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
peterhodges says:
June 5, 2010 at 10:26 pm
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.
As would I, but it seems that many cannot see the ~content~ of the tree rings for the forest …
Pity.
Steven mosher says:
June 6, 2010 at 1:09 am
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.
[1] If frogs had wings, they’d STILL bump their arses upon landing.
[2] Since you seem so enamored of ‘time-traveling space aliens,’ then you must prove prove of their existence. You mentioned them first, ergo you are required to provide proof. Fantasy does NOT count as proof.
[3] If the only thing required to make a theory work is the point of a government gun pointed at your head, then we’ll guess the WWII Germany was a blazing success for the Jews.
Right?
Steven mosher says:
June 6, 2010 at 1:29 am
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.
I don’t need to search for the thread, I was reading it as it was happening. My recollection is different to yours though. As I remember it, Steve M posted a graph he’d made from the data and said Nicola Scafetta had got it wrong. Then Nicola S posted saying that he was sure Steve was smart enough to spot his own error, but he would give him a while to work it out. He was then accused of being coy, silly and worse, and so he declined to share.
Here is the initial exchange:
nicola scafetta
Posted Aug 9, 2009 at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Reply
Steve,
I was joking. 🙂
The reason why I do not want to tell you the solution is because I want to show that if somebody (you or your readers) thinks a little bit he can find the solution by himself because it is very very simple.
So, let us take it as a summer math problem. Let us see if somebody find the solution and explain why, OK?
ciao, ciao
nicola
*
Steve McIntyre
Posted Aug 9, 2009 at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Reply
Re: nicola scafetta (#9),
Nicola, while the problem may be very interesting to you, it’s only marginally interesting to me. I’m covering a lot of topics here and am not personally interested in such a game. Particularly if it’s got something to do with phase displacement in wavelets or something like that.
*
steven mosher
Posted Aug 9, 2009 at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Reply
Re: nicola scafetta (#9),
If you posted your code, we would not have to waste time on silly games. In the time it takes you to read the post, make your comments, etc, you could have just posted the code.
==========================================================
Seriously, what kind of argument is yours? he shouldnt share his code with the rest of you because I called him a numerologist? ?
Nicola Scafetta has been happy to share his data and ideas privately with me, but then, I treat him with respect, and I share stuff useful to him in return. You call him out as a silly game playing numerologist without taking the trouble to really understand what he is saying or offering any useful well informed criticism.
You talk a lot about others sharing, but sharing is a two way street. What are you offering in return?
Nicola has shown a correlation between SSB distance plus solar velocity and the modulation of Earth’s climate….this is the focal point.
The SSB distance between 1970 and 2000 experienced the greatest high because of Uranus & Neptune, this also correlates with one of the big rises in Earth temperatures. The IPCC are riding the outer gas giant wave, but it has crashed…we are just beginning to see their demise.
Re: Steven mosher
What data & code are you looking for? Everything you need is here:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
Paul Vaughan says:
June 6, 2010 at 3:28 am
Re: Steven mosher
What data & code are you looking for? Everything you need is here:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
And the same data proves the imbalance of angular momentum between the Sun and the rest of the solar system mass.
The mechanism has been provided and yet no challenge?
899 says:
June 6, 2010 at 1:36 am
“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.
Got certifiable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof of such?
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 6, 2010 at 6:12 am
“Got certifiable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof of such?”
or click
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 6, 2010 at 6:12 am
899 says:
June 6, 2010 at 1:36 am
“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.
Got certifiable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof of such?
Well? I don’t see what it is you’re trying to prove.
Leif: ☺
[couldn’t resist]
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 6, 2010 at 6:15 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 6, 2010 at 6:12 am
“Got certifiable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof of such?”
or click
Pity.
I don’t do ‘YouTube,’ because it has been proven to be loaded with imbedded viruses and Trojans, and google tracks the movements of all is users so that it can sell your data to the highest bidder.
Now what?
Smokey says:
June 6, 2010 at 8:00 am
Leif: ☺ [couldn’t resist]
The ‘Hoax’ bit just shows the depths of science illiteracy of the general public, including [and especially] many posters here.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 6, 2010 at 6:15 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 6, 2010 at 6:12 am
“Got certifiable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof of such?”
or click
Well, I ‘clicked’ and I got this:
899 says:
June 6, 2010 at 8:03 am
Now what?
