Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations

 

Music of the Spheres - Click for more info

 

People send me stuff, my email is like a firehose, with several hundred messages a day, and thus this message was delayed until sent to me a second time today.  I’m breaking my own rule on Barycentrism discussions, because this paper has been peer reviewed and published in Elsevier.

George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:

Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.  His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation.

If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.

There have been many articles over the years which indicated that there were 60-year cycles in the climate, but this is the first one I’ve seen which ties them to planetary orbits.

– George

===============================================================

The paper is:

Scafetta,N.,

Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications .

Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010),doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015

I find his figure 11b interesting:

Here’s the link:

www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

Advertisements

276 thoughts on “Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations

  1. Alex, just remember that copernicus was an astrologer and he was right about his ideas about the solar system. If it takes an astrologer to give us correct climatology, I’m all for it.

  2. alex says:
    October 13, 2010 at 2:22 pm
    Astrology.
    in which house is Venus today?

    Be respectful please!.
    So you believe in ghosts like: Black Holes, Dark Matter, Multi dimensional universes beyond the “Land of Never More”?.
    Everybody knows that is pure Voodoo Science, Witchcraft!.
    Hope you are not old, because if you are, there is no hope for you.

  3. I wrote NOAA with that question in 2007.
    Here is the response.
    x 2007x
    From:
    To:
    Subject: Response to inquiry #xxxxx from Answers@NOAA.gov
    We hope this answer has helped to resolve your inquiry. If it does not, please
    use the link at the bottom of this email to clarify your question or comment on
    the answer you have received. So PLEASE do not reply to this e-mail directly,
    but instead please use the link below. It has been our pleasure to answer your
    inquiry and we appreciate your interest in NOAA.
    On x/xx/2007 you posed a question to Answers@NOAA.gov which was noted as inquiry
    xxxxx.
    The question you posed and our response are listed below.
    Your Question, Comment or Feedback:
    Is there a gravitational component to Global
    Climate change?
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    Has anyone
    looked at this solar
    system’s planetary orbits to see if a discernable
    relationship exists to our
    global climate?
    Thank you,
    DXXXX X. King
    Response:
    Other than the tilt of the planet which accounts for our seasons, not that I am
    aware of.
    We hope this will help resolve your inquiry. If it does not, please use the
    link below to add to or clarify your question. You may need to cut and paste
    the entire link (it may span two lines) into the address line of your web
    browser.

  4. Not much new there. In 2003 I wrote short article
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
    analysing Jupiter-Saturn vs. solar activity resonance. Scafetta’s mechanism of magnetic resonance is not new either, as many of readers may recall long and tedious arguments I had with Dr. Svalgaard on the subject. I wrote about the J-S effect, but do not think climate change is a direct response to it.
    None of these offer a convincing mechanism, hence we have to look to the field anew.
    Solar system, as the name implies is a ‘system’ and most of ‘grand events’ are rooted in that system, that has been known for long time, but on its own it does not move let alone resolve the climate debate.
    Dr. Scafetta has to come up with some ‘down to Earth’ data that can be directly applied to what is recorded during last 350 or so years, if he is to make any impact on the climate lobby, otherwise his work will be dismissed and consigned to the realm of astrology.

  5. There appears to be a confluence of opinions developing regarding the direction of our weather and climate. Scafetta’s various graphics suggest a distinct cooling is in the offing. This is consistent with what the Russians have been saying. Farmer’s Almanac too. Crop yields are down due to an unusually cool summer, while the vintners are rushing to get the grapes off the vine ahead of the first frost expected to be more severe than usual. And then there’s the near-record sea ice extent in the Antarctic and the Arctic ice is growing nicely.
    How long will it be before John Holdren resurrects his explanation of the mid-70s cooling, blaming the new trend on irresponsible human activities? Certainly, a cooler world will exert severe pressure on civilizations, more so than a warm planet. I will watching for the explanations of how global warming caused the cooling (as we’ve seen similar tortured arguments already).

  6. So if you pass the global temperature data through a narrowband filter which is matched to the natural cycle of (other metric of your choice), you get sinusoids that seem to match really well by eye! Gosh, who’d have thought that would happen.
    I’m sure Dr. Briggs would have something to say about this, hockey pucks and all.

  7. For obvious reasons. I’ll wait for the comments of Dr Leif, of course.
    On page 11.
    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
    fig 10 A and 10 B
    Glob. Temp. minus its quadratic fit curve
    Rescaled 60 year modulation of SCMSS index (+5 year shift-lag)

    Detr. global temp. (8 year moving average)
    Detr. global temp. (+61.5 year lag-shift

    This is the “””perfect”””” adjustment of temperature ….. adjustment … adjustment…. adjustment.

  8. If the moon causes tides on Earth is there any reason doubt that the planets have a similar effect on the Sun? Clearly there are questions of the scale of any such effect on the sun given the distances and relative masses of the objects in question but anyone who dismisses the idea as ‘astrology’ clearly doesn’t understand much about gravity, the solar system or anything else probably.

  9. Oh and while I’m on the subject, a bit of trivia for you.
    The Flu, derived from the Italian Influenza…meaning ‘the influence’. Influence of what I hear you ask…why The Planets. Apparently the ‘astrologers’ of the day assigned some connection between the behaviour of the planets and the appearence of epidemics…is there a relationship between climate/weather and illnesses? I’ll let someone else can work that out!

  10. “”” Spence_UK says:
    October 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm
    So if you pass the global temperature data through a narrowband filter which is matched to the natural cycle of (other metric of your choice), you get sinusoids that seem to match really well by eye! Gosh, who’d have thought that would happen. “””
    When I used to work for Tektronix in the early 60s, we used to joke that what the world needed was narrower bandwidth oscilloscopes; because if you tried to look at your nice smooth sinusoidal signals with a wide bandwidth oscilloscope, it would simply distort the signal and add all kinds of sharp edgy trash onto you lovely signal.
    The EMI aftermath of a single lightning strike; when passed through a narrow band filter will produce a nice smooth sinusoidal response; and narrow band filter tuned to any frequency(almost).
    Exactly the same thing happens when you run “climate data” through a filter; it will also generate a signal which was not there to begin with.

