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
Which of course begs the question, “Why is it that the gravitational force is so neatly proportioned to the inertial force”.
Answer, “nobody knows”. Einstein said they are equivalent, but didn’t (couldn’t) explain further.
This begs the further question that if some people claim Einstein did away with the ‘action at a distance’ (occult force) of gravity by saying space bends round mass and everything orbiting it is in freefall, how does the equivalence with inertia arise?
Back to Basics having read the article in full btw
1. Correlation is not causation and if you know you are looking for celestial cycles of say 11,22 and 60 then you can easily find them BUT
2. Cycles of that length are clearly there
3. There is no convincing external cause at the moment
AND
4. At least the hypothesis/ theory is testable – we just have to wait about 5o years
Hindcasting might help but now we are into proxys and their accuracy to make one
So I conclude.. can’t rule the hypothesis out but without a causation theory it is going to remain on the fringes
Disclaimer: I’ve only read parts of NS’s paper. I do not do research in this field and will only share a few observations. I’ve only read a fraction of the comments above, so I hope I am not being repetitive.
There are a number of problems in the background review. These indicate a one-sidedness that the reviewer should have objected to.
NS: “For instance, the IPCC claims that more than 90% of the observed warming since 1900 and practically 100% of the observed warming since 1970 have had an anthropogenic origin (see figure 9.5 in IPCC, AR4-WG1). The latter conclusion derivesmerely from the fact that climate models referenced by the IPCC cannot explain the warming occurred since 1970 with any known natural mechanism.”
Figure 9.5 is in section 9.4.1.2: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html
No percentages are given in this section of the IPCC report. The section explains: “The fact that climate models are only able to reproduce observed global mean temperature changes over the 20th century when they include anthropogenic forcings, and that they fail to do so when they exclude anthropogenic forcings, is evidence for the influence of humans on global climate. Further evidence is provided by spatial patterns of temperature change.” NS ignores this last statement and the evidence given for it. The section goes on to say: “There is much greater similarity between the general evolution of the warming in observations and that simulated by models when anthropogenic and natural forcings are included than when only natural forcing is included.” Further evidence is given in 9.4.1.4.
NS: “Over a much longer time scale the cosmic-ray flux record well correlates with the warm and ice periods of the Phanerozoic during the last 600 million years: the cosmic-ray flux oscillations are likely due to the changing galactic environment of the solar system as it crosses the spiral arms of the Milky Way [Shaviv, 2003, 2008; Shaviv and Veizer, 2003; Svensmark, 2007].”
But NS should acknowledge that this view is disputed. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/] He is entitled to his view, but any scientific article has to acknowledge serious disputes about ideas it is claiming to build on.
The paragraph, below, on the Chinese calendar should have been deleted. Its presence may be the forensic evidence of weak refereeing.
NS: “Interestingly, the traditional Chinese calendar, whose origins can be traced as far back as the 14th century BCE, is arranged in major 60-year cycles [Aslaksen, 1999]. Each year is assigned a name consisting of two components. The first component is one of the 10 Heavenly Stems (Jia, Yi, Bing, etc.), while the second component is one of the 12 Earthly Branches that features the names of 12 animals (Zi, Chou, Yin, etc.). Every 60 years the stem-branch cycle repeats. Perhaps, this sexagenary cyclical calendar was inspired by climatic and astronomical observations.”
The major problems are with the science. NS claims to tease out a ~60 year cycle in global mean temperature. This not new and has been disputed. [http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/cyclical-not/ ] A times series data set will likely have some peaks in its frequency spectrum. But this may be spurious and since the cycle time is on the same order as the length of the data set, this is even more likely to be spurious. In this case NS finds the ~60 cycle after subtracting out a parabolic curve. Well, the upward arc of that curve is what we are all worried about.
NS finds that there is a ~60 cycle involving the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. Well, since 60=60, there must be a connection! As pointed out recently of Real Climate: “You can’t do attribution based only on statistics.” [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/on-attribution/] If NS had produced model using data from say 1850-1950 and used this to predict data from 1950 – 2010, that would be interesting.
The lack of a physical mechanism is of course a problem with astrology in general. NS does address this. To his credit he does not claim to have found one, but speculates on some possibilities. He hypothesizes that tidal forces of J & S on the sun may change solar irradiance. One test of NS’s hypothesis would be to see if there is a similar 60 year cycle on Mars. Maybe telescope observations of the Marian “ice” caps go back far enough to attempt this.
Just a short reply to Mike who has read partially my paper.
1) “No percentages are given in this section of the IPCC report.” etc…
I am referring directly to the results depicted in figure 9.5 in IPCC, AR4-WG1.
