44. Dr. Scafetta has gone well beyond the principle known as Occam’s Razor or for those of a less scientific bent ‘Keep it simple,stupid’.
    It may be that there are minor climate influences from any of the sources proposed though in relation to a number of them I am very doubtful.
    The thing is that with multiple inputs to a complex system we see that as far as the lower magnitude influences are concerned they generally work to cancel each other out.
    I’ll stick with my view that on the basis of magnitude we need only consider sun and oceans to produce the climate shifts observed with the correlation problems arising from the fact that over time each of those two overwhelming influences can either supplement or offset one another as the contribution of each varies independently (or quasi independently due to time lags).

  45. Found an interesting paper in Scafetta’s references:
    Solomon, S.; Rosenlof, K.; Portmann, R; Daniel, J.; Davis, S.; Sanford, T.; & Plattner, G.-K. (2010). Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. Science Express 327, 1219-1223.
    http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~plattner/papers/solomon10sci_express.pdf
    See specifically:
    1) paragraph 2 on p.2,
    2) paragraph 4 on p.3, &
    3) the very last paragraph of the article.
    Note how many questions they raise. They certainly underscore uncertainty.

  46. Further to my comments I should indicate (so as to not mislead) that I disagree with Scafetta’s interpretation of the implications of the stratospheric water vapor paper. I would focus on interannual variations (QBO, PWP, SST patterns, aerosols – all emphasized by the authors) rather than on 11 year solar oscillations.

  47. It’s good that more and more people are finally re- discovering the wheel.It has been obvious for many years that solar “activity ” ( first best measured by solar magnetic field strength and then secondarily by sunspots – TSI ) combined with lunar declination cycles and in the longer term the Milankovitch orbital cycles are the chief controls on earths climate. The changes in solar activity clearly relate to the Jupiter – Saturn orbits and the changes in the rate of change solar angular momentum (Torque) as it orbits the barycenter. This causes torsion in the sun which effects solar tides (particularly horizontal forces) and also electromagnetic effects. It has been fashionable for the establishment astrophysicists to belittle Landscheidt so I refer everyone to Fairbridge and Sanders who published extensively on the subject in the 80’s and 90’s. Y’all might wish to check their paper pp446 – 471 in Climate History,Periodicity andPredictability Rampino et al eds. Van Nostrand 1987 There is also about a 2000 paper bibliography in the same book. A lot of this work can be traced back to Paul Jose’s 1965 paper on Suns Motion and Sunspots ( Astronomical Journal)
    Perhaps the chief control on decadal and millenial scales will eventually be seen to be changes in earths albedo caused by clouds – related to cosmic rays as per Svensmark.
    The effect of Anthropogenic CO2 can’t even be calculated until we better understand the natural climate controls . The whole AGW scare is a mass delusion promoted for political ends – fortunately most average people know that it is cooler in the shade than in the sun – a fact which has escaped the IPCC ” scientists”.

  48. A couple of the commenters above miss an important point: this demonstration by Dr. S of correlation between planetary orbits and climate is, as he says repeatedly in the paper, a phenomenological study. What he has done is present not a solution, but a problem for research in terms of actual mechanisms.
    Obviously, this planetary analysis corresponds with the cycles of the PDO. Dr. S has shown, rigorously, the connection. The next question is “why?”.
    Science is always about “the next question”. Settlers need not apply.

  49. We’ve criticized climate models when they adjust numerous parameters to “fit” historical data, and then claim that the “tuned” model is predictive.
    Scarfetta is basically doing the same thing–with a number of periodic functions and adjusted “influence” parameters (fudge factors), you can basically closely fit any known function. If I read him right, he’s saying if we throw all these periodic functions into a mix we can adjust “amplitude” parameters so that 60% of the trend in temperature data is accounted for by the fit. That’s just basic Fourier Synthesis. You can make it fit anything.
    Without some more definitive hint of a causal mechanism, all this does is show how weak the GISS model is, also.

  50. As a physicist, I see two problem points:
    1)the chaotic nature of climate
    2) energies available to push/pull climate
    On 1) Chaotic systems inevitably produce oscillations in various parameters. Frequency analysis of these parameters can easily find spurious agreement between two independent physically systems. In this particular case even the accuracy of the measurements is under question, two tenths of a degree C in peaks and troughs is tenuous imo.
    On 2) Of all the short term gravitational inputs only the sun and the moon have enough energy transfer possibilities. Energies in electromagnetic modes are negligible. Of all the correlations seen I would consider only the sun cycle ( only on average coincident with the 11 year frequency in the planetary clock) and lunar ones as possibly important as a physical input. The sun cycle through some amplification mechanism as with GCR, and the moon more directly with its gravitational tides. It is true that the moon cycles have been largely ( and wrongly imo) ignored in climate modeling.
    Mainly playing with numbers, in the form of frequencies, imo.

  51. Scafetta, JeffID, Steve McIntyre, EM Smith…… there’s a lot of outperforming of GISS.
    Anyone remember the NASA that put a man on the moon? What a different time that was! With the way NASA is now, heck, maybe I should believe the moon landing was faked in Hollywood. 😉

  52. Craig Goodrich says:
    June 4, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    causes tides. It would seem obvious to me that the Sun’s plasma would be affected in some way by the gravitational forces of its satellites, no?
    Indeed it does. The tides are all of one millimeter high.

  53. Seems a little “thin” to me. But maybe upcoming global cooling has more to do with the recent upsurge in the number of high seas pirates.

  54. I didn’t quite understand whether the comments about Jupiter, Saturn, and the Moon were meant as serious possible causes of the climate change on Earth or whether the paper is just a game showing how poor the contemporary models are – so that even “astrology” works better.
    Of course, if the influences of the planets and moons are meant seriously, I think that the author will have to work a lot harder before such things may become acceptable; all kinds of cosmic dust, radiation, and magnetic fields may be affected by many details of this sort. I am not saying that such influences are impossible: they just look very unlikely to me. Alfred Wegener faced similar troubles when others were making fun out of him because it seemed impossible to them for the continents to swim.
    But Wegener had highly nontrivial evidence – and, equally importantly, he was proven right. The doubts evaporated when the main mechanisms of plate tectonics were understood decades later. I think that outperforming a lousy GISS mode is not the extraordinary evidence that would be enough to make me believe a theory of the climate that at least superficially resembles astrology. 😉
    Best wishes
    Lubos

  55. anna v wrote: “[…] the moon cycles have been largely ( and wrongly imo) ignored in climate modeling.”
    Agree.
    Scafetta cites Tsonis et al. (2007) [which is well-known at WUWT] and:
    Strogatz, S.H. (2009). Exploring complex networks. Nature 410, 268-276.
    http://www.bongard.ch/unikrems/Dokumente/Online-Dokus/network3.pdf
    From that article, notes on collective synchronization:
    “In the absence of coupling, each oscillator would settle onto its limit cycle (circle) and rotate at its natural frequency. However, here all the oscillators are also pulled towards the mean field that they generate collectively (shown as an asterisk at the centre of the population).”
    “Starting from a random initial condition, the oscillators self-organize by collapsing their amplitudes; then they sort their phases so that the fastest oscillators are in the lead. Ultimately they all rotate as a synchronized pack, with locked amplitudes and phases.” (like geese)
    “[…] when the coupling is small compared to the spread of natural frequencies, the system behaves incoherently, with each oscillator running at its natural frequency. As the coupling is increased, the incoherence persists until a certain threshold is crossed — then a small cluster of oscillators suddenly ‘freezes’ into synchrony. For still greater coupling, all the oscillators become locked in phase and amplitude (Fig. 2)”
    “[…] coupling strength K […]” “[…] a desynchronized group whose natural frequencies lie in the tails of the distribution […] and are too extreme to be entrained. With further increases in K, more and more oscillators are recruited into the synchronized group […]”

  56. jinki says:
    June 4, 2010 at 5:36 pm
    “Meanwhile Hathaway has once again reviewed his SC24 prediction, now down to 65 SSN.”
    … and meanwhile NASA is again trying to sensationalize perhaps the weakest solar cycle in a hundred years: “…The sun is waking up from a deep slumber, and in the next few years we expect to see much higher levels of solar activity…”
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/04jun_swef/

  57. Michael D Smith says:
    June 4, 2010 at 6:45 pm
    I still don’t understand the hang-ups about theories describing tidal forces acting upon a fluid object (barycentrics). It seems perfectly logical to me that the object would enjoy a higher rotation rate and less frictional losses when spinning about its gravitational center when its own center is near tidal center than when being nudged in one direction or another due to tidal forces. It’s intuitively clear as a bell.
    I do understand difficulty in translating that to solar output, field strength, or whatever with a well defined theory given such a chaotic input, lag, etc, but when so many make reasonably clear correlations with other celestial objects, I don’t see a major issue. In other words, it’s not a huge stumbling block for me to see correlation, suppose there must causation of some sort, and still be at a loss for root cause. Given enough evidence of correlation, it only means we’re incapable of discerning / measuring the core factors that give rise to causation. I think that’s interesting as hell, even if we can’t ascribe direct links to causation. I don’t have a major problem accepting that we’re not smart enough to understand every link between observation and root cause. More knowledge and theory required to bridge the gap. no problem.
    ==========================
    Just re-posting this because it deserves to be re-posted.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  58. Paul Vaughan says:
    June 4, 2010 at 7:15 pm
    ===================
    As always, I try to follow what you are saying. It makes some damn sense.

  59. I would like to second what anna v (June 4, 2010 at 9:50 pm) has said.
    As many other commenters have pointed out, there’s nothing wrong with ‘playing with numbers’. It might eventually lead to something useful. On the other hand, trying to provide meaningful descriptions in terms of periodic functions that have no theoretical underpinnings is fraught with the possibility of mis-assigned causation.
    Here is a link to a device called a Parametric Pendulum. It is a ball at the end of a thin rod, hung up on a wall, and allowed to swing back and forth. If that’s all you do, it’s very boring and predictable. If you modify it just a little, however, you can produce hugely complicated and unpredictable behaviour. In the demonstration at the link, the modification is to make the suspension point of the pendulum move up and down at a fixed rate. There are two selectable ‘system parameters’ and two ‘initial conditions’ that you can set, but there are an essentially infinite number of output patterns, some of them radically different, and with little or no apparent connection to the two simple underlying ‘drivers’.
    Now imagine that instead of specifying the system and watching what it does, you observe what it does and then try to describe what’s causing it. (You aren’t allowed to see the device itself, just the output of the graphs). Then imagine that Jim Hansen is providing your graphs.
    /dr.bill

  60. This paper opens up a lot of issues, like Barycentrism, which I have tried to avoid because they are so contentious. I ask that commenters keep the dialog respectful and on-topic please.
    —————————————————————————–
    Maybe even Plasma theorists and Electric Universe proponents can have a play in the sandbox…… I’m happy to entertain any ideas…. I’m only a layperson , but I like thinking different as long as it is sensible and observation fits the hypothesis’s.
    I go glassy eyed at dark energy, dark matter, black holes, neutron stars, neutronium, etc… I don’t like it when Cosmologists make up a “thing” to explain a phenomenon…. The Universe just ain’t that mysterious. The forces that act upon this planet, this sun, this solar system, this galaxy….. act upon all.

  61. 11 frequencies….
    Give me eleven free parameters and I will model you a polar bear.
    Give me one more free parameter and this polar bear will dance.

  62. noaaprogrammer says:
    June 4, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    “…The sun is waking up from a deep slumber, and in the next few years we expect to see much higher levels of solar activity…”
    I think they’ve earned the right for me to not listen to what they say.

  63. So I’m curious about this. I haven’t read the paper and it’s probably way over my head.
    Is there any reason why this couldn’t be a player in the total game.
    It’s seeming more and more to me that global climate change seems to be like a baseball team of players. Different things have been players at different times. Which I think is why I have such a hard time believing in any anthropogenic contribution.
    In a simple way for us newer to this and not packed with 5 feet of scientific abbreviations behind our name.. Is this paper trying to include the movements, astral spew of matter, oddities in orbit and shed radiation from different directions and different planetary bodies as one of many causes of global climate change?
    Like for instance on a simple comparison earth’s precession mixed with orbital changes causes different temperature and climate change patterns every so many thousand years?
    I guess I’m not understanding why this wouldn’t be considered as a possible contributor among several? Such as PDO and Volcanic eruptions, greenhouse gases affecting the ocean and vice versa, sunspots and other forms of sun activity all working togethers?
    I would certainly not say this is the only causal factor of warming but it seems like it would be a good contender as a contributor among other factors. Isn’t that the whole idea behind being a skeptic in that we don’t believe that man is the sole cause of current climate change which currently is neither warming or global in nature?

  64. Paul Vaughan says:
    June 4, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    “Starting from a random initial condition, the oscillators self-organize by collapsing their amplitudes; then they sort their phases so that the fastest oscillators are in the lead. Ultimately they all rotate as a synchronized pack, with locked amplitudes and phases.” (like geese)
    A good demonstration

    and it happens because of conservation of momentum, and coupling through friction
    This has been the standard explanation for the synchronization of the moon.
    http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/phases.html
    The main and insurmountable problem is that the force of gravity is so weak that any synchronization takes millions and billions of years and not decades and centuries as are the time scales of climate that are being discussed.

  65. 1personofdifference says:
    June 4, 2010 at 11:19 pm
    So I’m curious about this. I haven’t read the paper and it’s probably way over my head.
    Is there any reason why this couldn’t be a player in the total game.

    Lets say that you enter a casino and are attracted to the roulette table.
    You have 5$ in your pocket and the game starts at 1000$.
    Do you have to ask for a reason why you cannot be a player at that table?
    ( my knowledge of real stakes is sketchy, but you should get the gist 🙂 )
    In the climate game it is energy instead of money. It takes energy to manifest changes in climate, and that is why watts/m^2 are thrown all over the place.
    It does not matter that there are zillions of stellar bodies and galaxies, that there are other planets in the solar system and gases flowing around and magnetic fields and plasma. What does matter is the possibility of any of these to provide enough energy in watts/m^2 to affect the climate in the time scales we are observing it.
    Gravity is very weak. Electric and magnetic fields in the space surrounding the earth are also very weak. The only gravitationally strong effects that exchange energy with the earth system within the time frame under observation are from the sun and the moon, combined, expressed as tides.
    More generally:
    Let us suppose that the correlation in the frequencies demonstrated in this paper are real , i.e. significant within errors. An explanation could be that in the billions of years that the planetary clock synchronized itself, producing a moon facing us with the same side as a by product for example, the sun/moon tides of the earth became modulated by the frequencies of the rest of the planetary system. Then any influence of the tides on the climate would be carrying the imprint of the synchronized planetary clock from millions of years back, and the correlation with the planetary orbits , though not spurious, will not be the causative effect. Causation, i.e. energy input, would be the tides.

  66. stevengoddard says:
    June 4, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    No matter what the climate does, GISS will probably continue to show increasing temperatures. Eventually they may have only one station left (in a parking lot) and will have to extrapolate the rest of the planet on 12,000 mile smoothing.
    You neglected to mention that the remaining station will have an idling vehicle parked next to it in order to ‘maintain’ the elevated temps.
    :o)

  67. Ric Werme says:
    June 4, 2010 at 5:50 pm
    tallbloke says:
    June 4, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    Leif is wrong. It’s one of his Newtonian thought experiments which fails to take acoount of the fact that the sun is not a rigid point like object.
    How can a point-like object be anything but rigid? If you stretch it, it won’t be point like any longer!

    Quite so, a neat logical point. Last time I checked, the sun was about 1.4 milion kilometers in diameter and made of wobbly highly mobile plasmas in it’s surface layers. This means it will be differentially affected across it’s diameter by disparate forces.
    Stephen Wilde says:
    June 4, 2010 at 8:07 pm
    Dr. Scafetta has gone well beyond the principle known as Occam’s Razor or for those of a less scientific bent ‘Keep it simple,stupid’.

    There is another principle concerning counting of the sheer number of hairs in a deities tangled beard or for those of a less literary bent ‘Accept that it’s complex, stupid’. I agree with you that big scale climate is about longer term changes in sun and ocean, but I don’t miss out the ‘so what affects the sun’ part.
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 4, 2010 at 10:04 pm
    Craig Goodrich says:
    June 4, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    It would seem obvious to me that the Sun’s plasma would be affected in some way by the gravitational forces of its satellites, no?
    Indeed it does. The tides are all of one millimeter high.

    The vertical tides are small, just as the vertical tide caused by the moon on the earth is small, but the horizontal tides are huge in comparison, and they are the ones which cause much more tidal motion, same as here on earth.

  68. Global climate correlations to any particular periodic forcing could be misleading for simple fact that anomalies in different parts of the globe often move in opposite directions (even on multi decadal scale). Correlation that works for CET does not work for N America (see H. Lamb – J. Eddy), etc.
    Even correlation which may work for 100+ years may not work on scale 500+ due to the ocean conveyor; the heat absorbed in the Pacific and Indian oceans will take centuries to be transferred to the Arctic and released there into the atmosphere.
    I found only one significant local correlation as shown here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    but even that needs definition of the transfer mechanism, which I am pondering at the moment.

  69. The various cycles based on planetary orbits I understand. What continues to puzzle me is the origin of the continuous upward trend in the global average temperature anomaly, what appears to be the “quadratic fit” in Fig. 12. I agree with an earlier commenter, this could very well be the bogus warming (my phrase) that simply does not exist as shown at E.M.Smith’s Chiefio blog. I found none of it, either, when examining the HadCRUT3 published data for the USA, at http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/usa-cities-hadcrut3-temperatures.html

  70. Murray Duffin says: June 4, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Vuk – I find that so many of your curves
    (re:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
    )
    are so inadequately labelled and/or titled that as an non-initiate I cannot use them. You would add greatly to your credibility and useability by assuming that your readers do not know what you know, and label everything so it would get a passing grade in a high school science report. Thanks, Murray.
    Thanks for the note. You are right, it is a bit of shambles . This is a bit of a hobby, so when I come across something I put it up there just in case I move onto something else. A professional scientist may find whole thing unacceptable. In the past I was given numerous rather unflattering attributes (cyclo-maniac in extreme, man of superior ignorance, charlatan, and finally ‘danger to society’) and my actions described as deplorable.
    I can’t think of a greater encouragement.

  71. anna v says:
    June 4, 2010 at 11:59 pm
    The main and insurmountable problem is that the force of gravity is so weak that any synchronization takes millions and billions of years and not decades and centuries as are the time scales of climate that are being discussed.

    What about the force which is 24 million billion (whatever the right number is for electromagnetism) times stronger than gravity.
    Scafetta specifically includes that force in his hypothesis. Why are you ignoring it?

  72. Nicola Scafetta is to be congratulated for getting his interesting work into a peer reviewed journal. His hard work will make it easier for others who are investigating this complex phenomenon from an astronomical perspective to get their ideas into print. I tip my hat to you Prof. Nicola Scafetta – a true pioneer.
    I will be publishing two papers supporting at least some Prof. Scafetta’s work. One shows direct evidence of lunar tidal influences on the El nino/La Nina ENSO phenomenon, while the second shows the link between the Lunar tidal varaiations and planetary wide standing-wave patterns in large scale sea surface temperature anomalies. Both of these papers show that factors external to the Earth play an
    important role in decadal to centenial climate variations in the Earth’s climate.

  73. Apologies if this has been missed in a quick reading. Yes, there are geometry correlations with global temperature, but what is the favoured mechanism to create the heat that raises the temperature (and the reverse case of lowering)? I have heard about changes to solar energy output, changes to cosmic rays and their nucleation of clouds, I’ve read of the gravitational distortion heating some moons of Jupiter, of hanges to earth tides that present more or less hot/cold water to the surface, then of SST effects on cloud formation … etc etc.
    Please clarify the mechanism(s) of importance that might arise from geometric/orbital changes, for a busy reader.

  74. anna v.,
    You spoke of tides. Back in the early 90s I wrote an article that looked at a slightly less than twenty year cycle in tree ring data in Iowa. As I remember, the data went back to 1680, and the cycle appeared to be pretty strong. I speculated that this was the time required for Jupiter and Saturn to ‘lap’ – to line up with the sun. How possible is it that my speculation might have been correct that this could cause a tidal effect on the sun and the result could be similar to ‘stirring up a fire’? And then, this effect could be seen in weather in Iowa?

  75. I wonder how many forced oscillators we could find in the solar system and near galaxy which. over billions of years, have become entrained by some type of coupling? What effect would a black swan event have as it rippled through this delicately balanced system?
    Like a stone thrown into a pond, the event would set up a series of ripples, the effects of which would decrease the further you went from the origin. Due to the magnitude of the system it would probably be perturbed by a further event before it had time to settle down. More importantly because the system is driven by deterministic chaos, which exhibits sensitivity to initial conditions, even bodies at the periphery of the event would be effected.
    No answers here, just more questions!

  76. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    “This paper appears to be recycling the ideas of Landscheidt mostly (such ideas used to be out of favour here?). In chapter 6 “Possible physical mechanisms”, it is mentioned “spin orbit transfer phenomena” which appears to be the same “spin orbit coupling” idea promoted by Landscheidt.
    The spin orbit coupling idea assumes angular momentum is constant within the solar system, but transferred between the planets and the Sun as the “solar orbit radius” changes (re. fig 4. of the paper). However, if you perform the calculations, you will find that there is no missing angular momentum to drive any variation of solar spin. The Sun is also in free fall and feels no forces anyway, as Leif has explained many times.”

