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 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.
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
@ur momisugly 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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
Paul,
I’m seeing a big drop in SO temp post 1883 (Krakatoa?), but I’m not seeing much evidence of it globally here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1880/to:1920/mean:2/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1880/to:1920/mean:2/offset:-0.5
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
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.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 9, 2010 at 3:59 pm
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
@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.