  11. Interesting presentation observations and conclusions.
    Worth a re-read tomorrow.
    It includes actual verifiable, non-contradicting, easily observable (falsifiable) predictions?
    I thought that such things were not allowed in climate science.
    How did this get published?
    “Consequently, the current climate models, by failing to simulate the observed quasi-60 year temperature cycle, have significantly overestimated the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic GHG emissions by likely a factor of three.”
    “This study reinforces that climate change is more complex than just a response to added CO2 and a few other anthropogenic GHGs.”
    “This failure indicates that the models on which the IPCC’s claims are based are still incomplete and possibly flawed.”

  12. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
    Thus quoth the Bard.

  13. Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter control the 11-year solar tides which influence our climate. Then there are the lunar 18-year nodal and 1,800-year declination cycles, the Landscheidt Impulse Of the Torque cycles of the Jovian giants, and finally the Earth’s own Milankovich cycles, which round out the total control of our climate. This isn’t astrology. This is historic, provable, repeatable, predictable fact. This is the climate change elephant in the room.

  14. Ken Hall says: “Not Astrology, but bone fide astronomy and astrophysics. Real, measurable and verifiable.”
    Looks more like wiggleology, bumposophy, and manipulography to me. I would love for Scafetta (and Vuk!) to be right, but I’m not convinced. Too much long-term smoothing, which is known to shift peaks about. Too short a period to be convincing, and the bumps don’t match at times. I think a huge grant is in order, though, to suck up some of the excess funding provided for batguanoclimatophrenology and the like.

  15. Spence_UK says:
    October 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm
    A narrow bandpass filter will certainly extract narrow-band oscillations from virtually any time-series, but those oscillations need not be pure sinusoids or be coherent with the supposed driver. The coherence shown in Scafetta’s 11b (after rather arbitrary time shifts) is unimpressive. There certainly are multidecadal and quasi-centennial oscillations in climate records , but their relationship to J or S orbits remains moot.

  16. This is the “””perfect”””” adjustment of temperature ….. adjustment … adjustment…. adjustment.

    I don’t think anyone can dispute the fact that the climate oscillates (it gets warmer and then it gets colder). However we should hold this paper to the same standards as any other. Let us begin by passing red noise into this procedure, and see what comes out the other end :p.

  17. In the late 1880s E Bruckner believed he had found an erratic 20-50 year cycle from wetter-colder to dryer-warmer in middle lattitude (eg both sides of the alps, Aust, USA) in the instriment records (rainfall as well as temp) for the past century, and then traced back 5 (?) centuries of proxy data. The last two cycles had a hotter peak in 1850-60 (?) and a wetter trough from about 1880. He then predicted dryer period coming up for inland USA (warning for the agricultural expansion in Utah in the 1880s). I have been planning to compare these with various cycles of PDO, ENSO…and now this one. Bruckner got an average of the cycles at 34.8 years. I suspect he erred in not try a more complex pattern of 2 or more cycles. All the same, the work on climate cycles of this time by Bruckner, Penck, De Geer, Douglass, Huntington is interesting to look back on now that we have more so much more evidence, and more evidence of possible causation. I like the way they worked with rainfall and the movement of storm paths as well at temp in their attempts to find a pattern in the time series.

  18. George E. Smith says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:23 pm
    “…when you run “climate data” through a filter, it will also generate a signal which was not there to begin with.”
    Filters can selectively extract signal components in any frequency band or interval. But well-designed ones do NOT generate anything that wasn’t there to begin with. If there is no appreciable signal power density in a particular band, the output of the filter will be of negligible variance. It’s only people who don’t understand analytically the pitfalls of poorly designed filters that believe otherwise.

  19. It seems to me that if the orbit of a planet can cause the wobble of a distant star, thus allowing we earthlings to detect the existance of such planets, then we must accept that planets in our own solar system will cause our own star to wobble. Since our star affects our climate then the wobbles must also have some effect on our climate.
    REPLY: A prescient thought, thanks- Anthony

  20. MikeTheDenier says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm
    Since our star affects our climate then the wobbles must also have some effect on our climate.
    _____________
    Yeah, but how are ya gonna tax that wobble?

  21. In the graph above, it looks like temp is a leading indicator,
    Which implies that the planetary orbits are driven by weather on Earth.!:)

  22. This is all very interesting, and I will read this paper in detail.
    However, our problem is that even to accept the obvious 60 year periodicity of recent times is heresy. There is a similar split in economics: capitalists and realists acknowledge economic cycles as inevitable natural occurances; socialists and statists deny them.

  23. This was heavy going for a lazy afternoon. Lots of correlations and interesting ones too. My only problem with this and it is not a show stopper, models of models and correlations of results of moved with models. Do I think the earth’s position in universe effects things? Sure but the question, which things and by how much?

  24. Help!
    It gets very complex if the planets orbits are pushing and pulling the sun, which in turn may (must?) have an effect on sun-cycles, sun-spots etc, and the radiation put out by the sun.
    Would someone please sort this out, my head is spinning from trying to envisioning the complex carousel at work.

  25. Richard Hills says: October 13, 2010 at 4:34 pm
    I gather the important aspect of the study is: His analysis is purely phenomenological.
    Unless I am mistaken this is an attempt to look for patterns in the past. As has been pointed out many times, correlation is not causation. However I have watched Joe Bastardi with his long range weather forecasts often enough and I gather a historical analysis is also behind weatheraction.com forecasts. Apparently looking for past patterns can often give insight into the future even if all of the actual causes of those historical patterns are not completely understood. Once patterns are found to match then it is a scientific endeavor to investigate and validate whether the match comes from coincidence or whether the physical cause can be found for those patterns and explained (subject to that infamous peer review process).