    This is true only if one assumes that the planets and the Sun are singular points or rigid bodies.
    But, they aren’t!
    The center of the Sun is in free fall. But this is not true for most of the rest of the Sun’s plasma.
    Look at the Earth!
    Because of the tidal effects on the Earth by the Moon, the Moon is slowly departing from the Earth by an average 38 mm a year and Earth’s rotation because of this is slowing down.
    Look here under Tidal effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
    Don’t forget the size of the Sun! If the Earth was surrounded with a sphere the size of the Sun, then the Moon in its orbit around the Earth would only be about halfway to this sphere and inside it. That’s how large our star is.
    This means that even if the torque forces affecting different parts of the Sun are small. And with varying forces, with the strongest forces near the equator and near the surface, the mass displacements of plasma inside the Sun could be quite significant resulting from the elliptical and erratic movement of the Sun’s trajectory caused by the pull from the gas giants. These mass displacements are not homogeneous and could reduce and increase solar activity as a result from different and varying spin at different depth and latitudes.
    If one has a correlation and especially if one has a strong correlation with two physical phenomena that could be connected, it makes sense for me to assume that there might be a physical link and look into it. Even if you don’t know what that is.
    On a similar note. The CAGW scientists have for 20 years primarily assumed that the resent climate change is as a result of changes from small changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere and that the only solar forcing affecting the Earth comes from small changes in TSI. They disregard the strong correlation between solar activity and climate variations, because they don’t look and they say there can’t find a cause for such strong correlation. Yet they claim that they are expert on the Earth’s climate.
    In the same vein, here the claim is that the effect from the gas planets on the Sun is only from the small gravitational pull, while not looking at the much stronger torque forces acting on the solar rotation caused by the changing path of the solar trajectory.
    If one doesn’t look, one should not find.

  77. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    June 4, 2010 at 3:32 pm
    “Correlations are just correlations.”
    True – and it would be better to have a causal mechanism. But when two phenomena are correlated then either there is a (perhaps undiscovered) causal relation between them or there is a third (perhaps undiscovered) phenomenon driving them both.
    If a causal relationship exists between climate oscillations and planetary motion, it would be hard to see how climate could be driving the planets.
    If, on the other hand, there is a third mechanism driving both climate and planetary motion, it would be hard to see how this could be CO2.

  78. @tallbloke June 4, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    I seem to remember someone (Semi Semerov?) saying that conservation of angular momentum was an implicit assumption of the way the JPL ephemeris is calculated. I’d be interested to find out more about that.

    Please do. I am sure it isn’t true. The JPL ephemeris is just a numerically accurate implementation of the laws of gravity, applied to an N-body system. There is no assumption wrt. angular momentum.

    It seems to me that it’s a logical possibility that the energy transfer involved in a spin orbit coupling affecting the sun’s activity might be such a small proportion of the total angular momentum, that it could be hidden within the limits of error.

    So if, if we assume it exists, it is an inmeasurable quantity below the levels of detection. Why then assume it is of importance?

  79. @tallbloke June 4, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Leif is wrong. It’s one of his Newtonian thought experiments which fails to take acoount of the fact that the sun is not a rigid point like object.

    Leif has discussed tides at length. Tides on the Sun are very small indeed. Which other effects are you thinking of?

  80. tallbloke says:
    June 4, 2010 at 4:59 pm
    steven mosher says:
    June 4, 2010 at 3:47 pm
    1. I hope that Dr. Niki is more willing to share his code and data this time around. or will he use the same tactics he has in the past? The last go round we had with him he was as bad or worse than Jones or Mann.
    Maybe it’s in the way you ask. Perhaps dissing the man as a “numerologist” in the same post isn’t the best entree to an open exchange of code.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    I’m not saying here that I’m ‘dissing’ the idea that the sun, moon, and the planets have an effect on the earth, because I do think they do. But I think that Nicola Scafetta should not be slow in sharing his method with anyone—even if their intention is to try to prove him wrong. I can understand him wanting to wait until publication. But after that he should be open to anyone. My only caveat being if his method is used in his livelihood as is the case with Piers Corbyn. But then again Piers Corbyn is not publicly funded and can lock his method away in an eternal time capsule if he’d like.
    I also would say it is unfair to compare Scafetta with Jones and Mann. No one is like the global warming guild.

  81. @Ed_B June 4, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    CARSTEN..
    “Correlations are just correlations”
    Correlations which prove to have predictive power have an underlying cause worth discovering, don’t you think?

    I agree that establishing mathematical correlations can be very useful in assisting pure intuition wrt. which paths of investigation to follow. However, if correlations are not backed up by physical mechanisms to explain them, they are just correlations that may be spurious or indicative of some other physical mechanism.
    For example, Al Gore showed apparent correlation between CO2 and temperature proxies in his movie, which was used to argue that CO2 was the cause of the temperature shifts. What wasn’t mentioned was that the temperature shifts happened years before the changes in CO2 concentration. He had a correlation, but it didn’t prove anything wrt. his proposed mechanism.

  82. tallbloke says:
    June 5, 2010 at 2:41 am
    What about the force which is 24 million billion (whatever the right number is for electromagnetism) times stronger than gravity.
    Scafetta specifically includes that force in his hypothesis. Why are you ignoring it?

    Both gravity AND magnetism from the planets are three orders of magnitude smaller than that of the Sun. On the Earth we have exquisitely sensitive devices capable of measuring these forces and there are essentially traces of any planetary influences [the Sun and the Moon can be seen – the former due to size, the latter due to proximity]. The expected Jupiter tide on the Earth is 0.002% of that of the Moon.
    My main problems with the paper are that it is postulated that an unknown process accounts for the planetary influence on the Sun, then another unknown process amplifies the tiny TSI signal to have climate effects, and finally the reliance on Hoyt&Schatten’s obsolete TSI-reconstruction. But we have gone over this so many times, that it is not constructive to repeat all that. Suffice it to say that the usual suspects have been drawn out of the woodwork. Let them explain how Scafetta’s ideas match [or are at variance] with their own.

  83. @ Stephen Wilde says: June 4, 2010 at 8:07 pm: “Dr. Scafetta has gone well beyond the principle known as Occam’s Razor or for those of a less scientific bent ‘Keep it simple,stupid’.”
    My preferred version is ‘Keep it simple, but don’t be stupid.’

  84. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 5, 2010 at 6:39 am
    Both gravity AND magnetism from the planets are three orders of magnitude smaller than that of the Sun. On the Earth we have exquisitely sensitive devices capable of measuring these forces and there are essentially NO traces of any planetary influences.

  85. @ Craig Goodrich June 4, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    Carsten Arnholm, Norway, June 4, 2010 at 3:32 pm, says:
    The Sun is also in free fall and feels no forces anyway, as Leif has explained many times.

    I’m not sure I understand. The Earth is also in free fall; yet the Moon — which is likewise in free fall — causes tides. It would seem obvious to me that the Sun’s plasma would be affected in some way by the gravitational forces of its satellites, no?

    True. Tidal forces exist. However they are exceedingly small on the surface of the Sun, in the order of submillimeters if my memory serves me. Compared to the size and mass of the Sun, these effects are completely negligible.

  86. @Craig Goodrich June 4, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    Carsten again:
    Correlations are just correlations.
    Ahh, but there are correlations and correlations –
    Svensmark & Shaviv — solar wind/cosmic ray flux, all periods from months to millions of years

    Yes, but Svensmark is busy at CERN these days trying to establish a physical mechanism. As far as I understand him, he used correlations to assist him in establishing a hypothesis, but only experiments can confirm whether the assumed effects exist in the real world.

    Scafetta — planetary motion, presumably affecting solar activity, 150 years in detail
    Hansen & The Team — CO2-driven warming, 25 years at the end of the 20th Century, and the model is wrong even for Venus

    One would hope that these teams followed the example of Svensmark and not just used the assumed correlations as basis for assertions.

  87. tallbloke says:
    June 5, 2010 at 2:41 am
    anna v says:
    June 4, 2010 at 11:59 pm
    The main and insurmountable problem is that the force of gravity is so weak that any synchronization takes millions and billions of years and not decades and centuries as are the time scales of climate that are being discussed.
    What about the force which is 24 million billion (whatever the right number is for electromagnetism) times stronger than gravity.
    Scafetta specifically includes that force in his hypothesis. Why are you ignoring it?

    I am not ignoring it, I am saying that there is not enough energy density in the interstellar and interplanetary electro/magnetic fields to be able to affect anything directly in the sense of synchronization. In any case they would fall in the same category as gravity: too weak and not enough energy available to change anything in the decades and century one is observing the climate. In addition they are variable and not stable in long term as gravity wells are.
    It is the energy that is missing, not the imagination.
    Magnetic fields could play an amplification role, as in the Galactic Cosmic Rays hypothesis still to be demonstrated, changing albedo .

  88. if i see the letters TSI exclusively used in connection to trying to prove or disprove the suns affect on climate on earth I think I’m going to scream
    or at least i’ll continue to lose respect for those who try to prove or disprove it with them
    oh, and that goes for the 11 year cycle too

  89. jinki says:(June 4, 2010 at 5:36 pm)
    “Meanwhile Hathaway has once again reviewed his SC24 prediction, now down to 65 SSN.”
    Dr S has predicted this from the start (I think 70 was his max) but was opposed and overruled by Hathaway.

  90. Cecil Coupe says:
    June 4, 2010 at 7:54 pm
    The layman’s description (the only one I understand) of how scientists are discovering exo-planets involves those planets orbits producing a ‘wobble’ in their star’s path which can be detected. Then if we’re lucky they can observe a transit. If so, then our gas giants would have some observable effect on our sun’s output, when observed from a few lights year away.

    Exoplanets are almost never detected in the way you describe. I am not eve sure if it has happened much at all. Typically, exoplanets are detected when their orbit plane around the distant star intersects the Earth. In such cases, the exoplanet will sometimes ‘transit’ the star, causing a temporary, tiny dip in the starlight received here. By careful measurement of the amount of light received (the technique is known as photometry), the existense of an exoplanet can be deduced.
    If you look at the solar system from hundreds of light years away, you will have a very hard time trying to detect the 8 planets by studying the orbital wobble of the Sun. It never moves more than ~1.1 solar diameters away from where it would be without any planets. The stars in the sky are so far away (the closest is ~4 light years distant) that they all appear as perfect point-like light sources, i,e, their diameters appear to be zero as seen from here. Now, move one of them 1.1 diameters in any direction (not just perpendicular to the line of sight), and consider how easy t would be to detect it. I am not saying it is impossible, just very, very hard.

  91. tallbloke says:
    June 4, 2010 at 4:34 pm
    I agree. But then I have had the privilege of seeing a few demonstrations by Ulric Lyons of his theory which contains some parallel to Nicola’s.
    The ensuing, relentless exasperation (mostly mine, because I saw how explosive this was to the climatologist fraternity before he did) at the time it takes to plug all the holes, that we all know will need to be waterproof before publication, as the entire establishment will go mental-nuts-doo-lalley when they see it, and the continuous admiration I have for his methodology, insight and mathematical powers only add to my mirth.
    I have a little chuckle to myself when I see formerly respected scientists and others snorting “astrology”, “numerology”, “rev up your orreries” and such.
    Ulric’s elegant, independently repeatable, predictive system is no stranger to ridicule. At least no-one gets killed for failing at weather prediction now-a-days. Not so in more “primitive” times when the planets were attributed signs such as hot, cold, windy, wet etc and the local seer could make or break an entire comunity.
    He will have the last laugh however, as the system is eminently easy to explain, instantly graspable and intuitively remarkable. “Eureka” does not do credit to the back-of-the-neck hair-standing, goggle-eyed amazement and outright shock that people experience when he reveals the core of the theory with a few diagrams and some historical hindcasting. (Yes, I do know the differences between hypothesis, theory and correlation)
    I feel he should have published a while back for two reasons; The climate “debate” (or lack thereof) has gone on too long and this theory completely, utterly and comprehensively destroys AGW (let alone all the other acronymodious junk) and; The fury directed at his work by the establishment would be deflected and defused by the mass of people, all too happy to puncture the pompous, who would help to plug the holes when they see how easy it is to prove the fundamental heart of the discovery.
    I said to him 2 years ago that he should publish and tour the lecture circuits as he refined it. He is inclined to keep tweaking the periphery until it is ironclad.
    Whichever, I am constantly amused by the invested.
    We will all have a good laugh about this, sooner rather than later.

  92. Kermit
    June 5, 2010 at 5:07 am
    Look through my previous posts. It is the energy available that is important. The energy coming from a synod of planets on the sun is tiny compared to the energies swirling around in the sun. The tides that are induced are tiny on the sun: size of millimeter when one sunspot can be much bigger than the earth. How could such tiny tides push around earth sized magnetic disturbances?
    Now synchronization is another story.
    I could entertain the idea that somehow over the billions of years the fluid motions of the sun may have been modulated by all the gravitational bodies going around it, in the same way that the moon ended up looking with the same face on the earth. In that case, planetary motions and sun energy swirlings could have a similar frequency analysis spectrum and be correlated, not because of causation in the present, but because they are two giant clocks that have become synchronous over untold millenia.
    (This would for example account for the 11 year coincidence.)
    But this is just a hypothesis. I believe we will have to wait through a century or two to get good data for a long enough time that a frequency analysis might come up with solid correlations. And also we have to wait for a verified solid model of the sun behavior as well as a better gauge of climate than global temperature, which is a cousin four times removed from the energy of the system.

  93. The Milankovitch cycles are caused by gravitational/tidal interactions of the Moon, Sun, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn.
    If one thinks of the energy it takes to change the orbit and tilt of the Earth, the energy in the climate system is just a tiny, tiny fraction of that.
    The Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales but a force like this will also have smaller timescale influences.
    There are certainly cycles in the climate, one just needs to tie this all together to show how the mechanism/forces actually impact the climate. For example, if you slow-down the Pacific equatorial current, you will get more El Ninos and there will be a slight warming. If you slow-down the Atlantic Meridional Circulation slightly, you will get more sea ice and there will be a slight cooling. If you change the average cloudiness of the Earth …

  94. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040.
    Piers Corbyn, who uses the sun and moon in his forecasting, also sees cooling coming:

  95. Just how difficult would it be to do a correlation of these cyclic phenomena with the ice core data?
    What happens around Maunder minimum time?
    Is there a correlation with sunspot cycles since 1715?
    How about the MWP (according to some, hypothetical; according to others, documented by archaeology)?
    Given the ephemeris data from JPL, running SCMSS back 4000 or 5000 years should be relatively straightforward.
    How does this periodic data fit with the known periodicities in the orbit of the Earth: the perihelion progression, the known variation in the axial tilt, the known variations in the eccentricity of the orbit, and so on?
    Always remember: Semmelweis and Pasteur were fools until they were proven right.
    And all Semmelweis had to go on was data.
    That is a pretty strong Chi square to be random.

  96. As Lief pointed out the measured affect of planets is next to zero. As wayne said climate science is in the unknown due to the interactions of AO, NAO, PDO, PNA, AAO, ENSO, currents, trade winds, etc. And as our current records are now coming up to some intergral standard thanks to funding speciallized Sats, we may begin to observe.
    I wish this Co2 element all the best in supporting the genocidel motivations of so called GRENNIES and the power hungry profiteers. UMM what ever happened to helping the poor.

  97. Steven Mosher
    ” People need to decide if they want to throw out the temperature record or use it. ”
    If I go out into the ocean on a rubber raft and try to measure wave height I will get one result, if I try to measure wave height from an ocean liner I will certainly get a different result.
    Both sets of measurements are likely to show the same period between waves.

  98. The universe has a heart beat and celestial bodies vibrate to this tune, all at differing frequencies. This isn’t religion, or science. It’s both and inseparable. This is the elephant in the room of climate change. Tesla understood this concept of “resonance” and “the electric universe” and used it to develop the engines of progress which power our society to this day.
    Sadly, the IPCC and “consensus science” continues to microscopically examine CO2 as a driving climate force, which is nothing more than the flea on the elephant’s ass. We are surrounded by miriad cycles of nature, which can reinforce and interfer with each other producing sometimes violent results, all while CO2 lumbers upward at a snail’s pace. Any student of signals and systems analysis knows a shallow ramp input function does not produce a cyclical or step output function.
    Dr. Scafetta is onto the Rosetta Stone of climate change. It has always been planetary mechanics which drives our climate, and sediment proxies are replete with evidence to this fact. We would be wise to heed Dr. Scafetta’s findings.

  99. “It is found that at least 60\% of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations.”
    The problem of course, is the difference between the “observed” warming and the actual warming. Once you remove the effects of UHI, station siting and station dropout problems, not to mention general hanky panky with the data by Mann et al, it is probably close to 100% natural.
    Dr. Gray provided a good rundown of the problems here: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=1
    That was before Climategate, of course.

  100. Nikola:
    Please consider putting together a scientific presentation of your work for youtube. The paper is a problem to read. I would be making assumptions just in order to understand your terminology and graphs. I really think you need to present something like this live.
    -JDN

  101. Leif Svalgaard seems always to assume that the TSI is the best measure of solar actity as far as climate is concerned.This is not so. On decadal and millenial time scales the solar magnetic field strength is a much better climate indicator as a measure of cloud cover via changes in the cosmic ray flux and also as an indicator of energy transfer via CMEs, solar flares etc. Whats more the 10Be record provides a handy proxy for measurement in the geological record and for correlation with climate data.
    On longer time scales the TSI – Northern Hemisphere insolation influence is more obvious in the well documented Milankovitch cycles.
    The change in solar angular momentum and the amount of solar torsion is easily conceptualised by looking at plots of the changing radius of curvature of the suns orbit about the barycenter.

  102. It seems to me that too many people are looking for a single cause and effect for current warming on which to hitch their wagon. I would seem much more logical that there are many small effects from a wide variety of causes that in total cause us to see what we see. Small changes in one or more of them could have the effect of a minute change in the outcome. But how does one weigh the magnitude of any one change in a sea of infinite combinations of related causes and effects?
    My Dad was a football (American style) coach and we would watch film together. I learned that the results of a particular play were dependent on a host of events. For instance, the runner was able to penetrate the defensive line because the two offensive blockers outperformed their counterparts and pushed them back therefore creating the hole that the runner ran through. So what was the actually cause for the success of that play? Was it the runner’s ability to see the hole and run through it before it closed or was it the fact that the hole was there for him to see in the first place? Or was it the fact that the coaching staff had designed a play in such a way for it to be successful and then called the play at that particular time in the game? Was there any contribution on the part of the defensive coach who may have had called a defensive configuration that was conducive for the play to work against them, not anticipating that play to be called against them at that particular point of the game? In the pre-game planning, did the fact that the individual abilities of certain players allow the coaches to create a plan for when that play would be used and against which particular defensive configuration would be most likely be deployed at that time? But then, each individual player must outplay his counterpart in conjunction with the sum of the success or failure of all his other teammates in their individual battles on that play. Now, add in the chance that a single player will make an unanticipated change in his assignment on that play and do something unexpected simply by his intuition. If he is right the outcome will be different than if he “guesses” wrong. If any one of these things were different, the outcome of the play would be different? Or would it?
    I think it is the same with changes in climate. Where is the credit (or blame if you wish) to be placed for what actually happens? Is it in a simplistic cause and effect of one thing? Or is it spread throughout the entire scope of all the possible combinations of the physical characteristics of the universe we live in? Is it even possible to model what the results of changing one thing would be without knowing how that one change affects all the other infinite combinations?
    Whew, I think I’ll just go to the beach and let y’all figure it out.

  103. If I’m not mistaken I believe that Rhoades Fairbridge forecasted a cooling and increased vulcanism in his barycenter theory. Components of our universe affect and cause changes to other components in ways I don’t believe we will ever totally understand. Look at the changes of our understanding of the laws of physics over the last 100 years. Are we so arrogant to think that we understand all the interactions and even the basic fabric of our universe?

  104. noaaprogrammer says:
    June 4, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    “…and meanwhile NASA is again trying to sensationalize perhaps the weakest solar cycle in a hundred years: “…The sun is waking up from a deep slumber, and in the next few years we expect to see much higher levels of solar activity…
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/04jun_swef/

    This paragraph from the NASA item seems rather strange? :-
    “SDO (the Solar Dynamics Observatory) is the newest addition to NASA’s fleet. Just launched in February, it is able to photograph solar active regions with unprecedented spectral, temporal and spatial resolution. Researchers can now study eruptions in exquisite detail, raising hopes that they will learn how flares work and how to predict them. SDO also monitors the sun’s extreme UV output, which controls the response of Earth’s atmosphere to solar variability.
    Is this a hint about the Earth’s missing climate ‘solar switch’, or something else ???

  105. With all of the possible correlations with various solar system orbits, I suspect that this exercise may be an attempt at using Fourier Analysis to fit an equation of earth’s past temperatures.

  106. Carsten Arnholm, Norway said:
    “Correlations are correlations.”
    Hear, hear!
    This is a curve fit exercise, and as Bob Tisdale pointed out, there are lots of better (more physically meaningful) ways to get good correlation with the instrument temperature record.
    Dr. Scafetta would do well to avoid any analysis which is not based on physically reasonable cause-and-effect. Speculation about coupled planetary oscillations and Barycenters is just that… speculation. The entire effort strikes me as silly.

  107. Scafetta’s paper is not about the physics, per se, but about a model that outperforms GISS, which is the basis of IPCC’s failure to predict.
    “New Scafetta paper – his celestial model outperforms GISS”
    GISS is not the only failure in weather/climate prediction. So did the MET and NOAA.
    He’s done a good job of identifying the cycles in the climate, along with offering possible causes of those cycles.
    Does it matter if cycle “F” is caused by function (foo) or function (oof)?
    If the causes of certain cycles are what you disagree with, then give a replacement cause or simply say “it’s an unknown”.
    If the cycles are what you disagree with, then say why there is not a cycle, or replace it.
    To me, the best part of what he does in the paper is identify the cycles in thier detrended state.
    The big question for the 21st Century is what delta in trended state comes next:
    Continued trend, neutral trend, rising trend, or declining trend?
    What cycle do you see coming into play that will be in sympathy with that delta?

