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.
Here’s the abstract at Sciencedirect:
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
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.
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
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.
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).
“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.
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.
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.
Yes. What is new here? This appears irrelevant.
Did anyone say it isn’t? In fact I have shown it to be true here.
Who disputes tidal effects?
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.
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!
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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?
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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. 🙂
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…
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.
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.
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
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.
@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.
@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.
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
@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.
Here’s an interesting site with historical reference to solar flares.
Some rather interesting reading:
http://www.solarstorms.org/SRefStorms.html
@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.