This figure clearly suggests that 90% of the warming since 1900 and 100% of the warming since 1970 has been due to human emissions according to the IPCC model simulations. Look carefully figure 9.5b and try to do some simple calculation.
2)About “the warm and ice periods of the Phanerozoic during the last 600 million years” etc.
This is not the major topic of the paper. There is no need to extensively talk about the references pro and contra the details of this theory.
3) “The paragraph, below, on the Chinese calendar should have been deleted” etc
And why? Don’t you like the idea that a natural 60-year cycle might have been noted by major civilizations per centuries? Or perhaps you do not like history?
4) “In this case NS finds the ~60 cycle after subtracting out a parabolic curve.” etc
The 60 year cycle is found in multiple ways to do the calculations. The power spectrum analysis does not subtract anything. The existence of a 60-year cycle is clear from all calculations.
5) “NS finds that there is a ~60 cycle involving the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. Well, since 60=60, there must be a connection!” etc
I found much more that just the 60 year cycle. Other cycle match as well and there is synchrony.
6) “If NS had produced model using data from say 1850-1950 and used this to predict data from 1950 – 2010” etc
That is actually what the model also does.
7) “He hypothesizes that tidal forces of J & S on the sun may change solar irradiance.”
I hypothesize more than that.
8) “Disclaimer: I’ve only read parts of NS’s paper.”
Do not imitate Leif Svalgaard.
Read the paper a coupled of times and then think before writing.
Nicola: Thanks for responding. I doubt many here have read your paper carefully – at least I admitted it! Obviously one cannot do a serious evaluation of a paper in few hours. This is a blog after all and not a journal. I will look at your paper again but probably won’t post on it. I have a some traveling to do and there is little point to posting on a topic here after a week.
Try and have some fun this summer before the planet burns up. 😉
Nicola,
Any thoughts on testing your hypothesis by looking at Mars? Is that at all feasible?
In some ways it is unfortunate that one of the most important parts of Nicola Scafetta’s paper is in the appendix on coupled oscillators, outside the main body of the paper.
Every third conjunction of Jupiter/Saturn takes place in the same spot in the sky to within a very small angle. There is a slow precession such that it takes some hundreds of years before the conjunction once again returns to the same point. The phasing is coincident with the major historically observed climate changes Roman Warm Period – Cold Dark Ages Period – Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age – Modern Warm Period.
Could it be that the periodic alignment of the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction with the galactic centre might provide the external perturbation which explains both the sixty year cycle whch doesn’t necessarily strongly feature at all historical epochs (every third conjunction lining up with the galactic centre – or not) and the longer term climate cycles we observe in the Earth’s climate (gradual precession of the conjunction)?
Mike says:
June 6, 2010 at 4:58 pm
The paragraph, below, on the Chinese calendar should have been deleted. Its presence may be the forensic evidence of weak refereeing.
Perhaps the referees are more aware than you are that the Chinese kept very careful records of the times of the spring flowering of a range of plants.
NS should acknowledge that this view is disputed. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/] He is entitled to his view, but any scientific article has to acknowledge serious disputes about ideas it is claiming to build on…. Tamino
Gavin Schmidt is a paid propagandist whose website contains much inaccuracy. He has also co-written a paper on solar forcing which was given a good kicking by Nicola Scafetta a while ago in the published literature. Tamino (Grant Hutchison) is another pro AGW propagandist whose statistical contortions and acrobatics make me smile.
You can torture the data until it confesses – even to crimes it did not commit.
Carsten,
Saying the sun is “in free fall” is meaningless. All objects in orbit around another object are in free fall. Firstly, the Sun is in orbit around the solar system barycenter. I very much doubt that Leif is claiming its not under gravitational influence from the planets.
Gravitational influence is the primary method by which astronomers are able to detect planets orbiting other stars.
Secondly, the Solar System is in orbit around the galaxy. Escape velocity from the Solar System is 42.1 km/sec, but velocity to escape from the galaxy is 551 km/sec, rather significant. The solar systems velocity around the galactic center is about half that speed.
The angular momentum of all objects in the solar system is, in fact, conserved. When the rotation of the earth slows down, the moon moves further out in its orbit. When the rotation speeds up, the moon is brought closer in. This tidal relationship is the primary means by which the Earth’s magnetic field is generated as the Earth’s core spins slightly faster than the mantle, causing the geomagnetic dynamo to be generated.
Similarly, when the Sun’s spin slows, it is because the planets absorb angular momentum from it via gravitational frame dragging, and the distance of their orbits increases. When the spin speeds up, the sun absorbs angular momentum from the planets.