  26. Can the planets modulate solar activity?
    Do other class G main sequence variable stars, which do not have planets, exhibit markedly different cycles and flare frequency?
    If a relationship is discovered, it may be a mistake to assume gravitational effects on solar activity alone.
    Satellites and spacecraft have detected electrons streaming from the poles of Earth, Jupiter and Saturn towards the Sun.
    here: http://www.physorg.com/news10765.html
    Do these active currents of negatively charged particles effect the sun’s behaviour? If electrons are flowing towards the Sun, doesn’t that mean it is a positively charged anode?

  27. If we consider the mechanics of just the sun and jupiter, they both orbit around their center of mass. Since the mass ratio is 1050:1, this point is near the surface of the sun facing jupiter.
    The center of mass for all the planets is pretty close, and the earth orbits this point. So the sun-earth distance is not just changing due to elliptic orbit by 3%, but also due to jupiter by 1%. Double those percentages to get change in solar radiation at earth.

  28. Whoa!
    Yes, there are obvious oscillations in the climate record, with reasonably well defined periods (or pseudo periods). And yes, Fourier spectral analysis will confirm what your eye can see.
    But these oscillations are not likely the influence of Jupiter or Saturn. Stuff happens, and if you look hard enough for correlations, you will find them. Causation is a tougher issue than correlation (which may mean something or may not). Professor Scafetta needs to show the physical processes by which Jupiter, the moon, Saturn, etc) change the Earth’s energy balance, then provide supporting data for those processes.

  29. Well, the study was clear enough and compelling enough. Many of us have long suspected the changes we’ve seen in the climate are cyclic. This study, of course, doesn’t prove anything, and obviously much more is needed to be learned. One of the things I liked about this study, “The physical mechanisms that would explain this result are still unknown.”
    To the skeptics of this study, well done, stay skeptical, only make sure its skepticism and not cynicism. To the supporters, I offer this……..Ad astra per aspera.

  30. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” ~Shakespeare
    It’s no mere coincidence in my opinion that Hansen and Horatio both start with an H.

  31. Eric Gisin,
    “So the sun-earth distance is not just changing due to elliptic orbit by 3%, but also due to jupiter by 1%. Double those percentages to get change in solar radiation at earth.”
    Nope. The Earth-sun distance does change due to the Earth’s elliptical orbit, but not due to Jupiter (nor Saturn, Neptune, etc.). The 6-7% annual cycle in solar intensity due to Earth’s orbit is quite consistent, and depends not at all on Jupiter.

  32. Yes corn crop yields are down but this is still the third largest corn crop ever produced in the USA

  33. This paper would have made Prof. Dr. Theodore Landscheidt and Carl Smith very happy. I’m sure Geoff Sharp will be happy too.

  34. I have little beef with his discerning the cycles and relevance of the jovian influences. Quite believable as many have said. However, the reviewers should have objected to the use of a quadratic fit to match recent temp rises and predict the future temps. Yes, it may give a good fit to the recent data, but it doesn’t reflect reality. Continuing his quadratic curves out gives a 1.34 C rise at 2100, 11.4 C rise by 2500, 36 C rise by year 3000…. If you don’t believe there will be a 36 C rise by 3000, (any takers???) (maybe Hansen descendents will just cool the old records by 36 C?) then there’s no reason to believe it when his quadratic equation says 2100 will be hotter than 2010. There is no ecological or long term temp record that suggests an ever rising temp curve. He really undercuts his own argument about the cyclic influence.

  35. The temperature range for Fig 11b is about +/- 0.06 degrees C, or about a tenth of a degree F either way. This is hard to distinguish from random fluctuations, especially as even local temperature measurements are much coarser than that.
    Unless there is some substantially larger effect shown elsewhere in the paper, it seems somewhat peripheral.

  36. Professor Scafetta needs to show the physical processes by which Jupiter, the moon, Saturn, etc) change the Earth’s energy balance, then provide supporting data for those processes.

    No, he doesn’t. He only has to show the correlation, which he’s done in spades. That’s enough to justify further inquiry into the matter. He has suggested some possible mechanisms by which this correlation could be expressed, so other researchers might be able to devise experiments to confirm or disprove those mechanisms.

  37. Since these oscillations are quite obvious, why aren’t they calculated in the GCMs?
    Why not plug them in as a “what if”?
    Because if the oscillations improve the predictive power of the GCMs it pokes a hole on AGW?

  38. Scafetta cites: Sidorenkov N.S. and I. Wilson (2009), The decadal fluctuations in the Earth’s rotation and in the climate characteristics., Proceedings of the “Journees 2008 Systemes de reference spatio-temporels”, M. Soffeland N. Capitaine (eds.), Lohrmann-Observatorium and Observatoire de Paris., 174-177.

    ABSTRACT. Close correlations are found between the decades-long variations in the length of the day (LOD), variations in the rate of the westward drift of the geomagnetic eccentric dipole, and variations in some key climate parameters i.e. anomalies in the type of the atmospheric circulation, the hemisphere-averaged air temperature, the increments of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet masses, and the PDO.
    This presentation outlines recent progress towards a better understanding of the causes of these relationships. The constraints put on the processes in the Earths interior by the decadal fluctuations of the Earth’s rotation are discussed. We proposed that there is a spin-orbit coupling between the Earth’s rotation rate and its motion together with the Sun about the barycentre of the solar system. Evidence in favour of this hypothesis is presented.