  108. Norman Page says:
    June 5, 2010 at 8:10 am
    Leif Svalgaard seems always to assume that the TSI is the best measure of solar actity as far as climate is concerned.
    TSI, heliospheric magnetic field, 10Be, cosmic rays, sunspots, etc are all [almost] equally good measures of solar activity, as they all reflect the solar magnetic field that control variations in all these measures. It doesn’t matter which one you use.
    We often use TSI because the energy involved is many orders of magnitudes larger than that in the other manifestations [CMEs, flares, etc].
    I recently gave a presentation on solar variations that may be of interest in this regard:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf

  109. Tenuc says:
    June 5, 2010 at 8:35 am
    SDO also monitors the sun’s extreme UV output, which controls the response of Earth’s atmosphere to solar variability.”
    Is this a hint about the Earth’s missing climate ‘solar switch’, or something else ???

    The usual confusion: what NASA mean is the UPPER atmosphere above [say] 100 km where solar activity controls the temperature and density [important for satellite drag, etc].

  110. If you want to see a USA national weather forecast with daily maps generated 2 and a half years ago for the next four years, using a very similar method. They are available free for the looking at;
    http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx
    These maps do better than the NWS three days out, when the outer planets do not interfere with the lunar declinational tides, basic background cyclic patterns. Which right now will be until mid August 2010 when Uranus, Neptune, and Jupiter, all have a go at creating a surge of hurricane production September and October of 2010.
    My own ideas on how the medium term (50 to 60 year) driving forces of the Moon and outer planets, affect the weather and climate, can be found in the research area of the site.

  111. ok, so since correlation is not necessarily causation let’s not get carried away and say in all cases where there is correlation there is not causation

  112. Are we doomed? Dr. S. has modulated his cycles onto a parabola. The temperature will keep on increasing at an ever accelerating rate. We’re all (OK, our great grandchildren) going to fry.
    What am I missing?

  113. I personally think that the falsified theory of uniformitarianism, a view in geology championed by Charles Lyell that the rate and mechanisms of geological change operating in the modern era are sufficient to explain changes in the past (contrasted with catastrophism), still is strongly in play.
    As one poster has stated, it takes large energy changes for changes of large magnitude to take place.
    I couldn’t help but to notice the recent “fireball” that struck Jupiter. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100604-science-space-jupiter-impact-flash-asteroid/
    “Meanwhile, the odd coincidence of two Jovian smashes so close together has astronomers scratching their heads, since impacts on Jupiter have long been thought to be relatively rare.
    Until the 2009 collision, the last known impact event on Jupiter was the famous “death” of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 in 1994.
    “‘Unbelievable’ has been the word in many of the first emails about this one just seen,” Hammel said. “It’s back to the drawing board on our understanding of the statistics of impacting bodies.”

    A similar strike of such magnitude on the sun could play havoc with the Earth’s “climate”, and there is nothing to preclude that from happening.
    Mythology, I think, is based at least in part on catastrophes that happened a good ways back in history. The primitive explanations may have been completely wrong, but that does not in any way prove that the catastrophes didn’t happen. We ignore that at our peril.
    I am not implying that the present studies of gradual processes don’t have significant value, but major global (and temporary, although long in the mind of humans) changes might well be better explained by catastrophes.

  114. One refinement as an addendum to Dr. Scafetta’s paper would be to
    measure the variation in tidal “pull” when either the Earth or the Moon
    are aligned so one or the other is eclipsing Jupiter or combinations of
    the gas giant trio (Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune) when they’re in the same
    quadrant relative to this particular earth/moon alignment.
    However, finding anyone with the money, the skills, or the will to
    do such studies is doubtful. Worse, some would consider authoring
    a paper on the subject a career killer in astrophysics or solar studies.
    -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
    The energy utilized in large body water tides is fairly well understood.
    Less so is the tidal influence on ground water. The least studied and
    possibly most influential for both gravitational and magnetic effects
    are superficial and subsurface land tides.
    As the earth’s continents slide around and the equator (and the equitorial
    bulge) migrate in conjuction with axial tilt and procession, yet another
    set of mutli-millenial variables are added to the length of day calculations.
    The slight decoupling of Northern and Southern hemispheric temperatures
    on a decadal or century scale that can’t be explained by GISS, Hadley or IPCC
    models may have less to do with errors introduced by an urban heat island
    (UHI) effect (McKitrick and Michaels, 2007; McKitrick, 2010) and
    more to do with the volume of surface land mass in the Northen Hemisphere,
    it’s vegitation, and albedo compared to the predominace of surface water
    mass in the South.
    For those wondering about observations and predictions concerning the
    current solar cycle, please remember that David Hathaway, Leif Svalgaard,
    et al, are predicting the monthly sunspot number (SSN)
    to be over 60. For June, 2010, the spot number was 8.8.
    See:
    http://sidc.oma.be/products/ri_hemispheric/
    Dave Hathaway hasn’t really commented on planetary gravitational/magnetic
    influences on water/earth tides or sunspot numbers and solar activity.
    Leif Svalgaard has, in the negative, repeatedly. See:
    http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1127

  115. anna v wrote:
    “Let us suppose that the correlation in the frequencies demonstrated in this paper are real , i.e. significant within errors. An explanation could be that in the billions of years that the planetary clock synchronized itself, producing a moon facing us with the same side as a by product for example, the sun/moon tides of the earth became modulated by the frequencies of the rest of the planetary system. Then any influence of the tides on the climate would be carrying the imprint of the synchronized planetary clock from millions of years back, and the correlation with the planetary orbits , though not spurious, will not be the causative effect. Causation, i.e. energy input, would be the tides.”
    After collecting key clues (arising out of my investigations of stratospheric volcanoes http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm ), I arrived at the same understanding a few months ago:
    Note on Confounding of Lunisolar Harmonic Spectrum & Solar System Dynamics – http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Confounding.htm
    Without going into a lot of details, these were the 2 graphs that fundamentally changed my view of the role of solar system barycentric dynamics:
    1) http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT,DVI,VEI,MSI_SOI,L90,SOI+L90.png
    2) http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_aa_SOI.png
    [ both from draft notes here http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm ]
    Note to anyone who takes notes:
    ALL of my webpages will soon be torn down.

  116. The temperature will keep on increasing at an ever accelerating rate. We’re all (OK, our great grandchildren) going to fry.
    What am I missing?

    Newton’s first law of motion: A body continues in a state of rest or motion in a straight line at a constant speed unless made to change state by forces acting upon it.
    If there were no forces acting upon climate, the 1st extreme that came along would stick. Earth has varied over geologic time periods, as if in a balance. Go out of the solar system, out of the galaxy and on to the Super Clusters of Galaxies and the expansion of the Universe. Should there be no limit to the size of the Super Clusters and the Compact Dominant monster galaxies at their cores? Should there be an upper limit to their Super-Massive Black Holes? There appears to be a good reason why these SuperCluster cores have stopped forming new stars: the temperature of the gas surrounding them has gone too high to allow condensation of new stars.
    Macrocosm might be related to microcosm. If an old galaxy were to be expelled from the SuperCluster core region, it would enter cooler regions and could re-start star condensation/formation.
    The Milky Way is laminated as to it’s dust/gas layers. We know this from surveys which have detected high-latitude clouds in the galaxy. How the Sun (or any star) is temporarily affected upon passage though these varying layers is an unknown, but the Sun does pass through them. It’s not a simple matter of one and only one gradient of density when it comes to the galactic plane.
    Bottom line: You are not alone in asking “What am I missing?”.

  117. Paul Vaughn (6:05pm):
    The MATHEMATICAL lexicon does not vary much from field to field, and the problem of Scafetta’s claimed “coherence” goes much deeper than your comment allows. He is clearly trying to establish the coherence–in the widely-accepted sense– between pairs of signals, but Burg’s “maximum entropy” algorithm for estimating power spectra yields no cross-spectral information (no c0- and quad-spectra). Thus he improvises a measure of the proximity or congruence of spectral peaks for the pair. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes coherence. It is not a measure of similarity of power density structure, but of the STABILITY of relative PHASE beween like-frequency components of the signal pair. It is independent of the power densities in the same way that cross-correlation is independent of total variances.
    I’m surprised that I should have to explain this to you, who constantly touts “phase-aware” analysis methods. And I’m surprised that no reviewer caught this before publication.

  118. vukcevic wrote:
    ” […] http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm but even that needs definition of the transfer mechanism, which I am pondering at the moment.”
    Barkin has written insightfully about this. I would schedule a full day to sift through his works. The bits that are relevant to terrestrial climate are buried as paragraphs here-&-there in his many, many publications (which primarily address peripherally-related topics). I don’t think you will be disappointed if you make the effort. Barkin’s insights are both simple & powerful. You may quickly see how 36 & 90 year oscillations derived from different (but harmonically related) phenomena (perhaps entrained through different spatial pathways) might combine to produce the ‘illusion’ of some of the (perhaps ephemeral) “60 year” oscillations (north of 45°S [& this is absolutely key]) to which you have drawn attention. [Bear in mind north/south continental/maritime asymmetry, including its seasonal variation.] Based on M. Mann’s paper on ENSO/volcano relations, I would say Barkin’s knowledge is one of the key blindspots holding Mann back from an influential pivot & forward-lunge that could change the whole climate discussion.

  119. Paul, noted.
    Anna and Carsten, I’ll just repeat what I wrote earlier, as you both seem to have missed it:
    tallbloke says:
    June 5, 2010 at 1:34 am
    The vertical tides (caused by the planets on the sun) are small, just as the vertical tide caused by the moon on the earth is small, but the horizontal tides are huge in comparison, and they are the ones which cause much more tidal motion, same as those caused by the moon here on earth.
    Even tiny Mercury induces horizontal tides of hundreds of kilometers on the suns surface. Leif’s 1mm tide is a red herring.

  120. JDN wrote:
    “Nikola:
    Please consider putting together a scientific presentation of your work for youtube. The paper is a problem to read. I would be making assumptions just in order to understand your terminology and graphs. I really think you need to present something like this live.
    -JDN”

    The links here http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/60yearCycles.htm will lead you to here http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/V_Sun_SSB_60a.htm , where you will find that Dr. Scafetta delivered a video more than a year ago.
    [Note to anyone who may have bookmarked the link to Scafetta’s video last year: The host site changed the URL – I provide a link to the updated URL.]

  121. Leif Svalgaard says: June 5, 2010 at 9:37 am
    Dr. Svalgaard in his paper
    http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
    asks
    “Was the Maunder Minimum just an example of a strong L&P effect?”
    Period 1600 – 1700 was time of a major magnetic perturbation not only in the solar activity but also in the Earth’s magnetic field.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
    and most likely it was solar system wide. Fact that it coincided with sudden cooling in the western Europe (and possibly globally) it may or may not be a coincidence.
    Fact that the Arctic temperature anomaly has a good correlation with averaged geomagnetic field ( between two NH extremities)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    would suggest that link between GMF and climatic variation is not result of a coincidence.

  122. Tenuc wrote [about disruptions of collectively coupled oscillators]: “No answers here, just more questions!”
    …and damn good ones!!
    I imagine that such disruptions are ongoing – and blinding for many investigators. It was precisely the background harmonies that immediately drew my interest as soon as I got involved, as I’ve noted in the intro here http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Confounding.htm .

  123. tallbloke says:
    June 5, 2010 at 12:41 pm
    Even tiny Mercury induces horizontal tides of hundreds of kilometers on the suns surface. Leif’s 1mm tide is a red herring.
    A hundred km long and 1 mm high?
    Perhaps a calculation or link to the 100s of km tides. Anyway, a sunspot is tens of thousands of km…

  124. tallbloke says:
    June 5, 2010 at 1:34 am
    The vertical tides (caused by the planets on the sun) are small, just as the vertical tide caused by the moon on the earth is small, but the horizontal tides are huge in comparison, and they are the ones which cause much more tidal motion, same as those caused by the moon here on earth.
    Even tiny Mercury induces horizontal tides of hundreds of kilometers on the suns surface. Leif’s 1mm tide is a red herring.

    What is your reference for “horizontal tides of hundreds of kilometers on the suns surface”? I have never heard about it and would like to know.

  125. anna v wrote:
    “Let us suppose that the correlation in the frequencies demonstrated in this paper are real , i.e. significant within errors. An explanation could be that in the billions of years that the planetary clock synchronized itself, producing a moon facing us with the same side as a by product for example, the sun/moon tides of the earth became modulated by the frequencies of the rest of the planetary system. Then any influence of the tides on the climate would be carrying the imprint of the synchronized planetary clock from millions of years back, and the correlation with the planetary orbits , though not spurious, will not be the causative effect. Causation, i.e. energy input, would be the tides.”
    This is what I have be saying all along. The corelation between the planetary motions and the Earth’s climate is primarily a faux or false correlation. I have work (some of which is published) that says that the level of solar activity is dependent on the planetary tidal cycles and other published work that says that the Earth’s climate is heavily dependent on the Moon’s tidal cycles.
    The LINK between these two phenomenon is that the Lunar orbit has become synchronized with the planetary motions over many billions of years. Thus:
    Hence, the abstract in my Russian paper which states that:
    We know that the strongest planetary tidal forces acting on the lunar orbit come from the planets Venus, Mars and Jupiter. In addition, we known that, over the last 4.6 billion years, the Moon has slowly receded from the Earth. During the course of this lunar recession, there have been times when the orbital periods of Venus, Mars and Jupiter have been in resonance(s) with the precession rate for the line-of-nodes the lunar orbit. When these resonances have occurred, they would have greatly amplified the effects of the planetary tidal forces upon the lunar orbit. Hence, the observed synchronization between the precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the orbital periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter, could simply be a cumulative fossil record left behind by these historical resonances.
    In simple terms:
    Planetary motion –> level solar activity
    Planetary motion –> change in shape and tilt of lunar orbit (and hence tides
    experience here on Earth)
    Change in tides –> Earth’s climate cycles
    As a result, you get a faux/false correlation between Solar activity and Earth’s climate.
    This explains the “mysterious” amplification mechanism that is needed to explain the observed (supposed) correlations between the level of solar activity (as measured by TSI etc.) and the Earth’s climate cycles.
    Most likely there are weak links between the level Sun’s activity and climate cycles here on Earth but that are closley paralleled by larger variations in the climate cycles that are driven by the Lunar tides. It is simply the fact that it is the planetary motions
    are responsible for both the level of solar activity and changes in the shape and tilt of the Lunar orbit, that falsely attributes much of the Earth’s climate cycles to variations the level of Solar activity when it is fact being caused by the Solar/Lunar tides.
    Look at this plot and you will see that long term variations in the Lunar/Solar tides are in fact linked with varaitions in the planetary cycles.
    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2010/03/synchronization-between-solar-inertial.html

  126. Leif, Carsten,
    Semi Semerov wrote this on my blog some time ago:
    “Due to current research of K.Georgieva, despite that the vertical component of the tidal forces is almost negligible, the horizontal component of the tides may influence (brake) the meridional flows by as much as 20m/s (when accumulated over the length of the 11-year cycle), which difference in the flow speed is said to be actually observed… Her research says, that influencing the meridional flow of magnetic field toward equator in the maximum phase of current cycle influences the strength of the next cycle.”
    K.Georgieva et al., Planetary tidal effects on solar activity, 2009.
    Solar-Terrestrial Influences Laboratory of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad. G. Bonchev str., Bl.3, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
    The sun’s strong surface gravity pulls things flat, but this means that although the vertical components of the tidal forces are small, the energy transferred is being squeezed out sideways into the horizontal component. The forces involved are non-negligible.

  127. Ninderthana says:
    June 5, 2010 at 1:36 pm
    Planetary motion –> level solar activity
    Planetary motion –> change in shape and tilt of lunar orbit (and hence tides
    experience here on Earth)
    Change in tides –> Earth’s climate cycles
    As a result, you get a faux/false correlation between Solar activity and Earth’s climate.

    Very interesting Ian. A priori, it seems natural that the Earth would be most strongly affected by it’s closest astronomical neighbour which has the strongest (varying) gravitational effect on it – The Moon.
    I wouldn’t be too quick to write off the possible solar – Terrestrial climate link though. If both you and Svensmark turn out to be right, then both Sun and Moon are strong players in driving Earth’s climate variations. And the planetary motions and cyclic resonances are behind both drivers.

  128. rogerL wrote: “[…] and it would be better to have a causal mechanism. But when two phenomena are correlated then either there is a (perhaps undiscovered) causal relation between them or there is a third (perhaps undiscovered) phenomenon driving them both.”
    While there are other possibilities, it is very good to see so many folks explicitly drawing attention to confounding.
    Indeed, statistical methods are independent of physics. I will take this opportunity to thank the physicists in this community for the comments which they have shared during the past 16 months, which have been instrumental in influencing (a) the direction of my knowledge-gathering activities and (b) the evolution of my speculation & interpretations.

  129. Re: sky (which was re: my earlier comment)
    I skied (skimmed & skipped) through Scafetta’s treatment of coherence.
    My main [constructive] criticism of his spectral density plots is that he has *not presented crosses as a function of time (for example by using windowing techniques – I would suggest cross-wavelet).
    This is actually very important, as is evident by reading some of the comments in this thread – i.e. people are clearly misled by these whole-time-series summaries, as if any power-spike represents a purely-cyclic stationary sine-wave of constant amplitude.
    I want to see a cross-spectrum as a function of time so that I can see where (in time) coherence fails. Furthermore, I want to see the effect of varying the window (but that sort of detail doesn’t generally need to appear in a publication).

  130. anna v wrote:
    “Now synchronization is another story.
    I could entertain the idea that somehow over the billions of years the fluid motions of the sun may have been modulated by all the gravitational bodies going around it, in the same way that the moon ended up looking with the same face on the earth. In that case, planetary motions and sun energy swirlings could have a similar frequency analysis spectrum and be correlated, not because of causation in the present, but because they are two giant clocks that have become synchronous over untold millenia.
    (This would for example account for the 11 year coincidence.)
    But this is just a hypothesis. […] we have to wait for a verified solid model of the sun behavior as well as a better gauge of climate than global temperature, which is a cousin four times removed from the energy of the system.”

    I agree, with the exception of the bit which I have omitted (“[…]”).
    I will support the dismissal of the 11 year coincidence as possibly a fossil, in part because of what I learned from pursuing the following:
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VaughanPL2009_11.1aCycleSSD.htm
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SunspotsJEV.htm
    I’ve never bothered tidying up the loose ends of those investigations for the simple reason that it would not be worth the effort. I learned all I needed to know: There is *loose* coincidence with J+N. Anna’s speculation is interesting, in part because if there is anything (physical) to her speculation it might help explain why the phase-concordance appears so loose.

  131. If anyone has any doubts about an overwhelming planetary-solar activity correlational link then they do not have to look any further than the seminal
    work of Paul Vaughan.
    Paul’s graphs are often hard to fathom/follow but if you take the time you will find that he knows what he is talking about on this subject. A truly brilliant mind and someone who has laid the very foundations for future study in this area.

  132. vukcevic says:
    June 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    Period 1600 – 1700 was time of a major magnetic perturbation not only in the solar activity but also in the Earth’s magnetic field. and most likely it was solar system wide.
    You have no evidence that any of this [which is overblown to begin with] is connected.
    tallbloke says:
    June 5, 2010 at 1:34 am
    The vertical tides (caused by the planets on the sun) are small, just as the vertical tide caused by the moon on the earth is small, but the horizontal tides are huge in comparison
    anything is huge compared to a millimeter. I would expect the tidal bulge to be of the order of 100,000 km and 1 millimeter high. This has no effect on anything.
    Paul Vaughan says:
    June 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm
    it is very good to see so many folks explicitly drawing attention to confounding.
    It looks to me that you are confounding and conflating a lot of unrelated things.

  133. Kind words Ninderthana, but readers should be aware that I changed my position quite fundamentally in March 2010. One will note the sharp change, for example, here: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/what-is-the-solar-planetary-theory/ .

    Leif wrote: “It looks to me that you are confounding and conflating a lot of unrelated things.”
    Perhaps you are skeptical that I have truly changed my position? I will be more clear: I have changed my position.

  134. vukcevic says:
    June 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    Period 1600 – 1700 was time of a major magnetic perturbation not only in the solar activity but also in the Earth’s magnetic field.
    It wasn’t. Here are the dipole moments since 1550. Nothing special going on except a steady decrease:
    Year Dipole Moment x 1015Tm3
    (degrees) Co-latitude
    (degrees) East Longitude
    (degrees)
    1990 7.84 10.8 289.0
    1950 8.07 11.5 291.1
    1900 8.27 11.5 292.0
    1850 8.47 11.5 295.6
    1800 8.61 10.8 301.0
    1750 8.84 10.1 305.4
    1700 9.00 8.3 314.6
    1650 9.18 7.0 322.3
    1600 9.36 5.4 330.3
    1550 9.54 3.1 334.1

  135. I am very pleased to see wattsupwiththat publishing articles that support Landscheidts theories. I never understood why Anthony didn’t like people writing about Landscheidt theories? I am an agricultural scientist, I greatly admire Landscheidts ability to predict major weather events like el Nino events, the end of the ethiopian drought and the prediction about favourable rainfall continuing in the US midwest this decade. Its pretty obvious to me as an amateur climate scientist that there is a periodicity in the worlds temperature record. It seems there is no better explanation than it involves the rotation of the large planets as the data lines up too well. The exact mechanism of why the changes happen we don’t know. When I try to solve a problem I look for the best correlations and then look for possible mechanisms. A sound explanation of the actual mechanism(s) may not happen in the next decade, but lets not be skeptical of these interesting data set match ups because we can’t explain how they work.

  136. Paul Vaughan says:
    June 5, 2010 at 7:51 pm
    I will be more clear: I have changed my position.
    I don’t know what your position was or now is. Perhaps simply state it in straight English…

  137. I hate writing replies like this because I doubt they will receive serious consideration, but, I don’t think surface velocity is where to look for a gravitational effect.
    The sun’s core is defined by a burn wave with a strong discontinuity, i.e. high density of helium on the inside and almost completely hydrogen on the outside of the burn wave. Basically, the sun has a ball of about four times the density of the surrounding environment sitting in its center. Any net gravitational force on the body of the sun will shift this core relative the the rest of the sun. Any shifting of this helium core will make more hydrogen available for reaction. I’m sure it will be more complicated to model, but, it’s obvious that there will be some influence. My point is that 20 m/s is nothing to a plasma whose temperature varies from 5000K to 100,000K. And since this idea of a shifting core is so obvious, I’m sure someone has already considered it. Why not give this idea equal time?