[this has gone too far. Leif is sometimes not as polite as we would like him to be, but he is dead on here. Despite allowing disparate viewpoints here, it safe to say that we have no need to allow moonwalk hoax theories, chemtrails conspiracy theorists, 9/11 truthers, anti Newtonian dynamics conspiracy theorists, and various other tinfoil hat wearing commentary. I came to this party late, but I own the wet blanket and I will use it. ~ charles the moderator]
JDN says:
June 6, 2010 at 10:00 am
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 dislike that experiment for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the determination was conducted in the presence of a gravitational field, AND because of the the Earth’s own rotational and nutational influences.
JDN says:
June 6, 2010 at 10:00 am
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.
Additionally, Shell’s theory is extremely faulted.
From your URL:
“3. Inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero at the centre of mass.”
That’s impossible for the following reason: If one is at the center of a mass, then the rest of the mass adjacent MUST ALSO exert a gravitational force upon the center itself.
If there exists a modulation of the moon/sun tides from paleo planetary synchronisation, a frequency study of the tides should bring it out.
In the focus on peripheral “60 year” NH nonlinear continentality, the “90 year” maritime circulatory core is being overlooked.
This is what is being missed:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_SO_SEP_MSI_IVI2.png
These guys were on to something:
1) Adams, J.B.; Mann, M.E.; & Ammann, C.M. (2003). Proxy Evidence for an El Nino-like Response to Volcanic Forcing. Nature 426, 274-278.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Adamsetal-Nature03.pdf
2) Kerr, R.A. (2003). Volcanic Blasts Favor El Nino Warmings. Science 299, 336-337.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Kerr%282003%29_VolENSO.pdf
But it’s not just SOI, it’s SOI+L90 (in recent times, at least).
Generally, stratospheric eruptions occur when Southern Ocean (SO) & Southeast Pacific (SEP) sea surface temperature (SST) is high. (In interpreting the graph, bear in mind that MSI records end at 1970, whereas SAOT & IVI2 go to 2000.) The largest SAOT events occur when SO & SEP SST is highest. Also, as is well known, stratospheric eruptions lead to cooling via optical extinction.
i.e.:
The spinning southern maritime hub and stratospheric eruptions appear to be coupled as mutual coolants.
[Abbreviations/details: http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm (update added June 7, 2010)]
In summary:
We should be focused on lunisolar tides.
[Note to diehards: If there’s something planetary &/or solar, it might have to wait until forces/factors of larger magnitude are first understood.]
Mike says:
June 6, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Disclaimer: I’ve only read parts of NS’s paper. I do not do research in this field and will only share a few observations. I’ve only read a fraction of the comments above, so I hope I am not being repetitive.[–snip rest–]
Yes, you are being repetitive!
Why in the blazes would ANYONE refer to ‘realclimate’ as a source of any kind of information, unless s/he has it in mind to purvey snake oil?
It’s nought but a propaganda organ of the severely brain damaged!
we have no need to allow … anti Newtonian dynamics conspiracy theorists… ~ charles the moderator]
Yeah, right on Charles. Get out of here Einstein!
Lol.
😉
Reply: I figured someone would point out that flaw in my logic. Okay Newtonian dynamics are only approximations which work well at normal velocities and accelerations. ~ ctm
Paul Vaughan says:
June 7, 2010 at 2:22 am
In summary:
We should be focused on lunisolar tides.
[Note to diehards: If there’s something planetary &/or solar, it might have to wait until forces/factors of larger magnitude are first understood.]
Loud and clear Paul. Ian Wilson is headed the same way too, along with Richard Holle, Harald Yndestad, William Turrell, and Vladimir Ozhigin.
One of the first posts on my blog was:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/the-moon-is-linked-to-long-term-atlantic-changes/
But I’m going to hedge my bets here and say that both Lunar and Solar-planetary dynamics should be pursued with equal vigour, because it’s a wide open field and there is much to be discovered.
899 says:
June 7, 2010 at 1:28 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
Shell’s theory is extremely faulted.
If one is at the center of a mass, then the rest of the mass adjacent MUST ALSO exert a gravitational force upon the center itself.
Yes, but since the adjacent mass surrounds the centre 360 degrees in all planes the force cancels to zero.
However in the sun, there could, according to Ray Tomes theory, be a relativistic effect of the planet’s gravitational pull which causes the dense matter at the solar core to shift relative to the less dense layers above, producing large meridional flows at the surface, potentially affecting sunspot production.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2930
tallbloke says:
June 6, 2010 at 11:33 pm
In some ways it is unfortunate that one of the most important parts of Nicola Scafetta’s paper is in the appendix on coupled oscillators, outside the main body of the paper.