    They since presented: Decadal variations in geophysical processes and asymmetries in the solar motion about the Solar System’s barycentre Nikolay Sidorenkov, Ian Wilson, and Anatoly Khlystov, Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 12, EGU2010-9559, 2010 EGU General Assembly 2010
    Sinchronizations of the geophysical processes and asymmetries in the solar motion about the Solar System’s barycentre, N. Sidorenkov, I.R.G. Wilson, A.I. Kchlystov, EPSC Abstracts Vol. 5, EPSC2010-21, 2010, European Planetary Science Congress 2010
    Don Easterbrook predicts global temperatures based on the 60 year POD.
    EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING: RECURRING GLOBAL, DECADAL, CLIMATE CYCLES RECORDED BY GLACIAL FLUCTUATIONS, ICE CORES, OCEAN TEMPERATURES, HISTORIC MEASUREMENTS AND SOLAR VARIATIONS
    See also: Length of day correlated to cosmic rays and sunspots WUWT, from
    Solar forcing of the semi annual variation of length of day, Le Mouël, J.L., Blanter, E., Shnirman, M., and Courtillot V. 2010, Geophys. Res. Lett, 37, L15307, doi:10.1029/2010GL043185.

  39. Too much band-pass filtering, too much smoothing, too much phase lags, etc. Ever since the sunspot cycle was discovered cyclomania has reared its head from time to time, even including the venerable Rudolf Wolf.
    Now that we have discovered other planetary systems a simple test of this is possible: does magnetic activity or stellar irradiance match the barycentric movements in these other systems? The data so far says no. I’m sure people can find the relevant links themselves.

  40. George Taylor:

    If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.

    “Massively in error” may be an overstatement, but I do believe it’s true that the models fail to capture the physics of ocean-atmospheric oscillations. This makes them nearly useless as a forecast tool (I doubt they would agree with this, but I think it’s true), but they still have utility for what people typically use them for, namely estimating the climate sensitivity of various forcings.

  41. MikeTheDenier says: October 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    It seems to me that if the orbit of a planet can cause the wobble of a distant star, thus allowing we earthlings to detect the existance of such planets, then we must accept that planets in our own solar system will cause our own star to wobble. Since our star affects our climate then the wobbles must also have some effect on our climate.
    REPLY: A prescient thought, thanks- Anthony

    Exactly. Now add the last part of the picture that … in hindsight is obvious… the whole Solar System is streaming through the Galaxy but the Ecliptic, the nearly-flat plane of the Solar System, is at an angle to the direction it’s moving… and this is the reason for BOTH 20-year AND 60-year prominent cycles that Scafetta shows… that can be shown with a Morlet wavelet diagram IIRC… which also shows how even these cycles phase in and out over a longer period of time…
    Saturn and Jupiter are conjunct every 20 years. But the pattern of conjunctions is a nearly-exactly-equilateral triangle, so relative to the SS direction of movement, the conjunction is only repeated in the same place (and with the same vectors) every 60 years. But even that place moves slowly… taking some 800 years to return to its starting point. Kepler knew all this .
    Fred Bailey I regard as a genius who has completed Landscheidt’s thesis, and Scafetta’s excellent work here, by adding the movement of the whole Solar System to the concept of the Solar System Centre of Mass or Barycentre. He has just set up this website. I wonder if what he has found is the answer Newton couldn’t find to the three-planet problem.

  42. Stephen Brown says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
    Thus quoth the Bard.
    Stephen, what worries me is that there might be more things in my philosophy (science) than there are in heaven and Earth.
    I believe that there are far more things in climate science than there are in heaven and Earth.

  43. Carrick says:
    Models “still have utility for what people typically use them for, namely estimating the climate sensitivity of various forcing.”
    Please show the climate sensitivity number. As I understand it, there is disagreement over the sensitivity number, from the IPCC’s WAG of up to 6°C, down to Lindzen’s fraction of a degree per doubling.
    Given the fact that a good part of the current warming is the result of the planet’s emergence from the LIA, observations indicate that Lindzen is correct, and the IPCC forgot to put a decimal point somewhere.

  44. Theo Goodwin says:
    October 13, 2010 at 6:44 pm
    Stephen Brown says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
    Thus quoth the Bard.
    I believe that there are far more things in climate science than there are in heaven and Earth.
    =======================================================
    You’re right! Heaven and earth are basic things. We’ve been with them since we got here! To get to their truths, we have to go though misconceptions, erroneous thoughts, lies and distortions………in other words, climate science.

  45. A new paper on the Barycentric motion of exoplanet host stars has been published on the 5th Oct 2010. This gives a new insight into how different our own star is when compared to some distant stars sampled.
    A new article with a link to the paper (and others) available here:
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/202
    Meanwhile our star continues to show the side effects of a barycentric motion out of balance.

  46. R. de Haan says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:56 pm
    This paper would have made Prof. Dr. Theodore Landscheidt and Carl Smith very happy. I’m sure Geoff Sharp will be happy too.
    Yes Ron I previewed this paper back in July as I think Anthony did also. The PDO is the biggest modulator of Earth’s climate, and if a mechanical process can be found substantiating its link with solar velocity Nicola will deserve a major prize.

  47. Smokey:

    Please show the climate sensitivity number. As I understand it, there is disagreement over the sensitivity number, from the IPCC’s WAG of up to 6°C, down to Lindzen’s fraction of a degree per doubling.

    The uncertainty is large, partly because of the coarseness of the current models.
    It depends on who you read, but I’ve more typically seen numbers like 1.4-4°C/doubling bandied about, with 4°C/doubling look pretty dubious at the moment. On the other hand, a fraction of a degree is ridiculously low, IMHO.

