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
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.
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…..
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!
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) ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
A different view:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=s9ke93mf
Enneagram says:
June 15, 2010 at 12:00 pm
A different view: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=s9ke93mf
But complete and utter nonsense.
“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-
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.
@ur momisugly 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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
tallbloke says:
June 16, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Watch out for the falling apples.
Not if you’re at an L5 point!
:o)
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.