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
There’s no time to waste beating around the bush with niceties, so:
2 Criticisms:
1) Geographic breakdowns need a rework reflective of Earth’s features. Examples: (a) Arctic drainage basin and (b) Southern Ocean (60°S – 90°S) & Southeast Pacific Ocean (160°W – 70°W, 45°S – 90°S).
2) Consider select elements (relevant to the terrestrial hydrologic cycle & more generally the relative motions of Earth’s shells) of the works of Russian scientist Yu.V. Barkin. Consider the way lunisolar harmonics fold spatiotemporally (on a nonuniform, non-spherical, heterogeneous, asymmetric Earth) and beware confounding.
Cautionary Note: The lack of additional criticism should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of everything else in the paper. I have simply chosen to target strategically.
Recommended to ALL:
Read Scafetta’s “Appendix A. Collective synchronization of coupled oscillators”.
Next steps:
Considering the role of:
1) seasons.
2) discreteness (as opposed to continuously-varying oscillations).
Elaboration:
Bear in mind that as oscillations of similar wavelength “slip” past one another, the effect will be switch-like &/or seasonal for some types of phenomena, for example those involving precipitation-temperature-cloud relations. (Clarification: This has nothing to do with GCRs! It’s way simpler than that.)
Remember the significance of the Humboldt current & the “spinning hub” (Antarctic Circumpolar Wave (ACW) & Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC)). Keep in mind Antarctic Bottom Water (ABW) and relations between Antarctic ice specific mass and & Southern Ocean SST.
The seasonal continental swings of extreme-NH are only intermittently strongly coupled to equatorial patterns like ENSO – for example during the intense warming that began in the late 80s.
Apparent amplification of lunisolar harmonic superposition appears to vary with the stark contrast of: continental (Arctic/NH) vs. maritime (Antarctic/deep-SH), the former of which hi-jacks patterns north of 45°South due to its amplitude.
Maritime climates are damped, so wild oscillations of the NH (which is largely continental) play an exaggerated role in masking important global patterns in many standard summaries. Perhaps we need to move towards physically-weighted summaries that are mindful of continental/maritime contrasts, so as to highlight globally heavy (oceanic) patterns that are getting swamped by light (air) patterns in mainstream conventional summaries.
In short:
Aggregation criteria do affect spatiotemporal pattern.
Stockwell et al. at Niche Modeling is exploring Scafetta’s papers:
*
Roy Spencer’s recent model of “random” showing millenial “climate” changes is a strong reminder to examine the statistical significance of models. See
Millennial Climate Cycles Driven by Random Cloud Variations
Spencer also just put up:
Updated: Low Climate Sensitivity Estimated from the 11-Year Cycle in Total Solar Irradiance
For those who keep looking for one grand answer. There is no ‘one’ answer. No ‘one’ factor is more correct than another (however, some are incorrect) and some factors have more influence than others, physics applied. This paper points out one factor in a much more complex solution.
Do El Nino(s), and PDO oscillations and such still occur and influence while factors such as solar influence is occurring? To myself, there is no reason to think they do not always occur in tandem along with the other many factors that are always occurring at the same instance in time, positively or negatively and sometimes not at all. When the factors come in synch and coincide or interfere you get greater than normal maxima and minima of temperatures, ice melt, sea level, etc from aligned sine forms of these oscillating factors than if you look at each one at a time.
Dr. Scafetta and others merely point out other factors whose magnitude of influence are still not fully understood on the solar system scale. Understanding all of these factors is critical to truly understand what has occurred in climate since mankind grew up in the electronic / space / urbanization era, each has it’s positive and negative imprint on the data measurements.
Some factor I lean on, in order, UHI and thermometer placement/location (~0.6ºC), solar influence (~0.3ºC), natural global oscillations (AO, NAO, PDO, PNA, AAO, ENSO, currents, trade winds, etc.), they average out over time, then comes the weather (the rest deviation). All of these will influence sea temperatures at various levels, air temperatures at various levels, and of coarse, polar ice formation and melting, they are the effects.
We are miles and miles from understanding this.