  48. charles nelson says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:16 pm
    Oh and while I’m on the subject, a bit of trivia for you.
    The Flu, derived from the Italian Influenza…meaning ‘the influence’. Influence of what I hear you ask…why The Planets. Apparently the ‘astrologers’ of the day assigned some connection between the behaviour of the planets and the appearence of epidemics…is there a relationship between climate/weather and illnesses? I’ll let someone else can work that out!
    A statistical correlation between sunspots and influenza has been suggested before, by (among others) John W.K. Yeung:
    http://ornitology.sfu-kras.ru/files/2.pdf
    if you Google Hoyle or Wickramasinghe, you’ll find some older stuff too.
    While on the topic, there’s reportedly even a correlation between solar activity and the incidence of schizophrenia. This could explain why after so many years of perfectly good arguments from skeptical scientists, only now, after an unusually quiet and long solar minimum, the madness of Mann-made catastrophic warming is beginning to retreat.
    http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(08)00426-X/abstract
    Just kidding!

  49. Steve Fitzpatrick says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:39 pm
    Eric Gisin,
    “So the sun-earth distance is not just changing due to elliptic orbit by 3%, but also due to jupiter by 1%. Double those percentages to get change in solar radiation at earth.”
    Nope. The Earth-sun distance does change due to the Earth’s elliptical orbit, but not due to Jupiter (nor Saturn, Neptune, etc.). The 6-7% annual cycle in solar intensity due to Earth’s orbit is quite consistent, and depends not at all on Jupiter.

    According to JPL Horizons this is exactly correct, the only modulation to Earth’s orbit via the planets is a small 15000 km perturbation. Fred Bailey has launched a new website claiming the Earth orbits the SSB which is being discussed in my forum currently. I have produced a graph showing the Earth/Sun/SSB distances overlaid that clearly shows the stable orbit pattern about the Sun.
    BTW Leif, Fred has a page on his site waiting for your response relating to a comment on my site that you may not be aware of.
    http://www.solarchords.com/solar-chord-science/3/watts-wrong-with-tsi/35593/

  50. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 13, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    Too much band-pass filtering, too much smoothing, too much phase lags, etc.
    ========================================================
    Dr. Svalgaard, I’m glad you popped by! I was hoping for your opinion. I agree with your summary, but, that, on its face, doesn’t invalidate the paper nor its hypothesis. As far as cycles go, I’ve not yet seen something natural that wasn’t cyclic. It simply takes a very long time to see the pattern for some things.

  51. Carrick says:
    “On the other hand, a fraction of a degree is ridiculously low, IMHO.”
    IMHO?? I need facts!☺
    There is no testable, empirical evidence showing that CO2 affects temperature [it may, but the effect is too small to measure].
    If the sensitivity number was large, temperature would track CO2 closely. But it doesn’t. And the only established correlation shows that a temperature rise results in a rise in CO2 – not vice-versa.

  52. Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 13, 2010 at 6:42 pm
    Be careful Lucy, Fred’s major premise is that the Earth does not orbit the Sun. There is a significant flaw in his theory that should not be promoted without some sort of empirical data. There has been a lot work put into his website and book which I feel may be wasted, but some of his other work is interesting.

  53. Carrick,
    The models “still have utility for what people typically use them for, namely estimating the climate sensitivity of various forcings”.
    I’m a very long way from convinced of this Carrick. The problem is that there is too wide a range of plausible aerosol effects (~-0.5 watt per sq meter to -2.5 watts per sq meter, IPCC data) to in any meaningful way constrain or even evaluate the accuracy of models. The argument that the models are OK for estimating responses to applied forcing is completely specious: there is no way to verify the performance of the models in the absence of accurately known forcings, so no way to know if a model’s response to an applied hypothetical forcing is accurate. You must, a priori, accept the models are useful to believe that they are useful in evaluating hypothetical forcings; irrational circular reasoning if I ever saw it.
    The models need robust, rigorous, and through verification against real atmospheric data. Absent much better data on aerosol effects and cloud effects, I am not going to believe their predictions.

  54. MikeTheDenier says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm
    It seems to me that if the orbit of a planet can cause the wobble of a distant star, thus allowing we earthlings to detect the existance of such planets, then we must accept that planets in our own solar system will cause our own star to wobble. Since our star affects our climate then the wobbles must also have some effect on our climate.

    … and if it wobbles a star, think what sort of effect it might have on a lowly lump of rock (like Earth).
    I will take some convincing, but I am not really prepared to write this off.

  55. Geoff Sharp says:
    October 13, 2010 at 7:14 pm
    BTW Leif, Fred has a page on his site waiting for your response relating to a comment on my site that you may not be aware of.
    He rambles a bit, but as far as I can see he accuses the people calculating TSI to fudge their numbers as far as the distance to the Sun is concerned. I have personally checked the adjustment and calculation [and actually did discover a small bug in their program which caused them to recalculate everything – the effect is, however, very small and only of academic interest]. Here is the bottom line:
    1) TSI is measured VERY accurately [on a relative basis]
    2) The distance to use to correct the values to 1 AU is the distance between the Sun and the Earth at the moment the photon left the Sun
    3) This distance has nothing to do with where the barycenter is

  56. To these very scientifically untrained “eyes”, Figure 11b does not seem very significant — one line leads another and then it follows; one is up while the other is down, etc. Yeah, some of it is the same. I remain grateful to Leif Svalgaard, of course, and to Smokey and George E. Smith for what seems like “grounding” in reality. I respect Vukcevic, and others, and enjoy reading. Oh, yes, and Lucy Skywalker. Just give me some old-fashioned, solid numbers and real proofs.

  57. Well designed filters do not “generate” a signal, but the narrower they are, the more inclined they are to “ring”.
    Filter design is a very complex subject. You can’t simply take a design off the internet and use it blindly. I see very little (read none) discussion in any of the AGW papers (or skeptic papers for that matter why the specific filters used were chosen.
    Using the wrong filter is about as useful as using the wrong statistical techniques.