  138. JDN says:
    June 5, 2010 at 8:17 pm
    Any net gravitational force on the body of the sun will shift this core relative to the rest of the sun.
    No, it will not.

  139. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 5, 2010 at 6:39 am
    Both gravity AND magnetism from the planets are three orders of magnitude smaller than that of the Sun. On the Earth we have exquisitely sensitive devices capable of measuring these forces and there are essentially NO traces of any planetary influences.
    No trace that we know of, yet.
    I have said this before, and I’ll say it again: You may dismiss NOT A THING until there is ABSOLUTE PROOF of no affect.
    You might say ‘so small as to be unimportant,’ but in the end until you know for sure, then everything counts, no matter how seemingly small.
    Look at how weak gravity is compared to all of the other forces in the universe …
    The key which open a door is but a few ounces to the many pounds it helps move.

  140. Mike says:
    My preferred version is ‘Keep it simple, but don’t be stupid.’
    Perhaps you should be following your own advice?

  141. The gas giants have other characteristics than gravitational pull. They also have substantial magnetic fields that have a rather remarkable extant. I suppose they are still (vastly)too small, but might the position of their magnetic tails have an impact on the heliospheric boundary position or condition, and somehow affect GCRs reaching Earth’s atmosphere, just as the more familiar solar cycle more directly does?
    Just wondering aloud far too late at night.

  142. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    June 5, 2010 at 6:41 am
    True. Tidal forces exist. However they are exceedingly small on the surface of the Sun, in the order of submillimeters if my memory serves me. Compared to the size and mass of the Sun, these effects are completely negligible.
    And you’ve paid a visit to the Sun to absolutely ascertain just that, right?
    Allow me to ask: I an object in flux easier to influence, or harder to influence?

  143. Richard Lindzen on Milankovitch Cycles, not correlated to temperature but to time rate of change of temperature

  144. it looks like Scafetta is not saying his work is about Saturn and Jupiter’s gravitational effect on earth but their effect on earth is via their gravitational effect on the sun.
    some seem to be insisting the former

  145. JDN says:
    June 5, 2010 at 8:17 pm
    I hate writing replies like this because I doubt they will receive serious consideration, but, I don’t think surface velocity is where to look for a gravitational effect.
    The sun’s core is defined by a burn wave with a strong discontinuity, i.e. high density of helium on the inside and almost completely hydrogen on the outside of the burn wave. Basically, the sun has a ball of about four times the density of the surrounding environment sitting in its center. Any net gravitational force on the body of the sun will shift this core relative the the rest of the sun. Any shifting of this helium core will make more hydrogen available for reaction.

    Have a look at Ray Tomes theory on this subject. He calculates that the core wouldn’t have to shift very far at all to cause significant flows on the surface of the sun.
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2930&sid=58e96ce6e11f09b0c55ada4fded36396

  146. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 5, 2010 at 9:39 am
    Tenuc says:
    June 5, 2010 at 8:35 am
    SDO also monitors the sun’s extreme UV output, which controls the response of Earth’s atmosphere to solar variability.”
    Is this a hint about the Earth’s missing climate ‘solar switch’, or something else ???
    The usual confusion: what NASA mean is the UPPER atmosphere above [say] 100 km where solar activity controls the temperature and density [important for satellite drag, etc].

    But of course, that would never affect the Earth’s climate, right, Leif?
    Not in a million years, right?

  147. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 5, 2010 at 7:35 pm
    I would expect the tidal bulge to be of the order of 100,000 km and 1 millimeter high. This has no effect on anything.

    Way to go Leif. Ignore Geogieva’s empirical observations and deny deny deny deny.
    K.Georgieva et al., Planetary tidal effects on solar activity, 2009.
    Solar-Terrestrial Influences Laboratory of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad. G. Bonchev str., Bl.3, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria

  148. I’ve got a potentially plausible explanation that could help. Since solar tides are on the order of 1 mm high, perhaps instead of the planets affecting the solar cycle, the solar cycle could have affected, over geologic time, could have affected the spacing between the planets. We don’t really know why the planets formed where they do. Of course, at least in our solar system, there is a degree of regularity in planetary spacing.
    Now to go anywhere with this, we might need observations on ten to one hundred solar systems with planets with sizes in the Mercury to Jupiter range, and compare their distances, sunspot and temperature cycles. I’m pretty sure we would learn something useful, and it might take less than one thousand years to complete.
    I’m not sure how to write this up as a grant proposal, and in the current AGW climate it might be better to wait another five years, but I’m sure the Russians would be interested.

  149. I have said this before, and I’ll say it again: You may dismiss NOT A THING until there is ABSOLUTE PROOF of no affect.
    And if frogs had wings they would not bump their ass when they jump. There is no absolute proof in science. Actually global warming is caused by time travelling aliens.
    .do not dismiss a thing without absolute proof.
    In actuality we only need posit those things REQUIRED to make an theory work. Its not about ruling things OUT. Its about positing things as causes and then testing.

  150. tallbloke says:
    June 4, 2010 at 4:59 pm
    steven mosher says:
    June 4, 2010 at 3:47 pm
    1. I hope that Dr. Niki is more willing to share his code and data this time around. or will he use the same tactics he has in the past? The last go round we had with him he was as bad or worse than Jones or Mann.
    Maybe it’s in the way you ask. Perhaps dissing the man as a “numerologist” in the same post isn’t the best entree to an open exchange of code.”
    you do not know the history. you cannot speak with authority. You can go to climate audit and search for the thread where Steve McIntyre and the rest of us asked him for his code and he played stupid games and in the end refused. Steve asked nicely.
    But lets see, you ask nicely, or anyone else ask nicely. Seriously, what kind of argument is yours? he shouldnt share his code with the rest of you because I called him a numerologist? I called Mike Mann the Piltdown Mann, perhaps you think he has a right not to share code now?

  151. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 5, 2010 at 9:03 pm
    JDN says:
    June 5, 2010 at 8:17 pm
    Any net gravitational force on the body of the sun will shift this core relative to the rest of the sun.
    No, it will not.
    Really?
    Got certifiable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof of such?
    Bring it on. Leif!
    Otherwise, keep an open mind.

  152. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 4, 2010 at 9:57 pm
    “Anyone remember the NASA that put a man on the moon? What a different time that was! With the way NASA is now, heck, maybe I should believe the moon landing was faked in Hollywood. ;-)”
    Remember that putting a man to the moon was outsourced to a group of german forced immigrants.

  153. Scafetta:
    “My smooth is obtained with the MODWT itself. I do not know why BS09 used such a polynomial fit. Probably because by adopting a periodic padding their MODWT smooth component looked horrible. The point in 2000 was merging the point in 1900!
    So, they preferred a nice polynomial fit.
    But I really do not know, please ask them.
    Steve:
    right now I do not have time to post a code, I do not use your R program. My codes with all the libraries are a mess. I will prepare a nice code and put it online, but I will not be able to do it right now. Just a few days.”
    That was august 9 2009. Promise made by Scafetta. not kept. Not because he wasnt asked nicely. His code is likely an embarassing mess. Since 2007 a group of us have consistently asked for access to the code and data of climate science. Aint gunna stop, and aint gunna cut nobody any slack.
    We are still waiting.

  154. peterhodges says:
    June 5, 2010 at 10:26 pm
    mathman says:
    June 5, 2010 at 7:42 am
    Just how difficult would it be to do a correlation of these cyclic phenomena with the ice core data?
    Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles, and Carbon Dioxide, Authors: Gerald E. Marsh
    ice cores, seabed cores, and even speleo-whatchacallums!
    i would love to see a whole post dedicated to just this paper. the bibliography alone is a treasure trove.

    As would I, but it seems that many cannot see the ~content~ of the tree rings for the forest …
    Pity.

  155. Steven mosher says:
    June 6, 2010 at 1:09 am
    I have said this before, and I’ll say it again: You may dismiss NOT A THING until there is ABSOLUTE PROOF of no affect.
    And if frogs had wings they would not bump their ass when they jump. There is no absolute proof in science. Actually global warming is caused by time travelling aliens.
    .do not dismiss a thing without absolute proof.
    In actuality we only need posit those things REQUIRED to make an theory work. Its not about ruling things OUT. Its about positing things as causes and then testing.

    [1] If frogs had wings, they’d STILL bump their arses upon landing.
    [2] Since you seem so enamored of ‘time-traveling space aliens,’ then you must prove prove of their existence. You mentioned them first, ergo you are required to provide proof. Fantasy does NOT count as proof.
    [3] If the only thing required to make a theory work is the point of a government gun pointed at your head, then we’ll guess the WWII Germany was a blazing success for the Jews.
    Right?

  156. Steven mosher says:
    June 6, 2010 at 1:29 am
    You can go to climate audit and search for the thread where Steve McIntyre and the rest of us asked him for his code and he played stupid games and in the end refused. Steve asked nicely.

    I don’t need to search for the thread, I was reading it as it was happening. My recollection is different to yours though. As I remember it, Steve M posted a graph he’d made from the data and said Nicola Scafetta had got it wrong. Then Nicola S posted saying that he was sure Steve was smart enough to spot his own error, but he would give him a while to work it out. He was then accused of being coy, silly and worse, and so he declined to share.
    Here is the initial exchange:
    nicola scafetta
    Posted Aug 9, 2009 at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Reply
    Steve,
    I was joking. 🙂
    The reason why I do not want to tell you the solution is because I want to show that if somebody (you or your readers) thinks a little bit he can find the solution by himself because it is very very simple.
    So, let us take it as a summer math problem. Let us see if somebody find the solution and explain why, OK?
    ciao, ciao
    nicola
    *
    Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 9, 2009 at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Reply
    Re: nicola scafetta (#9),
    Nicola, while the problem may be very interesting to you, it’s only marginally interesting to me. I’m covering a lot of topics here and am not personally interested in such a game. Particularly if it’s got something to do with phase displacement in wavelets or something like that.
    *
    steven mosher
    Posted Aug 9, 2009 at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Reply
    Re: nicola scafetta (#9),
    If you posted your code, we would not have to waste time on silly games. In the time it takes you to read the post, make your comments, etc, you could have just posted the code.
    ==========================================================
    Seriously, what kind of argument is yours? he shouldnt share his code with the rest of you because I called him a numerologist? ?
    Nicola Scafetta has been happy to share his data and ideas privately with me, but then, I treat him with respect, and I share stuff useful to him in return. You call him out as a silly game playing numerologist without taking the trouble to really understand what he is saying or offering any useful well informed criticism.
    You talk a lot about others sharing, but sharing is a two way street. What are you offering in return?

  157. Nicola has shown a correlation between SSB distance plus solar velocity and the modulation of Earth’s climate….this is the focal point.
    The SSB distance between 1970 and 2000 experienced the greatest high because of Uranus & Neptune, this also correlates with one of the big rises in Earth temperatures. The IPCC are riding the outer gas giant wave, but it has crashed…we are just beginning to see their demise.

  158. Paul Vaughan says:
    June 6, 2010 at 3:28 am
    Re: Steven mosher
    What data & code are you looking for? Everything you need is here:
    http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons

    And the same data proves the imbalance of angular momentum between the Sun and the rest of the solar system mass.
    The mechanism has been provided and yet no challenge?

  159. 899 says:
    June 6, 2010 at 1:36 am
    “Any net gravitational force on the body of the sun will shift this core relative to the rest of the sun.”
    No, it will not.
    Got certifiable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof of such?

  160. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 6, 2010 at 6:12 am
    899 says:
    June 6, 2010 at 1:36 am
    “Any net gravitational force on the body of the sun will shift this core relative to the rest of the sun.”
    No, it will not.
    Got certifiable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof of such?
    Well? I don’t see what it is you’re trying to prove.

  161. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 6, 2010 at 6:15 am
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 6, 2010 at 6:12 am
    “Got certifiable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof of such?”
    or click

    Pity.
    I don’t do ‘YouTube,’ because it has been proven to be loaded with imbedded viruses and Trojans, and google tracks the movements of all is users so that it can sell your data to the highest bidder.
    Now what?

  162. Smokey says:
    June 6, 2010 at 8:00 am
    Leif: ☺ [couldn’t resist]
    The ‘Hoax’ bit just shows the depths of science illiteracy of the general public, including [and especially] many posters here.

  163. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 6, 2010 at 6:15 am
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 6, 2010 at 6:12 am
    “Got certifiable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof of such?”
    or click

    Well, I ‘clicked’ and I got this:

  164. 899 says:
    June 6, 2010 at 8:03 am
    Now what?
    Aristotle [about 2000 years ago] thought [like you] that heavier bodies fall faster than lighter ones. Galileo showed that this was false, and astronauts on the Moon made that visual for all to see. That is what the YouTube clip showed. That one has to ‘debate’ this today shows how low science literacy is.

  165. tallbloke says:
    June 4, 2010 at 4:34 pm
    Just for fun, I’ll keep a gratuitous insult count on this thread.
    Eric Gisin – Astrology
    Steven Mosher – Numerology, Silly games
    Leif Svalgaard – the depths of science illiteracy of the general public, including [and especially] many posters here.

  166. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 5, 2010 at 9:03 pm
    JDN says:
    June 5, 2010 at 8:17 pm
    Any net gravitational force on the body of the sun will shift this core relative to the rest of the sun.
    No, it will not.
    This is embarassing, but, Leif is right. I was arguing by false analogy.

  167. I would like to thank you for your interest in my research. I would like to ask the people, in particular those who criticize my paper to read it first.
    Re: Steven Mosher
    In brief I would like to ask Steven not to fall in the propaganda traps of Gavin and Rasmus. The data and the codes were never the issue. The issue was that Gavin and Rasmus do not know how to deal with the border conditions. See this post
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/scafetta-benestad-and-schmidt%E2%80%99s-calculations-are-%E2%80%9Crobustly%E2%80%9D-flawed/
    Then Gavin and Rasmus wanted to divert the public attention from their true mathematical errors on the fictitious problem of the code and the data and put the blame of their poor mathematical understanding on me. They had both data and codes. They did not know how to use them also because they did not read well my papers where everything is clearly explained!
    Re: Leif Svalgaard
    I would like also to ask Leif to read my paper before he criticized them. He really does not appear to have any interest in understanding a scientific argument. I also came to the Sorce Science meeting in part because of your suggestion, but you did not care to spend with me even 30 seconds. I could explain you many things.
    In my paper I have NEVER claimed that the barycentric movement of the sun is the physical cause of the climate oscillations. What I say is that the barycentric movement of the sun can be used as a PROXY for calculating the frequencies of the oscillations of the solar system and their major patterns. These oscillations are shared, for simple mathematical reasons, by every physical function of the position of the planets. These functions include the barycentric movement as well as everything else including the not yet understood physical function (let us call it “Black Factor” is in symbiosis with the Black Matter, and Black Energy used by the astrophysicists to explain what they do not understand but that they observe) that is causing the climate oscillation that will be more detailed in another paper.
    About your understanding of the tides and of Galileo, I would like to remind you that Galileo was the person who argued that the revolution of the Earth around the sun was “proven” by solar tides on the Earth. We today know that these solar tides do exist although they are small.
    Therefore, I would like to suggest the hypothesis that the Good God might have created the universe (including the solar system with everything included) in a different way than what you have understood. So, please, keep an open mind in particular when the empirical evidences, as I show in my paper, are so strong.

  168. someone school me here.
    gravitation acts proportionally between two masses.
    therefore, two heavier masses will attract with a greater force than two lighter masses.
    so shouldn’t the hammer and the moon fall together faster than the feather and moon?
    what if we dropped something with mass of say, jupiter, and a feather?
    and i will of course google the matter…

  169. i did not even need google. my cheat sheet from college physics was still in my calculator case! but i still might not be understanding something fundamental, but:
    f=Gm1m2/r^2
    m1 stays the same
    m2 gets larger
    therefore f gets larger
    if f=ma then the two greater masses should attract ‘faster’

  170. peterhodges,
    Gravitational acceleration is per second per second squared and applies to any mass. If larger objects fell faster, then there would be no atmosphere because individual molecules, being extremely light, would have so little acceleration that they would be bumped into outer space by collisions with other molecules.

  171. peterhodges says:
    June 6, 2010 at 11:34 am
    if f=ma then the two greater masses should attract ‘faster’

    This is counteracted by the fact that more massive objects have greater inertia to overcome, so the larger force balances the overcoming of the inertia and the acceleration remains the same.

  172. So Nicola, great paper and yes the data is too overwhelmingly interesting to be ignored.
    What’s your call on the current solar cycle? Do you think we are into a Dalton repeat? I am quite worried the Katla volcano is going to blow during the current prolonged minimum and affect world grain production. The Katla volcano seems to be blowing every 95-100 years 1625, 1721, 1823, 1918, 2010?? Four of the last 7 blows have been on the 95-100 year cycle. Do you believe that volcanic activity in the northern hemisphere is linked with prolonged solar minimums?

  173. Re: Tenuc
    Thanks for drawing our attention to this “Black Swan Theory”. “Ludic fallacy” is a particularly relevant term in the climate discussion.

    Thanks to Nicola Scafetta & Ninderthana for dropping by to grace this discussion.

  174. Which of course begs the question, “Why is it that the gravitational force is so neatly proportioned to the inertial force”.
    Answer, “nobody knows”. Einstein said they are equivalent, but didn’t (couldn’t) explain further.
    This begs the further question that if some people claim Einstein did away with the ‘action at a distance’ (occult force) of gravity by saying space bends round mass and everything orbiting it is in freefall, how does the equivalence with inertia arise?

  175. Back to Basics having read the article in full btw
    1. Correlation is not causation and if you know you are looking for celestial cycles of say 11,22 and 60 then you can easily find them BUT
    2. Cycles of that length are clearly there
    3. There is no convincing external cause at the moment
    AND
    4. At least the hypothesis/ theory is testable – we just have to wait about 5o years
    Hindcasting might help but now we are into proxys and their accuracy to make one
    So I conclude.. can’t rule the hypothesis out but without a causation theory it is going to remain on the fringes

  176. Disclaimer: I’ve only read parts of NS’s paper. I do not do research in this field and will only share a few observations. I’ve only read a fraction of the comments above, so I hope I am not being repetitive.
    There are a number of problems in the background review. These indicate a one-sidedness that the reviewer should have objected to.
    NS: “For instance, the IPCC claims that more than 90% of the observed warming since 1900 and practically 100% of the observed warming since 1970 have had an anthropogenic origin (see figure 9.5 in IPCC, AR4-WG1). The latter conclusion derivesmerely from the fact that climate models referenced by the IPCC cannot explain the warming occurred since 1970 with any known natural mechanism.”
    Figure 9.5 is in section 9.4.1.2: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html
    No percentages are given in this section of the IPCC report. The section explains: “The fact that climate models are only able to reproduce observed global mean temperature changes over the 20th century when they include anthropogenic forcings, and that they fail to do so when they exclude anthropogenic forcings, is evidence for the influence of humans on global climate. Further evidence is provided by spatial patterns of temperature change.” NS ignores this last statement and the evidence given for it. The section goes on to say: “There is much greater similarity between the general evolution of the warming in observations and that simulated by models when anthropogenic and natural forcings are included than when only natural forcing is included.” Further evidence is given in 9.4.1.4.
    NS: “Over a much longer time scale the cosmic-ray flux record well correlates with the warm and ice periods of the Phanerozoic during the last 600 million years: the cosmic-ray flux oscillations are likely due to the changing galactic environment of the solar system as it crosses the spiral arms of the Milky Way [Shaviv, 2003, 2008; Shaviv and Veizer, 2003; Svensmark, 2007].”
    But NS should acknowledge that this view is disputed. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/] He is entitled to his view, but any scientific article has to acknowledge serious disputes about ideas it is claiming to build on.
    The paragraph, below, on the Chinese calendar should have been deleted. Its presence may be the forensic evidence of weak refereeing.
    NS: “Interestingly, the traditional Chinese calendar, whose origins can be traced as far back as the 14th century BCE, is arranged in major 60-year cycles [Aslaksen, 1999]. Each year is assigned a name consisting of two components. The first component is one of the 10 Heavenly Stems (Jia, Yi, Bing, etc.), while the second component is one of the 12 Earthly Branches that features the names of 12 animals (Zi, Chou, Yin, etc.). Every 60 years the stem-branch cycle repeats. Perhaps, this sexagenary cyclical calendar was inspired by climatic and astronomical observations.”
    The major problems are with the science. NS claims to tease out a ~60 year cycle in global mean temperature. This not new and has been disputed. [http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/cyclical-not/ ] A times series data set will likely have some peaks in its frequency spectrum. But this may be spurious and since the cycle time is on the same order as the length of the data set, this is even more likely to be spurious. In this case NS finds the ~60 cycle after subtracting out a parabolic curve. Well, the upward arc of that curve is what we are all worried about.
    NS finds that there is a ~60 cycle involving the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. Well, since 60=60, there must be a connection! As pointed out recently of Real Climate: “You can’t do attribution based only on statistics.” [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/on-attribution/] If NS had produced model using data from say 1850-1950 and used this to predict data from 1950 – 2010, that would be interesting.
    The lack of a physical mechanism is of course a problem with astrology in general. NS does address this. To his credit he does not claim to have found one, but speculates on some possibilities. He hypothesizes that tidal forces of J & S on the sun may change solar irradiance. One test of NS’s hypothesis would be to see if there is a similar 60 year cycle on Mars. Maybe telescope observations of the Marian “ice” caps go back far enough to attempt this.