And, no, I have never read IPCC’s reports, I actively protect my mind from perceived bad influences. That’s just my take on the matter.
Hasn’t Landeschiet done work in this area?
The layman’s description (the only one I understand) of how scientists are discovering exo-planets involves those planets orbits producing a ‘wobble’ in their star’s path which can be detected. Then if we’re lucky they can observe a transit. If so, then our gas giants would have some observable effect on our sun’s output, when observed from a few lights year away.
It seems possible that the planets have some effect on the sun and anything between them and the sun. How big an influence? I couldn’t guess.
Surely the UN is working on this, right? Maybe the Jovians will buy our carbon credits?
Dr. Scafetta has gone well beyond the principle known as Occam’s Razor or for those of a less scientific bent ‘Keep it simple,stupid’.
It may be that there are minor climate influences from any of the sources proposed though in relation to a number of them I am very doubtful.
The thing is that with multiple inputs to a complex system we see that as far as the lower magnitude influences are concerned they generally work to cancel each other out.
I’ll stick with my view that on the basis of magnitude we need only consider sun and oceans to produce the climate shifts observed with the correlation problems arising from the fact that over time each of those two overwhelming influences can either supplement or offset one another as the contribution of each varies independently (or quasi independently due to time lags).
Found an interesting paper in Scafetta’s references:
Solomon, S.; Rosenlof, K.; Portmann, R; Daniel, J.; Davis, S.; Sanford, T.; & Plattner, G.-K. (2010). Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. Science Express 327, 1219-1223.
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~plattner/papers/solomon10sci_express.pdf
See specifically:
1) paragraph 2 on p.2,
2) paragraph 4 on p.3, &
3) the very last paragraph of the article.
Note how many questions they raise. They certainly underscore uncertainty.
Further to my comments I should indicate (so as to not mislead) that I disagree with Scafetta’s interpretation of the implications of the stratospheric water vapor paper. I would focus on interannual variations (QBO, PWP, SST patterns, aerosols – all emphasized by the authors) rather than on 11 year solar oscillations.
It’s good that more and more people are finally re- discovering the wheel.It has been obvious for many years that solar “activity ” ( first best measured by solar magnetic field strength and then secondarily by sunspots – TSI ) combined with lunar declination cycles and in the longer term the Milankovitch orbital cycles are the chief controls on earths climate. The changes in solar activity clearly relate to the Jupiter – Saturn orbits and the changes in the rate of change solar angular momentum (Torque) as it orbits the barycenter. This causes torsion in the sun which effects solar tides (particularly horizontal forces) and also electromagnetic effects. It has been fashionable for the establishment astrophysicists to belittle Landscheidt so I refer everyone to Fairbridge and Sanders who published extensively on the subject in the 80’s and 90’s. Y’all might wish to check their paper pp446 – 471 in Climate History,Periodicity andPredictability Rampino et al eds. Van Nostrand 1987 There is also about a 2000 paper bibliography in the same book. A lot of this work can be traced back to Paul Jose’s 1965 paper on Suns Motion and Sunspots ( Astronomical Journal)
Perhaps the chief control on decadal and millenial scales will eventually be seen to be changes in earths albedo caused by clouds – related to cosmic rays as per Svensmark.
The effect of Anthropogenic CO2 can’t even be calculated until we better understand the natural climate controls . The whole AGW scare is a mass delusion promoted for political ends – fortunately most average people know that it is cooler in the shade than in the sun – a fact which has escaped the IPCC ” scientists”.
A couple of the commenters above miss an important point: this demonstration by Dr. S of correlation between planetary orbits and climate is, as he says repeatedly in the paper, a phenomenological study. What he has done is present not a solution, but a problem for research in terms of actual mechanisms.
Obviously, this planetary analysis corresponds with the cycles of the PDO. Dr. S has shown, rigorously, the connection. The next question is “why?”.
Science is always about “the next question”. Settlers need not apply.
We’ve criticized climate models when they adjust numerous parameters to “fit” historical data, and then claim that the “tuned” model is predictive.