  58. James Sexton says:
    October 13, 2010 at 7:17 pm
    I agree with your summary, but, that, on its face, doesn’t invalidate the paper nor its hypothesis.
    It put the paper in with the dozens of similar papers over the past 150 years claiming some sort of correlation. None of those have made any progress towards understanding any of this. Not that that deters the enthusiasts, of course.

  59. There is clearly an oscillation pattern in Earth’s climate.
    But this study is about the general oscillation around a generally increasing trend (temperatures have still increased 0.7C given a +/- 0.3C cycle up and down). It doesn’t say all the warming is caused by this effect.
    Let’s say there is a down-cycle peak at 1975 and then an up-cycle peak around 1998 (or 2000 or whatever). Then one could be lead astray by studying this period only. Half of the warming since 1975 is the natural oscillation down cycle followed by a natural up cycle.
    But to confirm this paper’s hypothesis, we have to rely on the solar irradiance and the cloud cover (albedo) data to say this oscillation is caused by the Sun’s movement or cosmic rays. Do these measures really change enough to cause these oscillations. It is not clear enough since the measured (versus reconstructed) data does not go back far enough.
    But there are definitely cycles in the climate that the climate science community prefers to think of as “noise in the climate models” rather than a geniune oscillation in the Earth’s climate. That’s like the blinders on a race horse or this well-known example.
    http://newzar.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/hear-see-speak-no-evil1.jpg

  60. Don’t you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don’t you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
    No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
    One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out “Don’t you believe in anything?”
    Yes”, I said. “I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
    — Isaac Asimov
    More solid evidence please before I buy off on this being anything more that a hypothesis.

  61. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 13, 2010 at 7:33 pm
    A rare moment when we agree.
    I have also just for fun measured the SOHO Continuum pics over the last decade and while acknowledging the satellite moves around in its own L1 orbit, the solar diameter pixel size follows the expected outcome of a Sun centred orbit.

  62. A couple of years ago, I thought there was a ‘Friday’-effect in SORCE’s TSI. It turned out to be an interpolation issue [so my fault]. As a result of my investigation, the whole process of adjusting to 1 AU was reviewed and fixed, and there are as of now no outstanding issues of problems. It might be of interest to read some of my thoughts on this back then:
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE%20Friday%20Effect.pdf
    Again, the software has been fixed and all is cool.

  63. ” The Monster says:
    Professor Scafetta needs to show the physical processes by which Jupiter, the moon, Saturn, etc) change the Earth’s energy balance, then provide supporting data for those processes.
    No, he doesn’t. He only has to show the correlation, which he’s done in spades. ”
    Over the last two years in my city the rate of crime has fallen by about 6%. Over the same period, the rate of unemployment has risen by about 5%. Do you think this indicates causation? Do you think that people should go looking for a causal relationship between falling crime and rising unemployment based on this correlation?
    Final piece of information: the crime rate fell ~5% from 4 years ago to 2 years ago…. even though unemployment was almost constant over that two year period.
    Correlation does not prove causation, and in the absence of plausible causal relationship, correlation is hardly worth looking at. There are spurious correlations everywhere you look, and the more you look the more spurious correlations you will find.

  64. ” Pamela Gray says:
    October 13, 2010 at 7:37 pm
    Say, I have a few traits being a redhead and all. Wonder if that is correlated to anything.”
    Probably correlates with being of European descent.
    BTW, what does “and all” mean in this case?

  65. alex says:
    October 13, 2010 at 2:22 pm
    Astrology.
    in which house is Venus today?
    It’s in that house called “hackneyed cynicism” which comes up every time this topic is mentioned. It’s located on the corner of “Numerology” and “Reactionary”. The alley next to the house says “Bitter End”—there are some folks huddled at that spot.

  66. Geoff Sharp says:
    October 13, 2010 at 7:50 pm
    the solar diameter pixel size follows the expected outcome of a Sun centred orbit.
    In a sense, all this ’empirical’ evidence is superfluous [except for people who don’t know about orbital mechanics] as we have had a perfectly valid theory for [and understanding of] this for more than three hundred years.

  67. charles nelson says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    If the moon causes tides on Earth is there any reason doubt that the planets have a similar effect on the Sun?
    You haven’t been here long. It’s because, they say, they are too far away. Measurements show not enough of an effect on the sun from their gravity to make climate/weather changes on earth.
    But that’s the general critique any time the sun effecting climate/weather on earth comes up—the measurements are too small.
    Have you seen “The Cloud Mystery”? You can find it on YouTube. Maybe the most interesting science to come along in decades. It’s not about Jupiter and Saturn. It’s about the sun and cosmic rays. But the same critique is used for it too—the measurements are too small.

  68. MikeTheDenier says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm
    It seems to me that if the orbit of a planet can cause the wobble of a distant star, thus allowing we earthlings to detect the existance of such planets, then we must accept that planets in our own solar system will cause our own star to wobble. Since our star affects our climate then the wobbles must also have some effect on our climate.
    REPLY: A prescient thought, thanks- Anthony

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    Touché, Mike T. Denier! You definitely get a gold star for that!

  69. As nice as the graphs line up there really needs to be a “how” answered in this. Cause and effect are always the trickiest things to find. Much of the climate mess today is because people look at superficial correlations and then say this answers everything.
    Milankovitch has his victory and one day everyone will agree with that (hopefully before the human race is starving because of crop failures, but surrounded by windfarms). The moon cycle of 9.1 years I could consider, but Jupiter and Saturn are a real stretch.
    John Kehr
    The Inconvenient Skeptic

  70. björn says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:04 pm
    Help!
    It gets very complex if the planets orbits are pushing and pulling the sun, which in turn may (must?) have an effect on sun-cycles, sun-spots etc, and the radiation put out by the sun.
    Would someone please sort this out, my head is spinning from trying to envisioning the complex carousel at work.