  177. Just a short reply to Mike who has read partially my paper.
    1) “No percentages are given in this section of the IPCC report.” etc…
    I am referring directly to the results depicted in figure 9.5 in IPCC, AR4-WG1.
    This figure clearly suggests that 90% of the warming since 1900 and 100% of the warming since 1970 has been due to human emissions according to the IPCC model simulations. Look carefully figure 9.5b and try to do some simple calculation.
    2)About “the warm and ice periods of the Phanerozoic during the last 600 million years” etc.
    This is not the major topic of the paper. There is no need to extensively talk about the references pro and contra the details of this theory.
    3) “The paragraph, below, on the Chinese calendar should have been deleted” etc
    And why? Don’t you like the idea that a natural 60-year cycle might have been noted by major civilizations per centuries? Or perhaps you do not like history?
    4) “In this case NS finds the ~60 cycle after subtracting out a parabolic curve.” etc
    The 60 year cycle is found in multiple ways to do the calculations. The power spectrum analysis does not subtract anything. The existence of a 60-year cycle is clear from all calculations.
    5) “NS finds that there is a ~60 cycle involving the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. Well, since 60=60, there must be a connection!” etc
    I found much more that just the 60 year cycle. Other cycle match as well and there is synchrony.
    6) “If NS had produced model using data from say 1850-1950 and used this to predict data from 1950 – 2010” etc
    That is actually what the model also does.
    7) “He hypothesizes that tidal forces of J & S on the sun may change solar irradiance.”
    I hypothesize more than that.
    8) “Disclaimer: I’ve only read parts of NS’s paper.”
    Do not imitate Leif Svalgaard.
    Read the paper a coupled of times and then think before writing.

  178. Nicola: Thanks for responding. I doubt many here have read your paper carefully – at least I admitted it! Obviously one cannot do a serious evaluation of a paper in few hours. This is a blog after all and not a journal. I will look at your paper again but probably won’t post on it. I have a some traveling to do and there is little point to posting on a topic here after a week.
    Try and have some fun this summer before the planet burns up. 😉

  179. Nicola,
    Any thoughts on testing your hypothesis by looking at Mars? Is that at all feasible?

  180. In some ways it is unfortunate that one of the most important parts of Nicola Scafetta’s paper is in the appendix on coupled oscillators, outside the main body of the paper.
    Every third conjunction of Jupiter/Saturn takes place in the same spot in the sky to within a very small angle. There is a slow precession such that it takes some hundreds of years before the conjunction once again returns to the same point. The phasing is coincident with the major historically observed climate changes Roman Warm Period – Cold Dark Ages Period – Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age – Modern Warm Period.
    Could it be that the periodic alignment of the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction with the galactic centre might provide the external perturbation which explains both the sixty year cycle whch doesn’t necessarily strongly feature at all historical epochs (every third conjunction lining up with the galactic centre – or not) and the longer term climate cycles we observe in the Earth’s climate (gradual precession of the conjunction)?

  181. Mike says:
    June 6, 2010 at 4:58 pm
    The paragraph, below, on the Chinese calendar should have been deleted. Its presence may be the forensic evidence of weak refereeing.

    Perhaps the referees are more aware than you are that the Chinese kept very careful records of the times of the spring flowering of a range of plants.
    NS should acknowledge that this view is disputed. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/] He is entitled to his view, but any scientific article has to acknowledge serious disputes about ideas it is claiming to build on…. Tamino
    Gavin Schmidt is a paid propagandist whose website contains much inaccuracy. He has also co-written a paper on solar forcing which was given a good kicking by Nicola Scafetta a while ago in the published literature. Tamino (Grant Hutchison) is another pro AGW propagandist whose statistical contortions and acrobatics make me smile.
    You can torture the data until it confesses – even to crimes it did not commit.

  182. Carsten,
    Saying the sun is “in free fall” is meaningless. All objects in orbit around another object are in free fall. Firstly, the Sun is in orbit around the solar system barycenter. I very much doubt that Leif is claiming its not under gravitational influence from the planets.
    Gravitational influence is the primary method by which astronomers are able to detect planets orbiting other stars.
    Secondly, the Solar System is in orbit around the galaxy. Escape velocity from the Solar System is 42.1 km/sec, but velocity to escape from the galaxy is 551 km/sec, rather significant. The solar systems velocity around the galactic center is about half that speed.
    The angular momentum of all objects in the solar system is, in fact, conserved. When the rotation of the earth slows down, the moon moves further out in its orbit. When the rotation speeds up, the moon is brought closer in. This tidal relationship is the primary means by which the Earth’s magnetic field is generated as the Earth’s core spins slightly faster than the mantle, causing the geomagnetic dynamo to be generated.
    Similarly, when the Sun’s spin slows, it is because the planets absorb angular momentum from it via gravitational frame dragging, and the distance of their orbits increases. When the spin speeds up, the sun absorbs angular momentum from the planets.

  183. [this has gone too far. Leif is sometimes not as polite as we would like him to be, but he is dead on here. Despite allowing disparate viewpoints here, it safe to say that we have no need to allow moonwalk hoax theories, chemtrails conspiracy theorists, 9/11 truthers, anti Newtonian dynamics conspiracy theorists, and various other tinfoil hat wearing commentary. I came to this party late, but I own the wet blanket and I will use it. ~ charles the moderator]

  184. JDN says:
    June 6, 2010 at 10:00 am
    899:
    Here’s the proof:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
    I just wasn’t using them when I wrote my first post. Sorry guys.

    Additionally, Shell’s theory is extremely faulted.
    From your URL:
    “3. Inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero at the centre of mass.”
    That’s impossible for the following reason: If one is at the center of a mass, then the rest of the mass adjacent MUST ALSO exert a gravitational force upon the center itself.

  185. If there exists a modulation of the moon/sun tides from paleo planetary synchronisation, a frequency study of the tides should bring it out.

  186. In the focus on peripheral “60 year” NH nonlinear continentality, the “90 year” maritime circulatory core is being overlooked.
    This is what is being missed:
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_SO_SEP_MSI_IVI2.png
    These guys were on to something:
    1) Adams, J.B.; Mann, M.E.; & Ammann, C.M. (2003). Proxy Evidence for an El Nino-like Response to Volcanic Forcing. Nature 426, 274-278.
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Adamsetal-Nature03.pdf
    2) Kerr, R.A. (2003). Volcanic Blasts Favor El Nino Warmings. Science 299, 336-337.
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Kerr%282003%29_VolENSO.pdf
    But it’s not just SOI, it’s SOI+L90 (in recent times, at least).
    Generally, stratospheric eruptions occur when Southern Ocean (SO) & Southeast Pacific (SEP) sea surface temperature (SST) is high. (In interpreting the graph, bear in mind that MSI records end at 1970, whereas SAOT & IVI2 go to 2000.) The largest SAOT events occur when SO & SEP SST is highest. Also, as is well known, stratospheric eruptions lead to cooling via optical extinction.
    i.e.:
    The spinning southern maritime hub and stratospheric eruptions appear to be coupled as mutual coolants.
    [Abbreviations/details: http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm (update added June 7, 2010)]
    In summary:
    We should be focused on lunisolar tides.
    [Note to diehards: If there’s something planetary &/or solar, it might have to wait until forces/factors of larger magnitude are first understood.]

  187. Mike says:
    June 6, 2010 at 4:58 pm
    Disclaimer: I’ve only read parts of NS’s paper. I do not do research in this field and will only share a few observations. I’ve only read a fraction of the comments above, so I hope I am not being repetitive.[–snip rest–]
    Yes, you are being repetitive!
    Why in the blazes would ANYONE refer to ‘realclimate’ as a source of any kind of information, unless s/he has it in mind to purvey snake oil?
    It’s nought but a propaganda organ of the severely brain damaged!

  188. we have no need to allow … anti Newtonian dynamics conspiracy theorists… ~ charles the moderator]
    Yeah, right on Charles. Get out of here Einstein!
    Lol.
    😉
    Reply: I figured someone would point out that flaw in my logic. Okay Newtonian dynamics are only approximations which work well at normal velocities and accelerations. ~ ctm

  189. Paul Vaughan says:
    June 7, 2010 at 2:22 am
    In summary:
    We should be focused on lunisolar tides.
    [Note to diehards: If there’s something planetary &/or solar, it might have to wait until forces/factors of larger magnitude are first understood.]

    Loud and clear Paul. Ian Wilson is headed the same way too, along with Richard Holle, Harald Yndestad, William Turrell, and Vladimir Ozhigin.
    One of the first posts on my blog was:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/the-moon-is-linked-to-long-term-atlantic-changes/
    But I’m going to hedge my bets here and say that both Lunar and Solar-planetary dynamics should be pursued with equal vigour, because it’s a wide open field and there is much to be discovered.

  190. 899 says:
    June 7, 2010 at 1:28 am
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
    Shell’s theory is extremely faulted.
    If one is at the center of a mass, then the rest of the mass adjacent MUST ALSO exert a gravitational force upon the center itself.

    Yes, but since the adjacent mass surrounds the centre 360 degrees in all planes the force cancels to zero.
    However in the sun, there could, according to Ray Tomes theory, be a relativistic effect of the planet’s gravitational pull which causes the dense matter at the solar core to shift relative to the less dense layers above, producing large meridional flows at the surface, potentially affecting sunspot production.
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2930

  191. tallbloke says:
    June 6, 2010 at 11:33 pm
    In some ways it is unfortunate that one of the most important parts of Nicola Scafetta’s paper is in the appendix on coupled oscillators, outside the main body of the paper.
    Every third conjunction of Jupiter/Saturn takes place in the same spot in the sky to within a very small angle. There is a slow precession such that it takes some hundreds of years before the conjunction once again returns to the same point. The phasing is coincident with the major historically observed climate changes Roman Warm Period – Cold Dark Ages Period – Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age – Modern Warm Period.
    Could it be that the periodic alignment of the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction with the galactic centre might provide the external perturbation which explains both the sixty year cycle whch doesn’t necessarily strongly feature at all historical epochs (every third conjunction lining up with the galactic centre – or not) and the longer term climate cycles we observe in the Earth’s climate (gradual precession of the conjunction)?

    In some ways it comes off as ‘science fictional’ in theme, but the thing which blows my mind is that the data all correlate to reality.
    I am wont to remark –as have others– that correlation doesn’t equal causation.
    BUT, after how many times must one event take place before there is seen to be a direct connection between it and another event?
    “Once Is Chance, Twice is Coincidence, Third Time Is A Pattern.”

  192. tallbloke says:
    June 6, 2010 at 1:35 pm
    Which of course begs the question, “Why is it that the gravitational force is so neatly proportioned to the inertial force”.
    Answer, “nobody knows”. Einstein said they are equivalent, but didn’t (couldn’t) explain further.
    This begs the further question that if some people claim Einstein did away with the ‘action at a distance’ (occult force) of gravity by saying space bends round mass and everything orbiting it is in freefall, how does the equivalence with inertia arise?

    Mass and energy.
    Mass is everything. No mass? No inertia, and no gravitational force, and no energy.
    Light is energy, energy is affected by mass and conversely so. How hard can it be?

  193. tallbloke says:
    June 7, 2010 at 3:00 am
    899 says:
    June 7, 2010 at 1:28 am
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
    Shell’s theory is extremely faulted.
    If one is at the center of a mass, then the rest of the mass adjacent MUST ALSO exert a gravitational force upon the center itself.
    Yes, but since the adjacent mass surrounds the centre 360 degrees in all planes the force cancels to zero.
    That only works with a pure and singular substance which is a completely perfect spheroid. The Earth is not that!
    It won’t work on Earth for just those reasons. In order to achieve what the URL states, the center would have to be significantly offset and change with time. Chances are that being at the center would cause one to be drawn to the northern hemisphere, owing to the mass concentration at that location.
    Continuing:
    tallbloke says:
    June 7, 2010 at 3:00 am
    However in the sun, there could, according to Ray Tomes theory, be a relativistic effect of the planet’s gravitational pull which causes the dense matter at the solar core to shift relative to the less dense layers above, producing large meridional flows at the surface, potentially affecting sunspot production.
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2930

    Intriguing thought.

  194. Leif Svalgaard says: June 5, 2010 at 7:35 pm
    vukcevic says:June 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    Period 1600 – 1700 was time of a major magnetic perturbation not only in the solar activity but also in the Earth’s magnetic field. and most likely it was solar system wide.
    L.S. You have no evidence that any of this [which is overblown to begin with] is connected.
    True I have no physical evidence, however I have data of which you are very well aware.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
    Thus, I shall restate: The Earth’s magnetic field had a major shock during Maunder Min period.
    The upswing then followed by a drop (12-15% of the total by 1850), it can only be described as an ‘extraordinary GMF event’. The subsequent ripples, to any electronic, mechanical or acoustic engineer, are clear indication of a resonant system’s response.
    Further more it is possible (as I have suggested elsewhere) that since then, there is a direct relationship (of inverse proportionality) with the movement of the NH temperatures.

  195. tallbloke says:
    June 7, 2010 at 3:00 am
    according to Ray Tomes theory, be a relativistic effect of the planet’s gravitational pull which causes the dense matter at the solar core to shift relative to the less dense layers above, producing large meridional flows at the surface, potentially affecting sunspot production.
    There are two important papers ( 1.Wang, Lean, Sheely and 2. Solanki at al. ) on the subject of meridional flow.
    Links are here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm

  196. Vuk, it looks like the Earth’s magnetic field got stronger at the same time as the sun’s magnetism weakened. Whatsupwiththat?

  197. tallbloke says:
    June 5, 2010 at 1:34 am
    The vertical tides (caused by the planets on the sun) are small, just as the vertical tide caused by the moon on the earth is small, but the horizontal tides are huge in comparison, and they are the ones which cause much more tidal motion, same as those caused by the moon here on earth.
    Even tiny Mercury induces horizontal tides of hundreds of kilometers on the suns surface. Leif’s 1mm tide is a red herring.

    The vertical tides on the earth are not small, they are of the order of 30 cm even on solid ground, and 50 to 200cm in the ocean.
    Considering the difference in radii between earth and sun percentage wise the earth tides are huge.
    I do not know what you mean by horizontal tides, if you mean the reflection of the motion of the planetary body on the body it acts on , still the energies being transferred are tiny with respect with the energies governing the appearance of sunspots and magnetic formations.
    I will not tire of saying , it is the energy transferred that is important , and a track of a mosquito on a lake, even if it covers the length of the lake will not make a measurable difference to the fluid dynamics of the lake.

  198. tallbloke says:
    June 7, 2010 at 7:40 am
    Vuk, it looks like the Earth’s magnetic field got stronger at the same time as the sun’s magnetism weakened. Whatsupwiththat?
    Not the Alice’s in Wonderland world of the ‘upside-down’ logic. In many installations including the Large Hadron Collider plasma is kept caged by strong magnetic field. If sunspots are erupting from some depth, it is weaker magnetic field at that depth, that lets sunspot plasma erupt through.
    It is the MF down there that may or may not allow the upflows along magnetic flux tubes.
    http://www3.kis.uni-freiburg.de/~schliche/index-Dateien/showspot.png
    Notice field strength increment with depth.
    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/images/large/sunspotmdib.jpg
    Think of it this way: one of the electromagnets in the LHC fails and plasma drills its way through the casing, and hey presto a sunspots bursts in a little village on the Swiss-French border.
    Could we be wrong to make judgment on basis of appearances?
    I hope doc S. has lost interest in this thread, else I am going to end up in the sin-bin yet again.

  199. I took a quick look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem (since it was being discussed).
    What jumped out as me:
    “constant density”,
    “spherically symmetric”,
    “homogenous sphere”
    i.e. things Barkin cautions about (!) as being *inadequate* oversimplifications.
    Recommended:
    Read up on the north-south pressure oscillations Barkin discusses – & related relative-motions of inhomogeneous, nonspherical, eccentric shells.
    Barkin argues that conventionally-accepted (modeling) assumptions regarding the sphericity, concentricity, & uniformity (of physical properties) of Earth’s shells (core, mantle, hydrosphere, etc.) are overly-simplistic (i.e. they are [for some purposes] insufficient first-order approximations). He appears to be pioneering enhanced models of mutual gravitational interactions (based on relative non-spherical, eccentric mass-centre displacements) between shells and between shells & celestial bodies (sun, moon(s), & planets), with an aim of also accounting for heterogeneous & dynamic elasticity in interactions between shells.
    Barkin is thus pioneering a more realistic framework for conceptualizing the spatiotemporal patterns over which factors such as insolation, pressure, & wind integrate. For example, if one shell or some combination of shells shifts north (very slowly) over some decadal-timescale era, this coincides with a north-south asymmetry of pressure (& temperature) in other shells (as dynamic equilibrium adjusts), explaining (to some extent) roughly-oscillating north-south temporal patterns. Barkin gives specific examples for Earth & other celestial bodies.
    Cautionary Note:
    When hunting for signals, the equator is not the best dividing point (despite widespread lazy mainstream brain-dead convention) since the assumption of north-south asymmetry does *not* hold. The Earth’s features (in reality!) *must* be considered.
    Sidorenkov appears to have picked up on the significance of Barkin’s work. Many of Barkin’s papers deal with the relative motions of solid & interior layers of Earth & other celestial bodies, but I’ve found some evidence that in recent years some of his attention has been devoted to the terrestrial hydrosphere & atmosphere, which are the shells Sidorenkov investigates. For example, Barkin refers to the dynamics of 1998 as a “gallop”.
    tallbloke, you appear to have misunderstood my note. What I am saying (& I’ve no doubt you’ll agree) is that we cannot simply ignore clouds – i.e. if the elephant is standing on the mouse and we don’t notice the existence of the elephant, we may never think to move it to reveal the mouse.
    Sometimes sequence matters — cart-before-the-horse thing. However, I agree that it is important to keep interest in simple planets alive, as jumping straight to lunisolar dynamics isn’t the most efficient path (from an educational-progression perspective) for non-physicist-newcomers to the study of cycles.
    The spinning southern maritime hub and stratospheric eruptions appear to be coupled as mutual coolants.
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_SO_SEP_MSI_IVI2.png
    It’s SOI+L90 (not just SOI as M. Mann & others were exploring with limited success).

  200. “The temperature record presents a clear 60-year cycle that
    oscillates around an upward trend. In fact, we see the following
    30-year trends: 1850-1880, warming; 1880-1910, cooling;
    1910-1940, warming; 1940-1970, cooling; 1970-2000, warming;
    and, therefore, a probable cooling from 2000 to 2030.”
    Its far safer to go by the 90yr cycle that the AO exhibits, this maps the warmer climatic periods that the imaginary 60yr cycle misses, like the 1820/30`s, 1730/40`s.
    The 9/9.1yr temperature cycle has nothing to do with the Moon. Apply the logic of Earth/Venus/Jupiter and the sunspot cycle, to Earth/Venus/Saturn. Here you have your 9yr period. This is provable by the fact, that the tightest alignments of all three, is where the peak monthly warmings occur.
    Fine analysis of heliocentric planetary configurations, indicates a series of colder N.H winters from 2014 to the early 2020`s, and a lowering of world temperatures.
    2025 to 2038 will be a very warm period.

  201. Mike Lorrey says:
    June 7, 2010 at 12:45 am
    Carsten,
    Saying the sun is “in free fall” is meaningless. All objects in orbit around another object are in free fall. Firstly, the Sun is in orbit around the solar system barycenter. I very much doubt that Leif is claiming its not under gravitational influence from the planets.

    All objects in a gravitationally bound group of N objects (an “N-body system”) are in free fall. What is meaningless is to pick one and say it isn’t in free fall, and at the same time say the other objects in the same N-body system are in free fall.
    The Sun and the planets all play by the same rules, i.e. Newton’s law of gravity (assuming we stick to Newtonian theory). The Sun is just bigger (a lot) than the others, thats all.
    In an N-body system like our solar system, all objects influence all the other objects gravitationally, all the time. The magnitudes of these influences (i.e. how big the forces are), depend on the relative masses and relative distances. Some of these effects are much greater than the others, and the relative magnitudes vary as a function of time, as the positions change. Some forces are so small they remain negligible all the time, for example the tide on the Sun caused by Pluto.
    So when I say an effect is negligible, it doesn’t mean it does not exist, but it means it completely drowns in comparison with other, much larger influences.

    Gravitational influence is the primary method by which astronomers are able to detect planets orbiting other stars.

    Well, the planet has to be there to be detected. And it is where it is thanks to gravity. The method of detection is always indirect, though. Analysing light curves of the stars is the most effective way to detect exoplanets, it is so effective that it has been done by skilled amateurs.

    Secondly, the Solar System is in orbit around the galaxy. Escape velocity from the Solar System is 42.1 km/sec, but velocity to escape from the galaxy is 551 km/sec, rather significant. The solar systems velocity around the galactic center is about half that speed.

    Yes. What is new here? This appears irrelevant.

    The angular momentum of all objects in the solar system is, in fact, conserved.

    Did anyone say it isn’t? In fact I have shown it to be true here.

    When the rotation of the earth slows down, the moon moves further out in its orbit. When the rotation speeds up, the moon is brought closer in. This tidal relationship is the primary means by which the Earth’s magnetic field is generated as the Earth’s core spins slightly faster than the mantle, causing the geomagnetic dynamo to be generated.

    Who disputes tidal effects?

    Similarly, when the Sun’s spin slows, it is because the planets absorb angular momentum from it via gravitational frame dragging, and the distance of their orbits increases. When the spin speeds up, the sun absorbs angular momentum from the planets.

    I am all ears (and eyes) if you can show through computations or empirical evidence that there is an exchange of spin between the sun and the planets (please also state its significance). I did the computations, and found that no such exchange is taking place under the known laws of gravity. I am happy to be shown I was wrong, but I need much more than assertions to be convinced.

  202. anna v says:
    June 7, 2010 at 10:34 am
    [–snip–]
    I will not tire of saying , it is the energy transferred that is important , and a track of a mosquito on a lake, even if it covers the length of the lake will not make a measurable difference to the fluid dynamics of the lake.