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.
tallbloke says:
June 4, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Just for fun, I’ll keep a gratuitous insult count on this thread.
Eric Gisin – Astrology
Steven Mosher – Numerology, Silly games
Leif Svalgaard – the depths of science illiteracy of the general public, including [and especially] many posters here.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Thanks Paul. I’m going to watch it.
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.
This is embarassing, but, Leif is right. I was arguing by false analogy.
899:
Here’s the proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
I just wasn’t using them when I wrote my first post. Sorry guys.
I would like to thank you for your interest in my research. I would like to ask the people, in particular those who criticize my paper to read it first.
Re: Steven Mosher
In brief I would like to ask Steven not to fall in the propaganda traps of Gavin and Rasmus. The data and the codes were never the issue. The issue was that Gavin and Rasmus do not know how to deal with the border conditions. See this post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/scafetta-benestad-and-schmidt%E2%80%99s-calculations-are-%E2%80%9Crobustly%E2%80%9D-flawed/
Then Gavin and Rasmus wanted to divert the public attention from their true mathematical errors on the fictitious problem of the code and the data and put the blame of their poor mathematical understanding on me. They had both data and codes. They did not know how to use them also because they did not read well my papers where everything is clearly explained!
Re: Leif Svalgaard
I would like also to ask Leif to read my paper before he criticized them. He really does not appear to have any interest in understanding a scientific argument. I also came to the Sorce Science meeting in part because of your suggestion, but you did not care to spend with me even 30 seconds. I could explain you many things.
In my paper I have NEVER claimed that the barycentric movement of the sun is the physical cause of the climate oscillations. What I say is that the barycentric movement of the sun can be used as a PROXY for calculating the frequencies of the oscillations of the solar system and their major patterns. These oscillations are shared, for simple mathematical reasons, by every physical function of the position of the planets. These functions include the barycentric movement as well as everything else including the not yet understood physical function (let us call it “Black Factor” is in symbiosis with the Black Matter, and Black Energy used by the astrophysicists to explain what they do not understand but that they observe) that is causing the climate oscillation that will be more detailed in another paper.
About your understanding of the tides and of Galileo, I would like to remind you that Galileo was the person who argued that the revolution of the Earth around the sun was “proven” by solar tides on the Earth. We today know that these solar tides do exist although they are small.
Therefore, I would like to suggest the hypothesis that the Good God might have created the universe (including the solar system with everything included) in a different way than what you have understood. So, please, keep an open mind in particular when the empirical evidences, as I show in my paper, are so strong.
someone school me here.
gravitation acts proportionally between two masses.
therefore, two heavier masses will attract with a greater force than two lighter masses.
so shouldn’t the hammer and the moon fall together faster than the feather and moon?
what if we dropped something with mass of say, jupiter, and a feather?
and i will of course google the matter…
i did not even need google. my cheat sheet from college physics was still in my calculator case! but i still might not be understanding something fundamental, but:
f=Gm1m2/r^2
m1 stays the same
m2 gets larger
therefore f gets larger
if f=ma then the two greater masses should attract ‘faster’
peterhodges,
Gravitational acceleration is per second per second squared and applies to any mass. If larger objects fell faster, then there would be no atmosphere because individual molecules, being extremely light, would have so little acceleration that they would be bumped into outer space by collisions with other molecules.
peterhodges says:
June 6, 2010 at 11:34 am
if f=ma then the two greater masses should attract ‘faster’
This is counteracted by the fact that more massive objects have greater inertia to overcome, so the larger force balances the overcoming of the inertia and the acceleration remains the same.
So Nicola, great paper and yes the data is too overwhelmingly interesting to be ignored.
What’s your call on the current solar cycle? Do you think we are into a Dalton repeat? I am quite worried the Katla volcano is going to blow during the current prolonged minimum and affect world grain production. The Katla volcano seems to be blowing every 95-100 years 1625, 1721, 1823, 1918, 2010?? Four of the last 7 blows have been on the 95-100 year cycle. Do you believe that volcanic activity in the northern hemisphere is linked with prolonged solar minimums?
Re: Tenuc
Thanks for drawing our attention to this “Black Swan Theory”. “Ludic fallacy” is a particularly relevant term in the climate discussion.
–
Thanks to Nicola Scafetta & Ninderthana for dropping by to grace this discussion.