    You think this is bad try doing some string theory math. Lubos Motl can give you a headache in about 90 seconds.

  71. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    October 13, 2010 at 8:27 pm
    It seems to me that if the orbit of a planet can cause the wobble of a distant star, thus allowing we earthlings to detect the existance of such planets, then we must accept that planets in our own solar system will cause our own star to wobble. Since our star affects our climate then the wobbles must also have some effect on our climate.
    The ‘wobble’ cannot be felt by anybody [including the Sun], so there are no effects arising from the wobble. Think of a double star with two stars of equal mass orbiting each other. Seen from far away there are enormous wobbles, but the stars actually orbit quietly without any forces flinging them hither and thither. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit1.gif

  72. What is missing are the mechanisms to explain a set of observations. The position of the planets does have an affect on both the sun and earth, the effects are complicated as the sun changes cyclically which affects the planets.
    The observation of changes of nuclear reaction rates (both alpha and beta decay which rules out neutrinos as the mechanism as alpha decay is not affected by neutrinos) where the change in reaction rates correlates (15 years of observations two different observations in both hemispheres to rule out seasonal affects) with sun earth distance. The affect has a lag time (which also rules out neutrinos as they travel with the speed of light) is a significant clue as to what is causing the that affect as well as the affects of the planets on the sun and the sun on the planets.
    A changing scalar field will affect both alpha and beta decay.
    What it appears is the sun is not neutral. The sunspots appear to help the sun attempt to equalize. From time to time the sunspot mechanism is interrupted and charge builds up. The charge is released in a strong event which affects the geomagnetic field (geomagnetic jerks or geomagnetic excursions.) Both the geomagnetic jerks and geomagnetic excursions affect the climate.
    The is a complicate set of reasoning concerning the geomagnetic field mechanisms (paradoxes) that supports this hypothesis.
    There is a whole set of other phenomena that supports this hypothesis such as sprites and elves. (Massive electrical discharge from the ionosphere to the top of clouds. Massive electrical discharge from the atmosphere to volcanoes (sometimes but not all times), as well as set of astronomical observations. (There is a significant increase in volcanic activity during solar minimums and deep solar minimums. Following the hypothesis the solar charge is reduced during these periods and then a charge unbalance from the core to the surface of the planet. The energy from the charge release causes an increase in volcanic activity and earthquakes.)
    http://www.universetoday.com/28774/new-array-captures-redoubt-volcano-lightning/
    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
    “The final statement of BD07 regarding the fact that aa correlates “much better” than
    magnetic data with solar irradiance and global temperature being wrong, the “clues” the authors discuss are actually irrelevant. The “long term trend” is the OMT and not a linear trend as recalled above. We should recall that the ESK and SIT magnetic series and the aa series do not measure exactly the same magnetic phenomena and are not expected to be related in a linear way. But the point of Le Mouël et al (2005) was to show with very simple indices that the entire ionospheric and magnetospheric current systems, despite their differences, pulsate on the long term at the rhythm of the Sun, as exemplified by the OMT. BD07’s next interrogation regarding open versus total magnetic flux is not founded. For example, it has long been known that a simple terrestrial proxy such as the amplitude of the quiet day solar variation of declination provides a wonderful representation of the eleven year cycle of sunspots (i.e. the Wolf number).”
    Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
    Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance
    Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226 have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (Si-32), and at the Physikalisch-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany (Ra-226). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Some implications of these results are also discussed, including the suggestion that discrepancies in published half-life determinations for these and other nuclides may be attributable in part to differences in solar activity during the course of the various experiments, or to seasonal variations in fundamental constants.
    This experiment, which extended over 15 years, overlapped in time with the BNL experiment for approximately 2 years, and exhibited annual fluctuations in the 226Ra data similar to those seen at BNL. Figure 3 exhibits the PTB data as a 5 point rolling average, and it is evident from the figure that the PTB data closely track the annual variation of 1/R2. The Pearson correlation coefficient r for the data in Fig. 3 is r=0.66 for N=1968 data points, corresponding to a formal probability of 2×10−246 that this correlation could arise from two data sets which were uncorrelated. As in the case of the BNL data, there is also a suggestion of a phase shift between 1/R2 and the PTB data (see below), although this phase shift appears to be smaller than for the BNL data.
    Yet another possible explanation for the apparent phase shift could be a seasonally-varying velocity-dependent effect similar to that observed by the DAMA/LIBRA collaboration [23].
    The fact that the two decay processes are very different (alpha decay for 226Ra and beta decay for 32Si) would seem to preclude a common mechanism for both.

  73. If the momentum of the sun varies, Earth must follow. This seemingly could effect ocean currents, causing a “sloshing effect” from changes in LOD. If so many agree that turbulence in oceans brings warmth to the surface, I don’t know why this wouldn’t be seen as a direct mechanism that may present a signature in surface temperature.
    And Sol is a rather large portly elastic body. Just the act of changing momentum would seem to have an effect on currents within such a large body, thereby effecting magnetic fields.
    This isn’t astrology.

  74. Steve Fitzpatrick says: October 13, 2010 at 7:57 pm
    “Do you think that people should go looking for a causal relationship between falling crime and rising unemployment based on this correlation?”
    Depends on what the crimes were and when and where they happened and no longer happen; and what the employment was and where it was.
    Car theft from the overnight parking lot for factory workers who are no longer employed, could be.
    B&E in once up-scale now abandoned parts of Detroit, could be.
    Poor on Less Poor inner-city theft, could be.
    So, yes, what is the harm in looking, who might it offend?