    But if a fish jumps up out of the water to eat the mosquito, and an osprey dives to catch the fish and causes a great splash, then the dynamics are altered …
    :o)
    You lose, Anna!

  203. anna v says:
    June 7, 2010 at 10:34 am
    tallbloke says:
    June 5, 2010 at 1:34 am
    The vertical tides (caused by the planets on the sun) are small, just as the vertical tide caused by the moon on the earth is small, but the horizontal tides are huge in comparison, and they are the ones which cause much more tidal motion, same as those caused by the moon here on earth.
    Even tiny Mercury induces horizontal tides of hundreds of kilometers on the suns surface. Leif’s 1mm tide is a red herring.
    The vertical tides on the earth are not small, they are of the order of 30 cm even on solid ground, and 50 to 200cm in the ocean.
    Considering the difference in radii between earth and sun percentage wise the earth tides are huge.
    I do not know what you mean by horizontal tides, if you mean the reflection of the motion of the planetary body on the body it acts on , still the energies being transferred are tiny with respect with the energies governing the appearance of sunspots and magnetic formations.
    I will not tire of saying , it is the energy transferred that is important , and a track of a mosquito on a lake, even if it covers the length of the lake will not make a measurable difference to the fluid dynamics of the lake.
    ____________________________________
    The North / South lunar declinational tides are no mosquito, as the moon goes from one maximum extreme to the other the barycenter of the Earth / moon system is the pivotal fulcrum Archimedes speaks of in jest, and the center of mass of the Earth moves 800Km to 1400Km (depending on the included angle at the particular phase of the 18.6 Mn year period) in the other direction in 13.6 days. The tides in the unbounded atmosphere are affected by the major mountain chains, and form patterns in the tidal turbulence giving rise to the jet streams, forming the Rossby waves in the process.
    In effect driving the bulk of the weather by controlling the meridional flow surges, that define the cyclonic storm patterns as a result, the lunar tides set the timing of the severe weather outbreaks and typhoons and hurricanes are increased in strength by heliocentric conjunctions with the outer planets, that come in phase with the lunar tidal effects.
    The interactions of the inner planets with the lunar declinational tides repeats with the Saros cycle pattern on an 18.3 year period twice the 9.1 year period of the in this paper. Giving rise to a shorter period repeating pattern in global circulation on a 6558 day period, that repeats well enough to use as a forecast that beats NOAAs 3 day forecast using the weather models that do not calculate in the lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere.
    So they have the same problems with the short term weather forecasts as they do with the long term climate models for the same reasons. Any thing that can shove the earth around that much in less than two weeks, is not a gnat on a rant.

  204. @ Richard Holle says:
    June 7, 2010 at 12:39 pm
    I have found that when the dwarf planet Ceres is in syzygy with one or more inner planets, it has a very noticable effect on solar activity, and surface temperatures, reliably, at all events going back 100`s of years. This does not fit in too well with any kind of gravitationaly caused solar variation.

  205. So what do you think is happening there Ulric? Is Ceres some sort of lightning conductor in your view? Or is that one for the physicists to worry about?

  206. @ Ulric Lyons says:
    June 7, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    Then the dwarf planet Ceres must have a rather magnetically susceptible make up, as I have found that it is the total content of magnetically susceptible material in a planetary body rather than its weak permanent magnetic fields, that determine its amount of interaction with other planets through couplings via fields in the flow of the solar wind.
    The mechanism of action seems to me to be inductive effects between external solar fields, and the magnetic permeable material in the planetary bodies / moons involved in a heliocentric / synod conjunction, with consideration to the objects declination to the ecliptic plane.
    I think it is more an electromagnetic effect, and the spin coupling mechanism is due to the interactions of the homopolar generator effects, shifting changes in angular rotation, orbital speed, homopolar generated DC pole to equator potential, and total magnetic flux felt, and how it is dispersed into the total system, so the solar system total remains balanced and stable.
    The annual pattern of shifts in LOD of the Earth, with pulses at the times of synod conjunctions shows this well. Just because there is an electromagnetic component does not mean that the rest of the physical laws are not also present and functioning as well.

  207. Richard Holle says:
    June 7, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    total magnetic flux felt, and how it is dispersed into the total system, so the solar system total remains balanced and stable.

    Yes, this is how I’m coming to view it as well. The interactions of the primary forces affect and balance each other, with the inevitable decaying waves Vuk pointed up earlier.
    Anna is right that the energy amounts are key. I think they are bigger than she does.

  208. I would say some things are obvious.
    1. There is a moon and there is an earth.
    2. These two rocks are close enough to affect each other gravitationally, and everything on each other and that includes the moon on the air.
    3. The moon’s effect on the air would be the same qualitatively as for any other Earth-bound movable tidal fluid of mass, such as sea, land and inner mantle, which has been verified in other sciences in real time.
    4. The moon is very clockwork, returning to the same place in the celestial sky only ten seconds earlier each year, hence reliable cycles are historically established.
    5. These lunar cycles have been known about and utilised in all known ancient societies for thousands of years, for calendric seasonal forecasting.
    6. Stone monuments exist that pertain to the last point, with stones aligned to lunar factors like max and min declinations, and precession settings, as well as eclipse calculating marking systems.
    7. The weather is the movement of air (the word ‘weather’ comes from ‘we’ meaning to blow). It doesn’t cause anything; it is the end result.
    8. Movement of air is a function of ocean/air interface.
    9. Ocean currents, both surface and subsurface, are heavily influenced by lunar behaviour.
    10. Religious and political differences have, over the past two millennium, successfully separated the West from the Old Science, to the extent that all lunar matters, especially when used for predictions, have been declared pagan, voodoo and shamanistic in an attempt to separate the populace from anything pre-Christian.
    11. Nonwestern cultures are demonstrably better at predicting arrival dates of monsoons and typhoons, because they factor moon and sun cycles into their calculations.
    The alternative is to say tides have no effect on air, even though air and sea are joined at the sea surface, and the moon’s movement has no effect on air movement, which would be extremely strange given the size and proximity of the moon and the amount of air interfacing the ocean. It’s like saying a two-year old has no effect whatsoever on its mother and does not influence what she does during the day. Maybe that would appear so to a man, but not to another mother.
    When the moon changes hemispheres great volumes of water shift across and so do great volumes of air. Barometric pressures change the most when the moon crosses the equator. Wind increases when the moon crosses the equator.
    These factors can all be added to come up with a forecast. Of course it’s not exact, but it’s better than having nothing. Regular met people basically watch radar shots from satellites of what is happening now, and have to give educated guesses for longer out. They are mostly reacting to weather.
    More on http://www.predictweather.com

  209. tallbloke and others:
    I’ve satisfied myself if no one else that an effect external to the Earth system influences the atmosphere from above, thereby altering the strength of the inversion at the tropopause so as to alter the size intensity and position of the polar oscillations in the air circulation systems thereby exerting an equatorward pressure on the jet streams and the ITCZ.
    My preferred external influence is the variability of the solar wind but I note the comments about magnetic flux and barycentric issues.
    It doesn’t matter much to me which is the cause or whether it be a combination but I would be grateful for any comments as to which is the more likely cause and why.

  210. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    June 7, 2010 at 12:36 pm
    I am all ears (and eyes) if you can show through computations or empirical evidence that there is an exchange of spin between the sun and the planets (please also state its significance). I did the computations, and found that no such exchange is taking place under the known laws of gravity. I am happy to be shown I was wrong, but I need much more than assertions to be convinced.
    Perhaps you should look here, I seem to remember reading your computations were incorrect?
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/79

  211. Stephen, nice post. Come back in about ten years and we’ll have an answer, or at least a more complex and orderly set of questions. 🙂

  212. Might UCAR take its new Cheyenne environmental supercomputer and put it to good use? Instead of running sham global warming programs to milk the fearful taxpayer, could it possibly be used to study electromagnetic and gravitational forces throughout the solar system and beyond, to pin down these effects and verify them once and for all? Nah…

  213. The known laws of gravity describe well an apple at rest falling a stationary tree to a stationary ground. There are no physical gravtiational laws that describe a varying-flight apple falling from a moving tree onto a moving ground, the tree and ground governed by different periodicities, themselves “falling” between larger systems of other trees and grounds. There is no way to test the atmosphere in a lab, unless you can also squeeze a giant moon into the testing chamber, and come up with a control moon that is kept constant. It is too simplistic to say mathematically the moon has negligible force because calculations made by man say so. Math is only our feeble attempt to quantify nature. In this pursuit we are usually found wanting, unless you are an apple-harvester.

  214. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2010 at 3:50 pm
    tallbloke and others:
    I’ve satisfied myself if no one else that an effect external to the Earth system influences the atmosphere from above, thereby altering the strength of the inversion at the tropopause so as to alter the size intensity and position of the polar oscillations in the air circulation systems thereby exerting an equatorward pressure on the jet streams and the ITCZ.
    My preferred external influence is the variability of the solar wind but I note the comments about magnetic flux and barycentric issues.
    It doesn’t matter much to me which is the cause or whether it be a combination but I would be grateful for any comments as to which is the more likely cause and why.
    ———————————–
    From reading Earl Hap’s site he seems to think it is key to understanding the shifts in polar vortex shifts in activity from one pole to the other, developing the process you are asking about. I think if all of the planets were in line with the ecliptic plane, you would not see this happening, if you look at the outer planets solar declinational position relative to the ecliptic plane you might find the driver, timing of the shift points and the periods to the question you ask.
    I think the magnetic polarity of the solar wind not only shifts short term with the rotation of the tilted magnetic poles of the sun, but that the neutral center reference of the plasma sheet as it passes the earth is shifted North or South so the middle neutral sheet lines up with the solar declination of the outer planets. That is where I would start the inquiry data search, looking for answers to your question.

  215. Ken Ring says:
    June 7, 2010 at 8:19 pm
    It is too simplistic to say mathematically the moon has negligible force because calculations made by man say so.

    Wow! Welcome Ken. I lost my copy of your excellent book about the moon in a hard drive crash, please let me know where I can get another download.
    Your insights into atmospheric tides caused by the moon really got me thinking.
    Cheers
    Rog

  216. Richard Holle says:
    June 7, 2010 at 12:39 pm
    I was replying to the mm tides of the planets on the Sun. Not the earth lunar/solar tides.
    I agree that the influence of the earth tides has been ignored by the climate community, except Corbyn and some other successful climate predictors.
    Gauging the weather from the phases of the moon is a folk tradition in Greece, which is a maritime nation.

  217. @tallbloke says:
    June 7, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    “So what do you think is happening there Ulric? Is Ceres some sort of lightning conductor in your view? Or is that one for the physicists to worry about?”
    From what I am seeing, its all electromagnetic switching of the Sun, which is most pronounced when the Superior planets are in hard lines OR squares, and the Inferior planets are hard lines OR squares relative to the Superiors. This relationship being domunated by the Earth/Venus positions relative to the Superiors, which gives completely opposite results for a 90 deg. displacement of E/V relative to the Superiors. Examples; Jupiter opposite Saturn/Uranus with an E/V conjunct in line gives low solar activity and cold, while an E/V conjunct on the square to the same Superior configuaration will give increased activity and hot weather. Everything I am seeing is about these “magnetic angles” as Kepler called them. The rate of change is very quick. You may get a week or two of warmer weather from a syzygy of Ceres and other inner planets, but at 590 miles in diameter, I do not think it is doing anything of any importance gravitationally.

  218. @Richard Holle says:
    June 7, 2010 at 10:05 pm
    “From reading Earl Hap’s site he seems to think it is key to understanding the shifts in polar vortex shifts in activity from one pole to the other, developing the process you are asking about. I think if all of the planets were in line with the ecliptic plane, you would not see this happening, if you look at the outer planets solar declinational position relative to the ecliptic plane you might find the driver, timing of the shift points and the periods to the question you ask.”
    The strength of the solar wind will affect the lattitude of the jet stream, weather event causing “spikes” in solar activity, affect the snakeyness of the jet stream.
    I have found with my study of heliocentric configurations, that the dominant factor is their radial angles, while if they share the same plane at times of syzygy the result is intensified a little, notably with the inner plantets rather than the outer plantets.
    @anna v says:
    June 7, 2010 at 11:56 pm
    “I agree that the influence of the earth tides has been ignored by the climate community, except Corbyn and some other successful climate predictors.”
    I work with Piers, and acknowledge that he is the only person who has mastered the understanding of the solar triggers for weather events, coupled with a system for determining location of events, but forecasting temperature is not his forte, as is the same for Richard Holle. They are both rellying on a look-back for temperature rather than its immediate cause, and will fail regularly in this department.

  219. Rog
    Email me about that book on enquiries@predictweather.com
    Anna V
    Temperatures do not exist in any quantifiable sense, any more than feelings.
    A thermometer only measures the “temperature” of itself, or, if you like, the glass bulb itself. To demonstrate this, just take your hand away from the bowl and the level drops. Fine if you live inside the bowl, but we don’t, and temperatures are only defined as that which can be measured by a thermometer. Cold is not even granted an entity, except as absence of heat, yet cold is the main effect, as cold air is heavier and subject to gravity, and unless cold air first falls, warmer air through displacement cannot rise. Air temperatures alter constantly, because of reflecting and deflecting winds bouncing off surfaces, clouds coming and going across the sun, subtle changes in air pressure and positioning of planets, especially sun and moon. A sensitive digital thermometer will show an air temp change every second or so. But the timing of weather events is something else. The sooner temperatures are disbanded the better. The fact that thermometers were only invented some 600 years ago, yet our species has been living in a city culture for a few thousand years should tell you that we can do without temperature mesaurement, and especially as they are about to be utilised as a tax-gathering tool.
    cheers
    Ken
    http://www.predictweather.com

  220. @Henry Galt says:
    June 5, 2010 at 7:11 am
    “He is inclined to keep tweaking the periphery until it is ironclad.”
    Its got to be done. Explaining exceptions to general or major principles, is necessary for making the theory valid, as well as providing more insight into the nature of the Sun`s sensitivity to planet positions, giving clues as to the physics at play. I can show vast amounts of correlations, which are fine to predict from, but I feel it would be good to address the mechanisms too. Forecasting precision is my main objective though.

  221. @Richard Holle says:
    June 7, 2010 at 10:05 pm
    “From reading Earl Hap’s site he seems to think it is key to understanding the shifts in polar vortex shifts in activity from one pole to the other,”
    I had a chat with Erl on this. What I spotted was the lower troposhere temp`s for the poles move in opposition at the solstices, and in unison at the equinoxes. The largest monthly anomalies are the polar ocean temp`s, not the land:
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
    It would follow then that more N.H. winter warming, and summer warming events would result in a decline of S.H. polar temp`s.

  222. @ Ken Ring says:
    June 8, 2010 at 3:31 am
    “Temperatures do not exist in any quantifiable sense, any more than feelings.
    A thermometer only measures the “temperature” of itself, or, if you like, the glass bulb itself. To demonstrate this, just take your hand away from the bowl and the level drops. Fine if you live inside the bowl, but we don’t, and temperatures are only defined as that which can be measured by a thermometer. Cold is not even granted an entity,”
    Ice formation is a great measurement of cold, you know what temp` that happens at.
    Forecasting temperatures is more important than forecasting weather events, in fact vital in predicting weather events correctly, as temperature change dictates volume of precipitation. Is the troposphere not like a bowl?

  223. Rog
    [–snip–]
    Anna V
    Temperatures do not exist in any quantifiable sense, any more than feelings.
    [–snip–] The fact that thermometers were only invented some 600 years ago, yet our species has been living in a city culture for a few thousand years should tell you that we can do without temperature mesaurement, and especially as they are about to be utilised as a tax-gathering tool.

    And if history is any indication, thermometers will be made to read higher than actual.
    The history: The High Priests in Egypt, back ye Pharos days , took to inflating (lying about) the size of a parcel of land in order to increase the taxation levied.

  224. Change in the air temperature is manifested either in the amount of energy it may absorb or release. Energy absorption and release are achieved by electromagnetic (at atomic level infrared & higher ) radiation and collisions (at molecular level, Brownian motion ), both occurring simultaneously, and may not be accurately, but are adequately, measured by ‘thermometer’ type devices.

  225. Dr. Nicola Scafetta, the most useful look-back is at 179yrs and 1 month, at the rough return of Neptune, Uranus, Saturn and Jupiter, and at 112 synodic periods of Earth and Venus. Here, on a majority of occasions, you can a farly good idea of monthly temperature deviations from normals. Exceptions do occur, due to differences in outer planet positions, like Jupiter lining up with Uranus at one step, then Neptune on the next step. And also the other inner planet positions and alignments do their own thing at times, negating or adding to what the E/V position is doing. I do not see any need to consider Lunar cycles with temperature change.

  226. Ulric Lyons wrote: “The strength of the solar wind will affect the lattitude of the jet stream, weather event causing “spikes” in solar activity, affect the snakeyness of the jet stream.”
    This should be quantifiable as fractal dimension.
    Has anyone seen a time series of jet stream “snakeyness” metrics (listed as plain-text on a simple webpage)?

  227. Ulric Lyons wrote: “[…] when the Superior planets are in hard lines OR squares, and the Inferior planets are hard lines OR squares relative to the Superiors. […] positions relative to the Superiors, which gives completely opposite results for a 90 deg. displacement of E/V relative to the Superiors. Examples; Jupiter opposite Saturn/Uranus with an E/V conjunct in line […] while an E/V conjunct on the square to the same Superior configuaration […]”
    All easily quantifiable & plotted in a graph that can be interpreted in a fraction of a second. A picture is worth a thousand words – or in a case like this: 10 billion words.
    I suggest the preceding as a basic courtesy to one’s potentially wider audience, but perhaps the goal is only choir-preaching to rally a core base of existing support…
    Note to investors:
    I am willing to audit these claims (quantitatively) IF PAYED WELL. There’s not a snowball’s chance in h*ll that I’ll be doing the audit for free.
    Clarification:
    I respect Ulric’s freedom to present results in whatever format he chooses.
    Cheers.

  228. Ulric Lyons wrote: “Dr. Nicola Scafetta, the most useful look-back is at 179yrs and 1 month […] I do not see any need to consider Lunar cycles with temperature change.”
    You’ve got to be joking. The physicists acknowledge a physical (gravitational) role for the moon & sun via lunisolar tides and we have this:
    Average periods:
    LNC = lunar nodal cycle = 18.612948 years
    LAC = lunar apse cycle = 8.847358 years
    (LNC/2)*(LAC) / (LNC/2 – LAC)
    = (9.306474)*(8.847358) / (9.306474 – 8.847358)
    = 179.3396597 years
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/LunarHarmonicSpectrum.png
    More details here:
    Note on Confounding of Lunisolar Harmonic Spectrum & Solar System Dynamics
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Confounding.htm
    Also:
    Review notes shared above by anna v & Ninderthana (both physicists, but more importantly they are applying common sense).
    Related reading:
    Keeling, C. D.; & Whorf, T. P. (1997). Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94(16), 8321-8328.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8321.full.pdf?ijkey=YjbRA3bMQaGic
    Note that Keeling & Whorf do not emphasize the role of earth tides – and see here http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm , particularly this http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_SO_SEP_MSI_IVI2.png .
    A few options:
    1) acknowledging the confounding.
    2) harmoniously agreeing to disagree.
    Cheers.

  229. Mod to Al Gore: Al, why is you wife divorcing you?
    AL Gore: I don’t know!
    Mod: Can I suggest CO2 as a leading cause then?

  230. Hi Tallbloke. As a resident mod…perhaps i can persuade you to let Oliver M. back on. A lifetime ban is a bit OTT me thinks.

  231. Paul Vaughan says:
    June 8, 2010 at 12:55 pm
    Ulric Lyons wrote: “Dr. Nicola Scafetta, the most useful look-back is at 179yrs and 1 month […] I do not see any need to consider Lunar cycles with temperature change.”
    You’ve got to be joking. The physicists acknowledge a physical (gravitational) role for the moon & sun via lunisolar tides and we have this:
    Average periods:
    LNC = lunar nodal cycle = 18.612948 years
    LAC = lunar apse cycle = 8.847358 years
    (LNC/2)*(LAC) / (LNC/2 – LAC)
    = (9.306474)*(8.847358) / (9.306474 – 8.847358)
    = 179.3396597 years
    ———————————————————-
    No need to joke about the number of 6558 day long cycles to use, I use the last three, it seems that Ulric thinks the 10th cycle back, lines up better with the outer planet repeats added in, so as to automatically contain the 10th. lunar/solar pattern also as part of the combined signal.
    179.3396597 years * 365.25 days = 65503.81071 days / 6558 days = 9.988382236 cycles of 6558 days
    Maybe I should be using all 10 with algorithms, for the adjustment of the outer planet position each separate cycle, before combining the data into a composite.
    That and a solar cycle strength consideration in the mix, should get a hell of a lot closer.

  232. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 8, 2010 at 5:37 am
    @ Ken Ring says:
    June 8, 2010 at 3:31 am
    “Temperatures do not exist in any quantifiable sense, any more than feelings.
    A thermometer only measures the “temperature” of itself, or, if you like, the glass bulb itself. To demonstrate this, just take your hand away from the bowl and the level drops. Fine if you live inside the bowl, but we don’t, and temperatures are only defined as that which can be measured by a thermometer. Cold is not even granted an entity,”
    Ice formation is a great measurement of cold, you know what temp` that happens at.
    Forecasting temperatures is more important than forecasting weather events, in fact vital in predicting weather events correctly, as temperature change dictates volume of precipitation. Is the troposphere not like a bowl?

