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
vukcevic says:
June 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Period 1600 – 1700 was time of a major magnetic perturbation not only in the solar activity but also in the Earth’s magnetic field. and most likely it was solar system wide.
You have no evidence that any of this [which is overblown to begin with] is connected.
tallbloke says:
June 5, 2010 at 1:34 am
The vertical tides (caused by the planets on the sun) are small, just as the vertical tide caused by the moon on the earth is small, but the horizontal tides are huge in comparison
anything is huge compared to a millimeter. I would expect the tidal bulge to be of the order of 100,000 km and 1 millimeter high. This has no effect on anything.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm
it is very good to see so many folks explicitly drawing attention to confounding.
It looks to me that you are confounding and conflating a lot of unrelated things.
Good old Leif! Totally in the dark, as usual!
Kind words Ninderthana, but readers should be aware that I changed my position quite fundamentally in March 2010. One will note the sharp change, for example, here: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/what-is-the-solar-planetary-theory/ .
–
Leif wrote: “It looks to me that you are confounding and conflating a lot of unrelated things.”
Perhaps you are skeptical that I have truly changed my position? I will be more clear: I have changed my position.
vukcevic says:
June 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Period 1600 – 1700 was time of a major magnetic perturbation not only in the solar activity but also in the Earth’s magnetic field.
It wasn’t. Here are the dipole moments since 1550. Nothing special going on except a steady decrease:
Year Dipole Moment x 1015Tm3
(degrees) Co-latitude
(degrees) East Longitude
(degrees)
1990 7.84 10.8 289.0
1950 8.07 11.5 291.1
1900 8.27 11.5 292.0
1850 8.47 11.5 295.6
1800 8.61 10.8 301.0
1750 8.84 10.1 305.4
1700 9.00 8.3 314.6
1650 9.18 7.0 322.3
1600 9.36 5.4 330.3
1550 9.54 3.1 334.1
I am very pleased to see wattsupwiththat publishing articles that support Landscheidts theories. I never understood why Anthony didn’t like people writing about Landscheidt theories? I am an agricultural scientist, I greatly admire Landscheidts ability to predict major weather events like el Nino events, the end of the ethiopian drought and the prediction about favourable rainfall continuing in the US midwest this decade. Its pretty obvious to me as an amateur climate scientist that there is a periodicity in the worlds temperature record. It seems there is no better explanation than it involves the rotation of the large planets as the data lines up too well. The exact mechanism of why the changes happen we don’t know. When I try to solve a problem I look for the best correlations and then look for possible mechanisms. A sound explanation of the actual mechanism(s) may not happen in the next decade, but lets not be skeptical of these interesting data set match ups because we can’t explain how they work.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 5, 2010 at 7:51 pm
I will be more clear: I have changed my position.
I don’t know what your position was or now is. Perhaps simply state it in straight English…
I hate writing replies like this because I doubt they will receive serious consideration, but, I don’t think surface velocity is where to look for a gravitational effect.
The sun’s core is defined by a burn wave with a strong discontinuity, i.e. high density of helium on the inside and almost completely hydrogen on the outside of the burn wave. Basically, the sun has a ball of about four times the density of the surrounding environment sitting in its center. Any net gravitational force on the body of the sun will shift this core relative the the rest of the sun. Any shifting of this helium core will make more hydrogen available for reaction. I’m sure it will be more complicated to model, but, it’s obvious that there will be some influence. My point is that 20 m/s is nothing to a plasma whose temperature varies from 5000K to 100,000K. And since this idea of a shifting core is so obvious, I’m sure someone has already considered it. Why not give this idea equal time?
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.
mathman says:
June 5, 2010 at 7:42 am
Just how difficult would it be to do a correlation of these cyclic phenomena with the ice core data?
Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles, and Carbon Dioxide, Authors: Gerald E. Marsh
ice cores, seabed cores, and even speleo-whatchacallums!
i would love to see a whole post dedicated to just this paper. the bibliography alone is a treasure trove.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 5, 2010 at 6:39 am
Both gravity AND magnetism from the planets are three orders of magnitude smaller than that of the Sun. On the Earth we have exquisitely sensitive devices capable of measuring these forces and there are essentially NO traces of any planetary influences.
No trace that we know of, yet.
I have said this before, and I’ll say it again: You may dismiss NOT A THING until there is ABSOLUTE PROOF of no affect.
You might say ‘so small as to be unimportant,’ but in the end until you know for sure, then everything counts, no matter how seemingly small.
Look at how weak gravity is compared to all of the other forces in the universe …
The key which open a door is but a few ounces to the many pounds it helps move.
Mike says:
My preferred version is ‘Keep it simple, but don’t be stupid.’
Perhaps you should be following your own advice?
The gas giants have other characteristics than gravitational pull. They also have substantial magnetic fields that have a rather remarkable extant. I suppose they are still (vastly)too small, but might the position of their magnetic tails have an impact on the heliospheric boundary position or condition, and somehow affect GCRs reaching Earth’s atmosphere, just as the more familiar solar cycle more directly does?
Just wondering aloud far too late at night.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
June 5, 2010 at 6:41 am
True. Tidal forces exist. However they are exceedingly small on the surface of the Sun, in the order of submillimeters if my memory serves me. Compared to the size and mass of the Sun, these effects are completely negligible.