Every third conjunction of Jupiter/Saturn takes place in the same spot in the sky to within a very small angle. There is a slow precession such that it takes some hundreds of years before the conjunction once again returns to the same point. The phasing is coincident with the major historically observed climate changes Roman Warm Period – Cold Dark Ages Period – Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age – Modern Warm Period.
Could it be that the periodic alignment of the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction with the galactic centre might provide the external perturbation which explains both the sixty year cycle whch doesn’t necessarily strongly feature at all historical epochs (every third conjunction lining up with the galactic centre – or not) and the longer term climate cycles we observe in the Earth’s climate (gradual precession of the conjunction)?
In some ways it comes off as ‘science fictional’ in theme, but the thing which blows my mind is that the data all correlate to reality.
I am wont to remark –as have others– that correlation doesn’t equal causation.
BUT, after how many times must one event take place before there is seen to be a direct connection between it and another event?
“Once Is Chance, Twice is Coincidence, Third Time Is A Pattern.”
tallbloke says:
June 6, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Which of course begs the question, “Why is it that the gravitational force is so neatly proportioned to the inertial force”.
Answer, “nobody knows”. Einstein said they are equivalent, but didn’t (couldn’t) explain further.
This begs the further question that if some people claim Einstein did away with the ‘action at a distance’ (occult force) of gravity by saying space bends round mass and everything orbiting it is in freefall, how does the equivalence with inertia arise?
Mass and energy.
Mass is everything. No mass? No inertia, and no gravitational force, and no energy.
Light is energy, energy is affected by mass and conversely so. How hard can it be?
tallbloke says:
June 7, 2010 at 3:00 am
899 says:
June 7, 2010 at 1:28 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
Shell’s theory is extremely faulted.
If one is at the center of a mass, then the rest of the mass adjacent MUST ALSO exert a gravitational force upon the center itself.
Yes, but since the adjacent mass surrounds the centre 360 degrees in all planes the force cancels to zero.
That only works with a pure and singular substance which is a completely perfect spheroid. The Earth is not that!
It won’t work on Earth for just those reasons. In order to achieve what the URL states, the center would have to be significantly offset and change with time. Chances are that being at the center would cause one to be drawn to the northern hemisphere, owing to the mass concentration at that location.
Continuing:
tallbloke says:
June 7, 2010 at 3:00 am
However in the sun, there could, according to Ray Tomes theory, be a relativistic effect of the planet’s gravitational pull which causes the dense matter at the solar core to shift relative to the less dense layers above, producing large meridional flows at the surface, potentially affecting sunspot production.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2930
Intriguing thought.
Leif Svalgaard says: June 5, 2010 at 7:35 pm
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.
L.S. You have no evidence that any of this [which is overblown to begin with] is connected.
True I have no physical evidence, however I have data of which you are very well aware.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
Thus, I shall restate: The Earth’s magnetic field had a major shock during Maunder Min period.
The upswing then followed by a drop (12-15% of the total by 1850), it can only be described as an ‘extraordinary GMF event’. The subsequent ripples, to any electronic, mechanical or acoustic engineer, are clear indication of a resonant system’s response.
Further more it is possible (as I have suggested elsewhere) that since then, there is a direct relationship (of inverse proportionality) with the movement of the NH temperatures.
tallbloke says:
June 7, 2010 at 3:00 am
according to Ray Tomes theory, be a relativistic effect of the planet’s gravitational pull which causes the dense matter at the solar core to shift relative to the less dense layers above, producing large meridional flows at the surface, potentially affecting sunspot production.
There are two important papers ( 1.Wang, Lean, Sheely and 2. Solanki at al. ) on the subject of meridional flow.
Links are here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
Vuk, it looks like the Earth’s magnetic field got stronger at the same time as the sun’s magnetism weakened. Whatsupwiththat?
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, and they are the ones which cause much more tidal motion, same as those caused by the moon here on earth.
Even tiny Mercury induces horizontal tides of hundreds of kilometers on the suns surface. Leif’s 1mm tide is a red herring.
The vertical tides on the earth are not small, they are of the order of 30 cm even on solid ground, and 50 to 200cm in the ocean.
Considering the difference in radii between earth and sun percentage wise the earth tides are huge.
I do not know what you mean by horizontal tides, if you mean the reflection of the motion of the planetary body on the body it acts on , still the energies being transferred are tiny with respect with the energies governing the appearance of sunspots and magnetic formations.
I will not tire of saying , it is the energy transferred that is important , and a track of a mosquito on a lake, even if it covers the length of the lake will not make a measurable difference to the fluid dynamics of the lake.