    If it suited the NWO idiots to say that water freezes a 10ºC, then you’d better believe that every thermometer we have now would be worthless and likely declared contraband, the possession of which would criminal, the IPCC would fall all over themselves propagating the nonsense, NASA and the NOAA would fall into line with the new decree and anyone decrying the matter would be declared a ‘denier’ and arrested.
    Recall 1984, by George Orwell.
    Virtually every book mentioning temperature would be confiscated and burned, just as in Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury.
    And if you think to question me, just look at life in the USSR under T.D. Lysenko.
    ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

  233. Richard Holle says:
    June 8, 2010 at 7:55 pm
    Maybe I should be using all 10 with algorithms, for the adjustment of the outer planet position each separate cycle, before combining the data into a composite.
    That and a solar cycle strength consideration in the mix, should get a hell of a lot closer.

    I agree. The solar signal in temperature data is obvious, and doesn’t fit so well with the moon and it’s motions. Wouldn’t it be a fun coincidence if as well as being the same apparent size in the sky, the sun and moon turned out to be equally influential in earth’s climate and weather?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/detrend:0.5/mean:43/plot/pmod/offset:-1367.6/scale:0.2/detrend:-0.05/mean:12
    Incidentally, although some of his ideas are off the wall, Miles Mathis has a very interesting take on why the sun and moon are the same apparent size. His solution involves the forces of gravity and electromagnetic repulsion. He uses the same principle to improve Bodes law too.
    http://milesmathis.com/third9.html
    http://milesmathis.com/bode.html

  234. @Paul Vaughan says:
    June 8, 2010 at 12:55 pm
    “You’ve got to be joking”
    No, this look back is based on the relative position of the 6 most influential bodies, and is precisely at 65400 days, or 179yrs and 1 month for practical purposes when predicting monthly temperature. It works very well, any good look back has to be very near a whole number of years to work.
    On my choice of options, I would take 3) define and prove the c.18yr peaks in global temp`s to be a product of Planetary Ordered Solar Theory, and show that the lunar period are purely a proxy, whose period is slightly off, and cannot hope to explain the actual individual hotter months concerned of the hotter years in the said 18yr cycle.
    @Paul Vaughan says:
    June 8, 2010 at 12:20 pm
    Peer review by the best astronomers would be the natural course.

  235. tallbloke wrote: “The solar signal in temperature data is obvious, and doesn’t fit so well with the moon and it’s motions. […] http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/detrend:0.5/mean:43/plot/pmod/offset:-1367.6/scale:0.2/detrend:-0.05/mean:12
    More joking?
    What you’ve got there is volcanic, not solar.
    Ask Piers Corbyn & Ulric Lyons if it is the solar *cycle that matters in their SWT (solar weather technique). I think they’ll tell you it is primarily daily-to-weekly-timescale solar wind & coronal holes that has their interest.
    Just about anyone around this site knows when the major volcanic eruptions were in the 80s & 90s – & they were a little less than 11 years apart – closer to 8 — hence the 2 major dips in your graph – and the pattern fits like a glove with emerging lunisolar (moon&sun gravity) speculation.
    I’ll leave it to PC & UL to explain SWT [or avoid doing so due to so-called “spooked/paranoid investors”].
    Whoever wants to pioneer cross-wavelet or whatever analysis of solar signals in terrestrial climate, etc. should use DAILY data. There’s nothing exciting at monthly-to-multi-decadal timescales, where ENSO & volcanoes dwarf.
    tallbloke, please do not misunderstand. We can agree to disagree. I post these notes to save others from reinventing the wheel. This is very important since non-alarmist resources are so scarce. You needn’t worry that you won’t have plenty of followers despite these notes.
    Best regards – and respect.

  236. @tallbloke says:
    June 8, 2010 at 11:52 pm
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/detrend:0.5/mean:43/plot/pmod/offset:-1367.6/scale:0.2/detrend:-0.05/mean:12
    See the red line start rising half way towards solar minimum when the coronal holes are returning, the tendancy is then for it to drop off at solar maximum, due to a lull in coronal hole activity, more cold winters are found at solar max becuase of this, though the high turbulance of the solar wind at max gives strong warming bursts in between the lulls.
    C23 has a secong burst of activity around 2003/4 (very interesting astronomically) with intense solar wind speeds at times: http://www.solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
    C21 seems to have a smaller second peak, but C22 does not.

  237. Paul, I’m less interested in having followers than in keeping the players talking to each other. You may be right about the volcanoes, though I don’t see they had as much effect as some think they did. In any case, the Moon sure didn’t cause the sunspot minima in the Maunder, Dalton, and now, so there are other solar sytem wide resonances to account for in addition to Lunar effects on Earth. That’s why we need to be tolerant in the areas where ideas might be over-extended onto the turf of others.
    Ulric, thanks for sharing. I appreciate you have to consider Piers commercial interest, but he seems to want to get the word out too these days. I had noticed the tendency for El nino to occur not at solar max, but after solar min and La nina often occuring near the peak. This is one of the things which make the solar influence on temp look less powerful than it really is.

  238. tallbloke says:
    June 9, 2010 at 3:27 am
    [–snip–]
    Ulric, thanks for sharing. I appreciate you have to consider Piers commercial interest, but he seems to want to get the word out too these days. I had noticed the tendency for El nino to occur not at solar max, but after solar min and La nina often occuring near the peak. This is one of the things which make the solar influence on temp look less powerful than it really is.

    I would ask only one thing in regards to the above: Cause and effect.
    How long does it take for a cause to have an effect?

  239. @ Paul Vaughan says:
    June 9, 2010 at 12:31 am
    Piers has been more interested in the Hale cycle, with apparent peaks of world temp`s at Odd numbered cycles, 23, 21 19 etc. and he also integrates lunar cycles in world temp` analysis. I noticed the Odd/Even numbered cycle relationship changes phase over centuries, where in the LIA, the coldest winter events are on Odd numbered cycle maximums.
    I also noticed that solar max is where cold winters are more likely to be found, and they are more severe in cycles with greater SSN. In solar minimum, higher SSN typically again yeilds more cold winters than minmums with low SSN, the last two winters being exceptions to this.
    I have more interest in the 17yr coronal hole cycle, , and the synthesis of a number of planetary cycles, and their influence on temp`s, than the sunspot cycle, which can be very misleading when trying to relate it temperature, partly because of the above considerations, sunspots are the minor part of the story, coronal holes being the major factor.
    Piers`s SWT is primarilly about predictable spikes in solar activity causing weather events, modulated by lunar factors, my work is mainly concerned with what is driving temperatures, and I do consider lunar factors day to day, but not climatically.
    Strong temperature change, drives the volcanic eruptions, the typical scenario is a cold winter, followed by a strong temp` uplift, some will erupt then, others will be primed by this, then erupt fully at the next temp` differential later that year.

  240. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 9, 2010 at 4:06 am
    [–snip–]
    Strong temperature change, drives the volcanic eruptions, the typical scenario is a cold winter, followed by a strong temp` uplift, some will erupt then, others will be primed by this, then erupt fully at the next temp` differential later that year.

    Surely you jest!
    Warm weather causes volcanoes to erupt?!!
    Say look: Maybe you’re not looking at the REAL cause for matters: Gravitational pull which releases pressure on certain weak points known for such activity, which thence facilitates the subsequent activity.
    But warm weather?
    Well hey: Hawaii is nice and warm all the time, right along with several other places on the Earth.
    So WHY are THEY not going ballistic, volcanically speaking?

  241. @ tallbloke says:
    June 9, 2010 at 3:27 am
    The logic to me with the Moon, is that I see it modulate week to week temp`s, but it swings both ways, so averages out, and it cannot influence the heat source, the Sun, whose changes are far bigger than the modulations caused by the Moon.
    93yrs is very close to 5 Lunar nodal cycles and 98 eclipse years (666x51d), I looked very hard at this finely seasonally adjusted figure for a return of any possible Lunar influence, but found nothing. Anything going on at 9/18yrs, I can identify the individual months with strong +ve temp` anomalies, by planetary theory.

  242. Hi Ulric, Although the moon is not the heat source, I think it’s declination cycle probably has a big effect on the movement and overturning of currents and tides which can release large amounts of heat from the ocean which have been sequestered during runs of high amplitude solar cycles. These events can cause significant temperature change at an ocean basin-wide scale. How is the 17 year cycle in coronal holes identified? What cycles in solar system dynamics do you think it might be associated with?

  243. @tallbloke says:
    June 9, 2010 at 5:01 am
    “Hi Ulric, Although the moon is not the heat source, I think it’s declination cycle probably has a big effect on the movement and overturning of currents and tides which can release large amounts of heat from the ocean which have been sequestered during runs of high amplitude solar cycles.”
    I can`t say I have been in a position where I have had to consider Lunar factors in hindcasting or forecasting monthly temperature deviations from normals, just daily stuff. I would be more concerned about amounts of atmospheric water vapour present.

  244. Regarding thermometers, they used to be made of glass, and glass shrinks over time because it is a viscous liquid, rendering older thermometers a higher bias decades later, therefore useless as evidence for climate change.
    Temperature change does not determine volume of precipitation, as the gathered nimbic volume develops well before the temperature difference kicks in. Temp change may be a trigger but not the cause.
    Cause and effect is ultimately unprovable. High correlation and sequence only assumes causality. We can talk about causality as it helps us to function, but the jury must always be out. Otherwise science becomes dogma.
    http://www.predictweather.com

  245. @ tallbloke says:
    June 9, 2010 at 5:01 am
    Spring tides are at the full and new Moon phases (2/3days after), they are larger at the equinoxes, when both phases are at similar declinations. At the summer solstice, the nearest full Moon is near maximum declination, and the new Moon is near minimum declination, the opposite of this happens at the winter solstice. Beyond phase, perigee and the equinoxes, I can`t see a declinational influence on tidal movements, if it was there, it would show up as a big difference between new and full Moon spring tides around the solstices. I would rather consider what the Moon may be doing to the solar wind, when the Lunar nodes are perpendicular to the Sun.

  246. @Ken Ring says:
    June 9, 2010 at 5:56 am
    “Temperature change does not determine volume of precipitation,”
    Yes it does. The ideal scenario for peak summer rain volume is something like last July. A heatwave began around June 21st, lasting into early July. At around July 7th, there was a fast drop in temperature, forcing very heavy rain in many locations in the N.H.
    Winter precipitation works the other way round, it takes a temperature uplft to force a jump in precipitation in winter.
    The solar triggers that time the weather fronts are there all the time, but the temperature differentials relative to the seasons, dictate what will actually happen in terms of volume of precipitation, which could be between nothing, and lots.

  247. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 9, 2010 at 7:41 am
    Sorry Rog, that was the wrong way round;
    At the summer solstice, the nearest full Moon is near minimum declination, and the new Moon is near maximum declination, the opposite of this happens at the winter solstice.

  248. Re: Ulric Lyons June 9, 2010 at 12:28 am
    2 serious misunderstandings in there.
    Have you looked at Ian Wilson’s recent work? The speculation is about 90 year cycles (not 18.6a).
    The “joking” comment was about your (apparent) refusal to acknowledge the confounding — see the table presented here http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Confounding.htm and note that Keeling & Whorf (1997) point out exactly what you say about 179a – just that they are talking here-&-now lunisolar while you are talking further upstream & further back in time in the causation chain. (See the comments of anna v & Ninderthana upthread.)
    Bear in mind that tides affect more than oceans (e.g. earth tides http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Outreach/AboutVolcanoes/do_tides_affect_volcanoes.html ).
    Your various comments suggest you may be intent on misportraying lunar cycles as simple.

  249. Re: Ulric Lyons June 9, 2010 at 4:06 am
    I agree that there is little (or no) substance to Piers’ claims about Hale temperature cycles. The approach appears wholly statistical and badly misguided. No personal offense is intended. It is simply that (a) non-alarmist resources are far too scarce to squander and (b) the 22a rubbish waters-down PC’s interesting stuff (i.e. daily-to-weekly-timescale). To be completely honest: I suspect interference by clueless investors in Piers’ messaging. Such paranoia is counterproductive in the long-run.

  250. tallbloke wrote: “How is the 17 year cycle in coronal holes identified?”
    Yes, we need an absolutely crystal-clear answer on this. Specifically, I’ll need a link to a plain-text time series on a simple webpage.
    I looked into related claims some time ago. The “17 year” feature was only evident in the global (i.e. whole-time-series) view – i.e. anything-but stationary. I can’t remember what time series that was – just that it was one pointed out in one of these solar physics papers claiming 17 year coronal hole cycles – and that it was by an author I’d noted being sloppy elsewhere.

  251. Ulric, I was thinking more of the 18.6 year cycle over which the maximum declination varies. From the minor standstill, when the moons declination varies 30 some degrees over the month to the major standstil 9.3 years later, when it’s declination varies 57 degrees over the month. This must make some difference to the way the seas swoosh around the oceanic basins I would have thought.
    Since we understand so little about the way heat from the sun is sequestered in the ocean, and later released in el nino events and generally elevated SST’s during the positive phases of the major oceanic oscillations, I think it behooves us to keep an open mnd on how much the Moon is affecting multidecadal global temperature swings.
    Particularly when several of these oceanic cycles come into phase.
    Paul, I think Ulric is concentrating more on imminent forecasting, so ascribing motive to the focus of his interest is a bit OTT IMO.

  252. Ulric Lyons wrote: “Peer review by the best astronomers would be the natural course.”
    Agree, but it’s not reasonable to expect them to be willing to sort through 10 billion words where one graph will suffice.

    Re: tallbloke
    It’s not about turf & competition. I see fog on the lenses and I’m proposing wiping it off. There are some big simple patterns some key folks are missing (perhaps in part by focusing too exclusively on global summaries). Once the big simple stuff is accounted for, it will be easier to account for other stuff – (and there’s lots of other stuff).
    Again: This is what is missing in the mainstream view:
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_SO_SEP_MSI_IVI2.png .
    Misunderstandings can come & go efficiently & harmoniously.
    The association demands explanation. That wet heavy part of the world is very well-connected and spinning harder than a rabid hyperpartisan, so we’re not talking about a mere “tree in the forest” here. It could be 2 way coupling, a 3rd factor, or whatever – but whatever it is, it is clouding the view of other stuff until it is dealt with adequately.
    Best Regards.

  253. Re: tallbloke
    You may be underestimating (a) the importance of the fossil-planetary / lunisolar confounding and (b) the potential for conflict-of-interest where commercial interests are at play. (No need to blame Ulric. The blame goes to the investors.)
    Clarification:
    It’s not enough to look at LNC as though LAC does not exist. Keeling & Whorf (1997) were pointing in the right direction, but they left out earth tides and they used a statistical approach where a theoretical approach is feasible.
    Cycles cannot be expected to be simple-clean where threshold-triggers are involved (e.g. earth tides & eruptions). Additionally, Earth is not spatially uniform.
    We’re talking elephants, not mice – and I see no disagreement.

  254. One more thing tallbloke: I’m not seeing much mention of clouds in your comments. Solar variation is nothing compared to what clouds do, so to understand solar effects better we might be well-advised to figure out clouds first. Certainly this could be related to some of your comments about SSTs (& circulation), I readily acknowledge. As Ken Ring points out, nevermind cause where coupling is so intense.
    Also, let’s not forget (volcanic) optical extinction.
    i.e. insolation vs. irradiance theme – I imagine you see where I’m going – i.e. disentangling the 2 by addressing the elephant before the mouse.
    Follow the money…

  255. Paul Vaughan says:
    June 9, 2010 at 11:57 am
    1) I know about 90yr cycles, its what the AO exhibits = Gleissberg.
    2) I work with what works best, 179.05yrs does it for me, I`m not bothered about lunar periods.
    3) I think I have made it clear I am only interested in the Moon`s effects on the solar wind.
    Paul Vaughan says:
    June 9, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    There is something temperature wise in Hale, but it is complicated, I wouldn`t say it was rubbish. Piers only has forecast customers. Your comment;
    “To be completely honest: I suspect interference by clueless investors in Piers’ messaging. Such paranoia is counterproductive in the long-run.”
    is unfortunately your own paranoia.
    Paul Vaughan says:
    June 9, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    Don`t fuss yourself with that, I`ll discuss it in private with tallbloke, we don`t have communication problems.
    Paul Vaughan says:
    June 9, 2010 at 1:18 pm
    “Yes, we need an absolutely crystal-clear answer on this. Specifically, I’ll need a link to a plain-text time series on a simple webpage.”
    You can mind your own business thanks.

  256. @tallbloke says:
    June 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm
    I would still expect to see a big difference in new Moon, and full Moon spring tides around the solstices if there was anything in it, at any point through the 18.6yr cycle.

  257. @Paul Vaughan says:
    June 9, 2010 at 1:18 pm
    “Agree, but it’s not reasonable to expect them to be willing to sort through 10 billion words where one graph will suffice.”
    After numerous private emails to you sharing many of my findings with you, I made it quite clear that your attempts to tell me how my work should be presented, were completely missing the point, and that I know exactly how best to present my own work. I do not appreciate your cheap meningless sarcasm about 10 billion words, I know very well how to get a point across succinctly and concisely thanks. And to repeat, not graphs thank you very much paul.

  258. Paul Vaughan says:
    June 9, 2010 at 2:25 pm
    One more thing tallbloke: I’m not seeing much mention of clouds in your comments. Solar variation is nothing compared to what clouds do, so to understand solar effects better we might be well-advised to figure out clouds first.

    Check out Nir Shaviv on using the oceans as a calorimeter. he proposes a cloud amplification process to the solar cycle propbably connected with Svensmarks theory.
    http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
    This is how we get from Leif Svalgaards 0.07C to the 0.3C or so the solar cycle really affects global temperature by. Which then makes the variation in TSI over the C20th more significant. Particularly when you factor in the exaggeration of the temp data. It’s probably around 60% of the story.
    All the best with the lunar investigations.

  259. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 9, 2010 at 2:52 pm
    @tallbloke says:
    June 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm
    I would still expect to see a big difference in new Moon, and full Moon spring tides around the solstices if there was anything in it, at any point through the 18.6yr cycle.

    You’re still thinking in terms of immediate effects, whereas it may pan out over decadal shifts in SST’s

  260. @ tallbloke says:
    June 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    “You’re still thinking in terms of immediate effects, whereas it may pan out over decadal shifts in SST’s”
    I am inspecting an immediate short term condition to test the long term theory, it doesn`t look good to me.

  261. tallbloke, whatever effect GCRs have (if any) on clouds is nothing compared to the effect of circulation, pressure, & temperature. Do you really think the mainstream modelers have a firm handle on the hydrologic cycle? My guess is that, like Roy Spencer, you don’t. I’m not seeing the misunderstanding here as black-&-white either/or.
    As for your comment about global vs. SO: That’s exactly what I’ve been cautioning about. Globally averaged temperatures aren’t the holy grail. Earth is non-uniform – and I don’t see a disagreement on this point.
    Ulric, it is your choice to not save your audience time & effort by courteously presenting simple graphs. As for your refusal to acknowledge the confounding (i.e. 179 = 179), that is also your choice. What I see here: language barriers. What I don’t see here: anything personal.

  262. Hi Paul,
    I follow the empirical evidence as much as possible. Turner might have been painting big fat volcanic sunsets around 1884 but it didn’t seem to affect global SST’s very much. Of course, there wasn’t a huge amount of shipping in the SO, so data is limited. Was it Krakatoa which caused the cold SO around then or something else? The sun was becoming less active at that time too, so I’m going to employ your favourite word du jour, confounding.
    There were major El ninos at the end of the C19th, and as you may remember, that fits my theory that large amounts of energy come out of the oceans when the sun goes quiet. Maybe this is what held up the global SST’s while the SO lost energy it had accumulated having acquired it from further north during the high SSN period prior to this. I don’t know, and neither does anyone else yet.
    It’s also worth noting that more volcanos blow at times of low SSN. Gray Stevens also notes at jupitersdance.com that the last ten biggest earthquakes ocurred at an average SSN of 28, well below average. Many of them occurred at solar minimum when there was also a full or new Moon. So I’m sure the Moon, inconjunction with the Sun, plays a role in these volcanic and earthquake events.
    You may have noticed I have been defending your interest in the moon over the last few posts, noting that the longer term cycles are poorly understood. Maybe you should be doing the same for me and my interest in the Solar connection, because as I see it, certainty is low, and the field is wide open.
    On the subject of simple graphs, some more informative labelling on yours or a link to pages where the abbreviations are explained fully would go a long way to making your criticism of Ulric fairer.

  263. Also Paul, if you are going to ask Ulric to acknowledge the confounding of a 179 year planetary cycle with a 179 year lunar cycle, you need to be more upfront and explain why you think every nth beat of the LNC LAC cycles should have as profound effect on the Earth as a once every 179 year realignment of the gas giants does on solar activity.

  264. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 9, 2010 at 3:59 pm
    @ tallbloke says:
    June 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    “You’re still thinking in terms of immediate effects, whereas it may pan out over decadal shifts in SST’s”
    I am inspecting an immediate short term condition to test the long term theory, it doesn`t look good to me.

    I would expect short term conditions to have more localised effects, and these will be harder to disentangle.

  265. Would you believe that I’m being paid by a private sector forecaster to try to throw you off the correct trail with astrology? Didn’t think so – because we all know the free market can do only good.
    tallbloke & Ulric, since we are interested in different aspects of the same puzzle it would take months of hammering the keyboard to even remotely approach consensus — not even remotely feasible. However, this is not a problem. This is just how it is. If this was a simple puzzle, we wouldn’t even be interested.
    A climate contact recently commented that the progression goes from skeptic to cynic, but I’ve never considered myself a skeptic — just a non-alarmist with a keen interest in nature, so no worries about becoming a cynic.
    This round of exchange has generated far more insight than most.
    All the best.

  266. @Paul Vaughan says:
    June 10, 2010 at 12:16 am
    “tallbloke & Ulric, since we are interested in different aspects of the same puzzle it would take months of hammering the keyboard to even remotely approach consensus — not even remotely feasible.”
    To clearly demonstrate the cause of natural variation over the last 2000yrs at monthly resolution would be the requirement. I know only one person who can do that.