And you’ve paid a visit to the Sun to absolutely ascertain just that, right?
Allow me to ask: I an object in flux easier to influence, or harder to influence?
Richard Lindzen on Milankovitch Cycles, not correlated to temperature but to time rate of change of temperature
it looks like Scafetta is not saying his work is about Saturn and Jupiter’s gravitational effect on earth but their effect on earth is via their gravitational effect on the sun.
some seem to be insisting the former
speaking of sun and climate anyone seen Lucy Skywalker lately?
JDN says:
June 5, 2010 at 8:17 pm
I hate writing replies like this because I doubt they will receive serious consideration, but, I don’t think surface velocity is where to look for a gravitational effect.
The sun’s core is defined by a burn wave with a strong discontinuity, i.e. high density of helium on the inside and almost completely hydrogen on the outside of the burn wave. Basically, the sun has a ball of about four times the density of the surrounding environment sitting in its center. Any net gravitational force on the body of the sun will shift this core relative the the rest of the sun. Any shifting of this helium core will make more hydrogen available for reaction.
Have a look at Ray Tomes theory on this subject. He calculates that the core wouldn’t have to shift very far at all to cause significant flows on the surface of the sun.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2930&sid=58e96ce6e11f09b0c55ada4fded36396
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 5, 2010 at 9:39 am
Tenuc says:
June 5, 2010 at 8:35 am
SDO also monitors the sun’s extreme UV output, which controls the response of Earth’s atmosphere to solar variability.”
Is this a hint about the Earth’s missing climate ‘solar switch’, or something else ???
The usual confusion: what NASA mean is the UPPER atmosphere above [say] 100 km where solar activity controls the temperature and density [important for satellite drag, etc].
But of course, that would never affect the Earth’s climate, right, Leif?
Not in a million years, right?
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 5, 2010 at 7:35 pm
I would expect the tidal bulge to be of the order of 100,000 km and 1 millimeter high. This has no effect on anything.
Way to go Leif. Ignore Geogieva’s empirical observations and deny deny deny deny.
K.Georgieva et al., Planetary tidal effects on solar activity, 2009.
Solar-Terrestrial Influences Laboratory of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad. G. Bonchev str., Bl.3, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
I’ve got a potentially plausible explanation that could help. Since solar tides are on the order of 1 mm high, perhaps instead of the planets affecting the solar cycle, the solar cycle could have affected, over geologic time, could have affected the spacing between the planets. We don’t really know why the planets formed where they do. Of course, at least in our solar system, there is a degree of regularity in planetary spacing.
Now to go anywhere with this, we might need observations on ten to one hundred solar systems with planets with sizes in the Mercury to Jupiter range, and compare their distances, sunspot and temperature cycles. I’m pretty sure we would learn something useful, and it might take less than one thousand years to complete.
I’m not sure how to write this up as a grant proposal, and in the current AGW climate it might be better to wait another five years, but I’m sure the Russians would be interested.
I have said this before, and I’ll say it again: You may dismiss NOT A THING until there is ABSOLUTE PROOF of no affect.
And if frogs had wings they would not bump their ass when they jump. There is no absolute proof in science. Actually global warming is caused by time travelling aliens.
.do not dismiss a thing without absolute proof.
In actuality we only need posit those things REQUIRED to make an theory work. Its not about ruling things OUT. Its about positing things as causes and then testing.
tallbloke says:
June 4, 2010 at 4:59 pm
steven mosher says:
June 4, 2010 at 3:47 pm
1. I hope that Dr. Niki is more willing to share his code and data this time around. or will he use the same tactics he has in the past? The last go round we had with him he was as bad or worse than Jones or Mann.
Maybe it’s in the way you ask. Perhaps dissing the man as a “numerologist” in the same post isn’t the best entree to an open exchange of code.”
you do not know the history. you cannot speak with authority. You can go to climate audit and search for the thread where Steve McIntyre and the rest of us asked him for his code and he played stupid games and in the end refused. Steve asked nicely.
But lets see, you ask nicely, or anyone else ask nicely. Seriously, what kind of argument is yours? he shouldnt share his code with the rest of you because I called him a numerologist? I called Mike Mann the Piltdown Mann, perhaps you think he has a right not to share code now?
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.
Really?
Got certifiable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof of such?
Bring it on. Leif!
Otherwise, keep an open mind.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 4, 2010 at 9:57 pm
“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. ;-)”
Remember that putting a man to the moon was outsourced to a group of german forced immigrants.
Scafetta:
“My smooth is obtained with the MODWT itself. I do not know why BS09 used such a polynomial fit. Probably because by adopting a periodic padding their MODWT smooth component looked horrible. The point in 2000 was merging the point in 1900!
So, they preferred a nice polynomial fit.
But I really do not know, please ask them.
Steve:
right now I do not have time to post a code, I do not use your R program. My codes with all the libraries are a mess. I will prepare a nice code and put it online, but I will not be able to do it right now. Just a few days.”
That was august 9 2009. Promise made by Scafetta. not kept. Not because he wasnt asked nicely. His code is likely an embarassing mess. Since 2007 a group of us have consistently asked for access to the code and data of climate science. Aint gunna stop, and aint gunna cut nobody any slack.
We are still waiting.