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
Have at it Ulric.
;¬)
You have misinterpreted my comment. All the best.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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!
Why not just show us the graph Paul? They’re worth a thousand words doncha know.
😉
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_SO_R.png
I think you’ll see where I’m going. No time to explain right now…
(but feel welcome to inquire)
Ulric Lyons says:
June 10, 2010 at 9:28 am
@ur momisugly 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?
I’d be interested in a key to the abbreviations if you feel like sharing.
The red curve matches the cumulative count of sunspots technique I developed last year quite well.
Could you tell me what data and processing did you use to did you generate it please?
Solar data at a guess, since the abbreviation you use includes ‘R’, but how did you get that curve?
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=sst-nino-ssa.jpg
tallbloke, see June 11, 2010 update here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm
Feel welcome to inquire further. Updates will likely be forthcoming as time permits.
@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.
@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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
@ur momisugly 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?
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?
@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.]
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) ]
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.
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.
Sverker says:
June 14, 2010 at 11:13 pm
I am amazed that so few here try to correct Leif.
Stick around, you’ll find out why.
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_backNotice 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.