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
@ur momisugly 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?
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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?
Heh, nice one Johnny.
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.
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.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 8, 2010 at 5:37 am
@ur momisugly 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’
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
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
Any big volcanoes in this time period?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1930/to:1980/mean:43/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1930/to:1980/offset:160/scale:0.001
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?
@ur momisugly 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.
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?
@ur momisugly 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.
@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
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?
899 says:
June 9, 2010 at 4:05 am
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?
Take a look here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/