Scarfetta is basically doing the same thing–with a number of periodic functions and adjusted “influence” parameters (fudge factors), you can basically closely fit any known function. If I read him right, he’s saying if we throw all these periodic functions into a mix we can adjust “amplitude” parameters so that 60% of the trend in temperature data is accounted for by the fit. That’s just basic Fourier Synthesis. You can make it fit anything.
Without some more definitive hint of a causal mechanism, all this does is show how weak the GISS model is, also.
As a physicist, I see two problem points:
1)the chaotic nature of climate
2) energies available to push/pull climate
On 1) Chaotic systems inevitably produce oscillations in various parameters. Frequency analysis of these parameters can easily find spurious agreement between two independent physically systems. In this particular case even the accuracy of the measurements is under question, two tenths of a degree C in peaks and troughs is tenuous imo.
On 2) Of all the short term gravitational inputs only the sun and the moon have enough energy transfer possibilities. Energies in electromagnetic modes are negligible. Of all the correlations seen I would consider only the sun cycle ( only on average coincident with the 11 year frequency in the planetary clock) and lunar ones as possibly important as a physical input. The sun cycle through some amplification mechanism as with GCR, and the moon more directly with its gravitational tides. It is true that the moon cycles have been largely ( and wrongly imo) ignored in climate modeling.
Mainly playing with numbers, in the form of frequencies, imo.
A most interesting Grande Climate Theory based on Astronomy.
Scafetta, JeffID, Steve McIntyre, EM Smith…… there’s a lot of outperforming of GISS.
Anyone remember the NASA that put a man on the moon? What a different time that was! With the way NASA is now, heck, maybe I should believe the moon landing was faked in Hollywood. 😉
O/T but related to the 172 yr. bi-secular cycle:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/SC24vs13_14.GIF
Finally got enough Spot Area data from Debrecen to make comparison with Greenwich data.
I’ll be working on this to include peak to peak for SC13 & 14, as well as centering on minimum times.
Craig Goodrich says:
June 4, 2010 at 6:05 pm
causes tides. It would seem obvious to me that the Sun’s plasma would be affected in some way by the gravitational forces of its satellites, no?
Indeed it does. The tides are all of one millimeter high.
Seems a little “thin” to me. But maybe upcoming global cooling has more to do with the recent upsurge in the number of high seas pirates.
I didn’t quite understand whether the comments about Jupiter, Saturn, and the Moon were meant as serious possible causes of the climate change on Earth or whether the paper is just a game showing how poor the contemporary models are – so that even “astrology” works better.
Of course, if the influences of the planets and moons are meant seriously, I think that the author will have to work a lot harder before such things may become acceptable; all kinds of cosmic dust, radiation, and magnetic fields may be affected by many details of this sort. I am not saying that such influences are impossible: they just look very unlikely to me. Alfred Wegener faced similar troubles when others were making fun out of him because it seemed impossible to them for the continents to swim.
But Wegener had highly nontrivial evidence – and, equally importantly, he was proven right. The doubts evaporated when the main mechanisms of plate tectonics were understood decades later. I think that outperforming a lousy GISS mode is not the extraordinary evidence that would be enough to make me believe a theory of the climate that at least superficially resembles astrology. 😉
Best wishes
Lubos
anna v wrote: “[…] the moon cycles have been largely ( and wrongly imo) ignored in climate modeling.”
Agree.
Scafetta cites Tsonis et al. (2007) [which is well-known at WUWT] and:
Strogatz, S.H. (2009). Exploring complex networks. Nature 410, 268-276.
http://www.bongard.ch/unikrems/Dokumente/Online-Dokus/network3.pdf
From that article, notes on collective synchronization:
“In the absence of coupling, each oscillator would settle onto its limit cycle (circle) and rotate at its natural frequency. However, here all the oscillators are also pulled towards the mean field that they generate collectively (shown as an asterisk at the centre of the population).”