  267. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 9, 2010 at 4:57 am
    @899 says:
    June 9, 2010 at 4:29 am
    “Surely you jest! Warm weather causes volcanoes to erupt?!!”
    Like I said, a strong uplift after a cold period;
    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

    Truly: I saw not a thing there which would even in the least support your contention.
    Further, you’ve not discussed fumaroles, i.e., undersea volcanoes.
    Those aren’t in the least affected by weather. Talk about that.

  268. @ 899 says:
    June 10, 2010 at 7:48 am
    “Truly: I saw not a thing there which would even in the least support your contention.
    Further, you’ve not discussed fumaroles, i.e., undersea volcanoes.
    Those aren’t in the least affected by weather. Talk about that.”
    Sure, undersea volcanoes don`t affect the atmosphere, so no need to talk about them.
    I do not see many exceptions to land volcanoes erupting on temperature uplifts, period. If you use a monthly temperature series, looking for high and low anomalies, the correlation to eruptions occurring at temperature uplifts is obvious. This is why there was such a wealth of activity coming out of the last ice age, the temperature uplfts were driving the eruptions, and not sending us into another ice age. I have given some precise details of temperatures at particular eruptions on recent threads, and will discuss the subject more, when a relevant thread appears.

  269. tallbloke, when you get a chance, compare the integral of sunspot number to ERSSTv3b 30S-90S (which is available via KNMI Climate Explorer). [Don’t be fooled by global summaries dominated by the NH ~1940 signal driven in part by AMOC & related continental blocking. Trust the spinning southern maritime hub!]
    Cheers!

  270. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 10, 2010 at 9:28 am
    @ 899 says:
    June 10, 2010 at 7:48 am
    “Truly: I saw not a thing there which would even in the least support your contention.
    Further, you’ve not discussed fumaroles, i.e., undersea volcanoes.
    Those aren’t in the least affected by weather. Talk about that.”
    Sure, undersea volcanoes don`t affect the atmosphere, so no need to talk about them.
    I do not see many exceptions to land volcanoes erupting on temperature uplifts, period. If you use a monthly temperature series, looking for high and low anomalies, the correlation to eruptions occurring at temperature uplifts is obvious. This is why there was such a wealth of activity coming out of the last ice age, the temperature uplfts were driving the eruptions, and not sending us into another ice age. I have given some precise details of temperatures at particular eruptions on recent threads, and will discuss the subject more, when a relevant thread appears.

    Surely you jest!!
    Undersea volcanoes have no affect on the atmosphere?!?!
    Well, be telling that to anyone who boils water for tea, when the steam from the untended kettle fills the kitchen with moisture!
    And what about those periodic fumaroles at the North Pole? Those don’t in the least affect the temperature of the sea water either, right?
    And then there’s that connection you attempt with saying that warm air causes volcanoes to happen. A more ludicrous assertion I cannot begin to attempt!
    Maybe if I merely stand next to my tea kettle, it will boil for me without the assistance of the stove? That would be a real energy saver!!
    It’s damned cold in Iceland, yet volcanoes are erupting. And don’t forget Mt. Erebus in Antarctica. Mighty darned cold there too, yet it continually shows signs of being active. Let’s not forget the fumaroles in the Arctic, undersea area. Pretty darned cold there too.
    The state of Washington has potentially 5 active volcanoes, yet none of them are popping their lids. And just think: The year 1980 in Washington wasn’t exactly warm compared to prior and subsequent years, yet only one volcano erupted: Mt. St. Helens.
    So do tell? What was the cause of the warm weather for both the Roman and the Medieval Climate Optimums? And what of the prior epochs of warming? How were those caused?
    Will you say ‘humans,’ or will it be something else entirely?

  271. @899 says:
    June 10, 2010 at 11:06 pm
    “And then there’s that connection you attempt with saying that warm air causes volcanoes to happen. A more ludicrous assertion I cannot begin to attempt!”
    Eruptions are coincident with temperature uplifts, fact.
    “It’s damned cold in Iceland, yet volcanoes are erupting.”
    No, there was a good general temp` uplft after a very cold winter, and in particular, there was a movement of very warm air over Iceland from 2 days before the main eruption start. I get the feeling you just don`t like what I am saying, and that you have not actually checked to see if the correlation is there or not. If you really cannot see it, then you are an extreme exception for some reason or another.

  272. @899 says:
    June 10, 2010 at 11:06 pm
    “So do tell? What was the cause of the warm weather for both the Roman and the Medieval Climate Optimums? And what of the prior epochs of warming? How were those caused?”
    This one of the most simple things to demonstrate in Planetary Ordered Solar Theory. It is purely down to the angles that the Earth/Venus syzygies occur at relative to the Superior planets. One type of configuration gives maximum warming, the inverse gives the cold episodes, the LIA, Dark Ages etc. I have no problem whatsoever in identifying the cause of the coldest winters, and hottest summers over the last 2000yrs or more.

  273. Just a nerdy non-political $0.02 thought…
    The oscillations appear to have been fit with a quadratic, which implies a continuous oscillatory increase (reminiscent of the dot-com or housing bubble analyst predictions). Would a fit with a sinusoid be more appropriate? Maybe there are other longer-period oscillations that were not accounted.

  274. Ah, ok, the integral being the ‘area under the curve’ for the sunspot numbers. I see what you’ve done now. I think my method of adding the cumulative total above and below the number at which the ocean neither heats or cools (which happens to be roughly the same number as the average SSN for the period of record, around 40SSN, I’m still figuring out the coincidence), is more representative of the relationship between solar activity and terrestrial climate. More details here:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/my-simple-solar-planetary-energy-model/
    Cheers

  275. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 11, 2010 at 5:06 am
    @899 says:
    June 10, 2010 at 11:06 pm
    “And then there’s that connection you attempt with saying that warm air causes volcanoes to happen. A more ludicrous assertion I cannot begin to attempt!”
    Eruptions are coincident with temperature uplifts, fact.
    “It’s damned cold in Iceland, yet volcanoes are erupting.”
    No, there was a good general temp` uplft after a very cold winter, and in particular, there was a movement of very warm air over Iceland from 2 days before the main eruption start. I get the feeling you just don`t like what I am saying, and that you have not actually checked to see if the correlation is there or not. If you really cannot see it, then you are an extreme exception for some reason or another.

    I’m not buying into your hypothesis for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you’ve not shown ANY driving mechanism which would —in even the most tenuous way— reveal a VALID connection between a warm air mass and whatever subsequent volcanism.
    Now again: WHY are not Washington’s volcanoes erupting?
    Additionally, you’ve not addressed how it is that undersea volcanoes don’t affect the sea surface temperatures.

  276. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 11, 2010 at 5:15 am
    @899 says:
    June 10, 2010 at 11:06 pm
    “So do tell? What was the cause of the warm weather for both the Roman and the Medieval Climate Optimums? And what of the prior epochs of warming? How were those caused?”
    This one of the most simple things to demonstrate in Planetary Ordered Solar Theory. It is purely down to the angles that the Earth/Venus syzygies occur at relative to the Superior planets. One type of configuration gives maximum warming, the inverse gives the cold episodes, the LIA, Dark Ages etc. I have no problem whatsoever in identifying the cause of the coldest winters, and hottest summers over the last 2000yrs or more.
    All of that is very interesting, but volcanoes never erupt in the dead of winter, right?
    Never, ever?

  277. 899 says:
    June 11, 2010 at 8:28 am
    “All of that is very interesting, but volcanoes never erupt in the dead of winter, right?
    Never, ever?”
    Like I said, at temperature uplifts, they happen in winter too. Take care you are looking at the relevant hemisphere with respect to the seasons. We can start with the big ones if you like, Laki, Tambora, Krakatoa, Agung, Chichon, Pinatubo. If you cannot see the temperature differentials I am describing, then thats a bit boring, but I will point them out for you if you like.
    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

  278. @ 899 says:
    June 11, 2010 at 8:24 am
    “I’m not buying into your hypothesis for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you’ve not shown ANY driving mechanism which would —in even the most tenuous way— reveal a VALID connection between a warm air mass and whatever subsequent volcanism.”
    Ah but if I am correct about eruptions occurring regularly at temperature uplfts, that would be new to science, and a very usefull piece of knowlege, even if the mechanisms are not understood.
    “Now again: WHY are not Washington’s volcanoes erupting?”
    Still cold down the west coast eh?
    http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/shortterm/day1/highsdeparture/us.html
    “Additionally, you’ve not addressed how it is that undersea volcanoes don’t affect the sea surface temperatures.”
    Good. Do you think they affect climate to a measurable degree then?

  279. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 11, 2010 at 12:29 pm
    Ah but if I am correct about eruptions occurring regularly at temperature uplfts, that would be new to science, and a very usefull piece of knowlege, even if the mechanisms are not understood.
    No, you are NOT correct.
    Now again: WHY are not Washington’s volcanoes erupting?
    Still cold down the west coast eh?
    Why did not those volcanoes erupt in every year there was warm weather?
    You have NOT replied to that question.
    Additionally, you’ve not addressed how it is that undersea volcanoes don’t affect the sea surface temperatures.
    Good. Do you think they affect climate to a measurable degree then?
    Do they? You’re the one pushing the temperature crap, so YOU prove your crap.
    Can do?
    WILL DO?

  280. @899 says:
    June 11, 2010 at 2:35 pm
    “No, you are NOT correct.”
    You are just on one, you have NOT even checked.
    You’re the one pushing the undersea volcano crap, you work out why you brought them up, and keep it to yourself. The rest of us have been discussing land volcanes.
    [Relax, both of you, it’s Friday. ~dbs, mod.]

  281. tallbloke, suggestion: let’s continue this at a more leisurely pace at your blog in the days/weeks/months ahead – (too busy these days…..)..
    Ulric, let’s not get caught up in misunderstandings. Were this June 2009 (rather than 2010) I would have graphed every claim you make (harmoniously & independently – & to share publicly) – just too busy now in June 2010 – nothing personal, nothing to do with you or any other personality – just capitalism savagely reassigning my focus & style.
    tallbloke, for now, here’s something to think about: ~SOI + I(R)
    [in addition to / as an alternate to ~SOI+L90…]
    [to be continued… (elsewhere, later) ]

  282. I am amazed that so few here try to correct Leif.
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 5, 2010 at 9:03 pm
    JDN says:
    June 5, 2010 at 8:17 pm
    “Any net gravitational force on the body of the sun will shift this core relative to the rest of the sun.”
    “No, it will not.” [Leif’s reply]
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 6, 2010 at 8:44 am
    “Aristotle [about 2000 years ago] thought [like you] that heavier bodies fall faster than lighter ones. Galileo showed that this was false, and astronauts on the Moon made that visual for all to see. That is what the YouTube clip showed. That one has to ‘debate’ this today shows how low science literacy is.”
    Let’s consider a simple example.
    m is mass of jupiter
    M1, M2 and M3 are three test masses of a simplified three-body Sun.
    Situation:
    r x x
    m——————-M1—M2—M3
    Law of gravitation for M1:
    GmM1/r = M1*a1 (the last equality is Newtons second law)
    so
    a1 = Gm/r
    Same for M2 and M3 gives:
    a2 = Gm/(r+x)
    a3 = Gm/(r+2x)
    So
    1. Since a1, a2 and a3 are all different the shape
    of the simplified Sun will change. There will be a tide.
    2. The masses M1, M2 and M3 are NOT involved. So this argument has
    nothing do to with what’s falling faster depending on its mass.
    I rest my case.

  283. Sverker says:
    June 14, 2010 at 11:13 pm
    There will be a tide.
    Of course there will be a tide, all of less than 1 millimeter high. But that was not the effect that was claimed.

  284. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    June 7, 2010 at 12:36 pm
    Hi Carsten. Your site’s great. Your program is very close to what I wrote from the ground up about five years ago trying to mimic the Horizon system, just to learn. So I applaud you for it and I know somewhat what it took for you to produce that.
    I didn’t see one single flaw in everything you said above. I concur 100% on your findings on the angular momentum on Newton’s level and ignoring solar wind drag or such tiny, tiny factors.
    There are some that keep pressing some points, as you said, that are technically correct if you go out enough digits of precision, they are there and real, but are so extremely tiny that it is far fetched that they could ever cause a sizeable change (even though I playfully think that would be a great science surprise if ever proved true, but more realistically these are more like dreams).
    For Sverker and others who seem interested I quickly calculated the tidal accelerations for all of the big planets so you can see for yourself just how extremely tiny these tugs are. If you can explain how that one trillionth of a m/s^2 acceleration (convert to force if you need it) could actually perform that effect, I also am all ears.
    The front to back side gravitational tidal acceleration differentials of each planet on the sun’s surface:
    ( in meters per second squared and ordered by most effector downward )

    Jupiter  7.4835E-10
    Venus    7.1859E-10
    Mercury  3.4308E-10
    Earth    3.3160E-10
    Saturn   3.6360E-11
    Mars     1.0305E-11
    Uranus   6.8176E-13
    Neptune  2.0923E-13
    Simply:  a_front = G•massPlanet/(radOrb–radSun)^2
                   a_back  = G•massPlanet/(radOrb+radSun)^2
                   a_diff  = a_front – a_back
    

    Notice how Venus and Jupiter have almost identical tidal effect on the sun. Also notice Earth and Mercury are nearly identical and Saturn is just three times larger that Mars’s tidal effect! Ok those interested, get busy, explain this hypothesis again in this light and best to check my math. Sverker, be sure to use r^2, not just r in the divisor, I assume you just slipped.
    What someone could help answer concretely is “What is the calculated tidal height from Jupiter and Venus actually is, no matter how tiny?”. Hopefully by putting the actual numbers down this re-occurring conjecture can be dropped. It’s the throwing rough and inaccurate figures that seems to keep this same discussion happening over and over again, Groundhog Day style.
    Or, if there actually is some hidden amplification at least you would have some real and accurate numbers to back up the hypothesis later. I guess I am saying, compute some numbers. Vague ideas get old and it’s easy for them, no matter how valid, to just look like junk science.
    Leif said 1 mm and that might have just been a quick guess, but my gut feeling says the same. “Anna v”, do you know how to roughly calculate such a factor. Precision brings in a ton of math and that is not needed as a first step. That would relate to solar size pressure calculations which I prefer not to try to answer myself, my mental library is blank on that isle. Just the maximum rise without flow would be great by anyone.
    At least maybe this helped someone take a step.

  285. wayne says:
    June 15, 2010 at 6:50 am
    Leif said 1 mm and that might have just been a quick guess, but my gut feeling says the same. “Anna v”, do you know how to roughly calculate such a factor.
    Here is a simple explanation:
    http://mb-soft.com/public/tides.html
    An approximate [but good] formula for the height of the tidal bulge is
    h =(m/M) (R^4/a^3)
    Where m is the mass of the planet, M of the Sun, R is the radius of the Sun and a is the distance to the planet.
    Inserting values for Jupiter, one gets 0.0004765 meter.
    Same calculation for the Moon’s tide on the Earth [use Earth and radius M and R] yields 0.3675 meter.
    But, Wayne, it doesn’t matter how often we say this, those people are learning-resistant.

  286. Just for fun, I’ll keep a gratuitous insult count on this thread.
    Eric Gisin – Astrology
    Steven Mosher – Numerology, Silly games
    Leif Svalgaard – science illiteracy of the general public, including [and especially] many posters here…..those people are learning-resistant…..

  287. tallbloke says:
    June 15, 2010 at 8:08 am
    Just for fun, I’ll keep a gratuitous insult count on this thread.
    You are a bit selective in your count. Perhaps include this one:
    Ninderthana says:
    June 5, 2010 at 7:48 pm
    Good old Leif! Totally in the dark, as usual!

  288. Why not read my post and look at what Leif claimed and what I actually said. How hard can it be to see what I objected to? Read Leifs explanation again please.. Did I say that the effect is huge? No I did not. I said that there is an effect in mechanics, and there sometimes is (Earth or the Jupiter moons). I even provided some simple formulas that explained it.
    Also I said that bringing up gravitational mass and inertial mass makes no scense. Am I wrong? Nope. It is simply a bad argument.
    One thing though, regarding Leifs formula for the size in the radial direction. What about other directions? And can the same formula be used for Earth (water) and Sun (plasma) ?

  289. Sverker says:
    June 15, 2010 at 9:51 am
    Did I say that the effect is huge? No I did not.
    Everybody knows there is an effect, a very tiny and inconsequential effect.
    The original claim [about the solar core] was supposed to be a large effect; large enough to control solar activity. And was not about tidal forces, but about the heavy core somehow moving differently than the rest of the Sun. Perhaps the origianl poster could clarify this.
    One thing though, regarding Leifs formula for the size in the radial direction. What about other directions?
    Gravitational forces work along the line connecting the masses.
    And can the same formula be used for Earth (water) and Sun (plasma) ?
    The only assumption behind the formula is that the medium can move freely. Both water and gas can do that. A plasma is perhaps constrained a bit by magnetic forces. If you want to claim that, then the effect is even smaller than for a freely movable medium, otherwise the plasma is just like a gas.

  290. I would have to agree to the statement about science illiteracy. As a teacher, I am appalled at my own level of understanding, let alone those of middle and high school students. Children often have a keener sense of observation and curiosity than young adults (and the rest of us) have.

  291. Ok. Thanks for that answer Leif.
    I did not mean to say that there forces in other
    directions. I merely was thinking about the overall size of the tidal phenomena. Then it is perhaps not only the height that matters.
    The same formula: h =(m/M) (R^4/a^3) but for Venus gives an equal contribution as Jupiter, i.e., almost 0.5 mm.
    If we add the contributions from all planets (i.e. assuming they are all appropriately placed on a line) one may even get a few mm. This is a factor three or so larger than that for jupiter alone. But I do agree that that tidal effects seem small on the Sun.

  292. Sverker says:
    June 15, 2010 at 11:19 am
    But I do agree that that tidal effects seem small on the Sun.
    The tidal bulges of the order of one millimeter per million seconds [=half a rotation] or 0.000,001 millimeter per second should be compared to the random motions [both up and down and sideways] in the convective random motions on the sun of typically 400,000 millimeter per second.

  293. “Synchronization mechanisms can explain how small periodic extraterrestrial forcings can be mirrored by the climate system and contribute to a terrestrial amplification of a weak external periodic forcing.”
    -Dr Nicola Scafetta-

  294. tallbloke says:
    June 15, 2010 at 3:04 pm
    “Synchronization mechanisms can explain how small periodic extraterrestrial forcings …
    But do not, unless you specify the coupling mechanism, so you have to assume the coupling to explain the coupling.

  295. @ Leif Svalgaard:
    June 15, 2010 at 7:34 am
    There you go, thanks. If they are truly learning-resistant, I’ll notice and stop engaging too. I never mind sharing knowledge with others once or twice, especially new commenters, but, I hate meaningless arguing over mute points!
    So it IS that teeny, tiny and that’s the end answer for me at least. I did think they needed to know that the order of the planets in that effect wasn’t strictly distance, even that surprised me a bit, just had never stopped to calculate that. Venus and Jupiter, interesting, never would have guessed that order either.
    BTW, congats on your paper!

  296. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 15, 2010 at 3:09 pm
    unless you specify the coupling mechanism …. you have to assume the coupling to explain the coupling.

    Don’t be so impatient. We are still at the finding, gathering and temporally ordering the coincident phenomena stage. Since the solar system is full of coincident and fossil resonances, this is a non-trivial task in itself. Systems involving feedback and resonances don’t exhibit a nice orderly chain of events like snooker balls sequentially bumping into each other. We need to move beyond the Newtonian paradigm which dominates the thinking of current physics.
    That you think such an approach is nonsense says more about your limitations as a thinker than it does about the people doing the thinking.

  297. Pamela Gray says:
    June 15, 2010 at 10:37 am
    I would have to agree to the statement about science illiteracy. As a teacher, I am appalled at my own level of understanding, let alone those of middle and high school students. Children often have a keener sense of observation and curiosity than young adults (and the rest of us) have.
    ___________
    Pamela, do I ever agree with that. Seems the more thousands of hours I put in studying science, math and physics, the more illiterate I know I am.
    Apply some simple calculus: Take that to approach the limit, and, pretty soon I will realize I know nothing at all!

  298. tallbloke says:
    June 15, 2010 at 11:28 pm
    That you think such an approach is nonsense says more about your limitations as a thinker than it does about the people doing the thinking.
    Indeed, I’m severely limited by the laws of physics, constraining flights of fancy.

  299. tallbloke says:
    June 15, 2010 at 11:28 pm
    [–snip–]
    That you think such an approach is nonsense says more about your limitations as a thinker than it does about the people doing the thinking.

    You seem to be saying that nothing is ‘cut and dried,’ and I quite agree with that frame of mind.

  300. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 16, 2010 at 1:31 am
    tallbloke says:
    June 15, 2010 at 11:28 pm
    That you think such an approach is nonsense says more about your limitations as a thinker than it does about the people doing the thinking.
    Indeed, I’m severely limited by the laws of physics, constraining flights of fancy.
    Well, Leif, we hope that you wear wings on those flights instead of just leaping off the edge of the ‘Cliff of Fancy!’
    ;o)

  301. 899 says:
    June 16, 2010 at 6:58 am
    Well, Leif, we hope that you wear wings on those flights instead of just leaping off the edge of the ‘Cliff of Fancy!’
    Keeping both feet on solid physical ground seems to be the best approach.

  302. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 16, 2010 at 1:31 am
    Indeed, I’m severely limited by the laws of physics…..Keeping both feet on solid physical ground

    Watch out for the falling apples.

  303. tallbloke says:
    June 16, 2010 at 1:19 pm
    Watch out for the falling apples.
    Not if you’re at an L5 point!
    :o)

  304. Scafetta stats seem strong. Can’t see why this wouldn’t be an influence on climate. Correlations are effect if data, stats and model hold up under scrutiny. I would want to see someone replicate his findings with the data he used. Been done?? Otherwise open mid required here.

Comments are closed.