“Starting from a random initial condition, the oscillators self-organize by collapsing their amplitudes; then they sort their phases so that the fastest oscillators are in the lead. Ultimately they all rotate as a synchronized pack, with locked amplitudes and phases.” (like geese)
“[…] when the coupling is small compared to the spread of natural frequencies, the system behaves incoherently, with each oscillator running at its natural frequency. As the coupling is increased, the incoherence persists until a certain threshold is crossed — then a small cluster of oscillators suddenly ‘freezes’ into synchrony. For still greater coupling, all the oscillators become locked in phase and amplitude (Fig. 2)”
“[…] coupling strength K […]” “[…] a desynchronized group whose natural frequencies lie in the tails of the distribution […] and are too extreme to be entrained. With further increases in K, more and more oscillators are recruited into the synchronized group […]”
jinki says:
June 4, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“Meanwhile Hathaway has once again reviewed his SC24 prediction, now down to 65 SSN.”
… and meanwhile NASA is again trying to sensationalize perhaps the weakest solar cycle in a hundred years: “…The sun is waking up from a deep slumber, and in the next few years we expect to see much higher levels of solar activity…”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/04jun_swef/
Michael D Smith says:
June 4, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I still don’t understand the hang-ups about theories describing tidal forces acting upon a fluid object (barycentrics). It seems perfectly logical to me that the object would enjoy a higher rotation rate and less frictional losses when spinning about its gravitational center when its own center is near tidal center than when being nudged in one direction or another due to tidal forces. It’s intuitively clear as a bell.
I do understand difficulty in translating that to solar output, field strength, or whatever with a well defined theory given such a chaotic input, lag, etc, but when so many make reasonably clear correlations with other celestial objects, I don’t see a major issue. In other words, it’s not a huge stumbling block for me to see correlation, suppose there must causation of some sort, and still be at a loss for root cause. Given enough evidence of correlation, it only means we’re incapable of discerning / measuring the core factors that give rise to causation. I think that’s interesting as hell, even if we can’t ascribe direct links to causation. I don’t have a major problem accepting that we’re not smart enough to understand every link between observation and root cause. More knowledge and theory required to bridge the gap. no problem.
==========================
Just re-posting this because it deserves to be re-posted.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Paul Vaughan says:
June 4, 2010 at 7:15 pm
===================
As always, I try to follow what you are saying. It makes some damn sense.
I would like to second what anna v (June 4, 2010 at 9:50 pm) has said.
As many other commenters have pointed out, there’s nothing wrong with ‘playing with numbers’. It might eventually lead to something useful. On the other hand, trying to provide meaningful descriptions in terms of periodic functions that have no theoretical underpinnings is fraught with the possibility of mis-assigned causation.
Here is a link to a device called a Parametric Pendulum. It is a ball at the end of a thin rod, hung up on a wall, and allowed to swing back and forth. If that’s all you do, it’s very boring and predictable. If you modify it just a little, however, you can produce hugely complicated and unpredictable behaviour. In the demonstration at the link, the modification is to make the suspension point of the pendulum move up and down at a fixed rate. There are two selectable ‘system parameters’ and two ‘initial conditions’ that you can set, but there are an essentially infinite number of output patterns, some of them radically different, and with little or no apparent connection to the two simple underlying ‘drivers’.
Now imagine that instead of specifying the system and watching what it does, you observe what it does and then try to describe what’s causing it. (You aren’t allowed to see the device itself, just the output of the graphs). Then imagine that Jim Hansen is providing your graphs.
/dr.bill
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.
—————————————————————————–
Maybe even Plasma theorists and Electric Universe proponents can have a play in the sandbox…… I’m happy to entertain any ideas…. I’m only a layperson , but I like thinking different as long as it is sensible and observation fits the hypothesis’s.
I go glassy eyed at dark energy, dark matter, black holes, neutron stars, neutronium, etc… I don’t like it when Cosmologists make up a “thing” to explain a phenomenon…. The Universe just ain’t that mysterious. The forces that act upon this planet, this sun, this solar system, this galaxy….. act upon all.
11 frequencies….
Give me eleven free parameters and I will model you a polar bear.
Give me one more free parameter and this polar bear will dance.