  75. O/T but perhaps pertinent, this story from Australia today:
    14 Oct: Quadrant: BOM loses rainfall
    by Tom Quirk
    In the last two years some 900 mm of rainfall have been removed from the rainfall record of the Murray-Darling Basin. This startling discovery was made by comparing the annual Murray-Darling Basin rainfall reported on the Bureau of Meteorology website in August 2008 and the same report found yesterday.
    The annual rainfall figures are shown as reported in October 2010 (GRAPH)..
    The comparison with the August 2008 report is revealing. The difference is a decrease of 900 mm rainfall in the 2010 report.
    The significant decrease occurs after 1948..(GRAPH)
    The Bureau is already on record adjusting Australian temperature measurements and they now appear to have turned to rainfall, making the last 60 years drier than previously reported.
    One can understand that adjustments might be made to a few of the most recent years as records are brought up to date but a delay of forty or fifty years seems a little long.
    This raises the question how certain is the data that is used by policy makers?
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/10/bom-loses-rainfall

  76. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 13, 2010 at 6:23 pm
    Zeke the Sneak says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:20 pm
    Satellites and spacecraft have detected electrons streaming from the poles of Earth, Jupiter and Saturn towards the Sun. here: http://www.physorg.com/news10765.html
    No, not towards the Sun, just up into the magnetospheres of the planets [into the tail part directed away from the Sun, actually].
    Dr. S, would you care to provide the information you cite for the direction, number, and strength of the electron rays above the poles of these three planets? These have been said to be Sunward by readers of the Nature article, which I cannot find in an online format.

  77. I post on here about the lunar declinational atmospheric tidal cycles 27.32 day period in phase with the rotation of the magnetic poles of the sun. The correlations of the 18.3 year Saros cycle with positions of all of the inner planets and the moon’s declination, phase, perigee apogee, solar and lunar eclipse repeating patterns, and a resultant repeating pattern of global circulation in the atmosphere.
    If you take the last three cycles of a 6558 day period of weather data, progressing back from today’s date 13,550 days and 6558 days fore and aft, taking each equivalent date from each corresponding cycle and average them together, I get a forecast that works better than NWS’s three to five day forecast.
    It is almost exactly what Nicola Scafetta is talking about, but he is using longer term averages, where I am using single daily data from three separate cycles 6558 days apart, that agree with each other and this cycle well enough that the maps it produces from past data look almost like the live 24 hour total radar precipitation maps for the 24 hour period 6am today till 6am tomorrow, the same time frame as the raw collected archived data.
    Check it out for your self, these maps are now at 33 months of lead time forecasting, put together back in November/December of 2007.
    http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx
    If you want proof that there is a cyclic pattern in his and my assumptions, it is available for the next 38 months as well till January 14th of 2014.
    Take your time look around, it is totally free of commercial content and free access, check out the snowfall expected these next three winters through springs.

  78. BTW, I have the ‘Music of the Sphere’ album, and it’s a quite good bit of classical music.

  79. It would seem logical that any wobble of our Star over time (caused by gravitational attraction no matter how slight) is going to accumulate in the orbital path around the galaxy. Beyond that, it seems reasonable that planetary alignments can subtly influence things like ocean currents, again over time. This would be a modifying factor, but not necessarily the main driving factor. A nudge here, a nudge there, vectoring gently.

    • Maybe just maybe, these things align those positive gentle vectors and we get a rogue wave once in a great while

  80. By filtering the temperature all the low frequency uplift since the 60s has been lost.
    What therefore, has caused the recent warming?
    According to the plot the last 10 years shold have been cooling and the next 10 should see a 1C warming.
    If I remember correctly the last 10 years have been stable and not reduced by 1C. If Scafetta is correct the world should be 2C hotter by 2025. Is this not a bit worrying?

  81. Maybe that may explain those ~50 year oscillations that show up on my long term temperature plots of central & western Europe.
    These anomaly plots starting with the 1659 English data going up to 1800. These included the Cen. England, DeBilt, and others from Upsalla, Berlin. Paris. Rimfrost http://www.rimfrost.no/
    is a good source for these early temps. The 1750-2008 data includes those records starting before 1750. The 1800-2008 data are those records starting prior to 1800. All are compared to the Hadcet global data.
    http://www.imagenerd.com
    http://www.imagenerd.com
    http://www.imagenerd.com
    Using a Fourier convolution lo-pass filter of 40 years, one can get a picture of some of the secular changes going on. These are in the process of being updated to include 2009 info. Unfortunately these show only western Europe, where the longest records exist.

  82. Zeke the Sneak says:
    October 13, 2010 at 9:02 pm
    Dr. S, would you care to provide the information you cite for the direction, number, and strength of the electron rays above the poles of these three planets?
    It would seem that the one making claims should provide the evidence 🙂
    Anyway, from today’s JGR:
    “JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, A10201, 20 PP., 2010
    doi:10.1029/2010JA015347
    Solar wind interaction with Jupiter’s magnetosphere
    […](3) enhance escape of Jovian plasma down the magnetotail”
    or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_wind
    Now and then you can just take my word for it. 🙂

  83. rbateman says:
    October 13, 2010 at 9:14 pm
    it seems reasonable that planetary alignments can subtly influence things like ocean currents, again over time.
    No, that is not reasonable.

  84. Pamela Gray says:
    October 13, 2010 at 7:37 pm
    “Say, I have a few traits being a redhead and all. Wonder if that is correlated to anything.”
    I don’t know,Pamala. Are you a large redhead or a small one. pg

  85. Dr. Leif – {Think of a double star with two stars of equal mass orbiting each other. Seen from far away there are enormous wobbles, but the stars actually orbit quietly without any forces flinging them hither and thither.}
    I always thought that the wobble was not an actual physical wobble of the star, but just a wobble of the stars’ light passing through a planets gravity. Is this not correct?

  86. CERN is doing some experiments about the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Here is a link:
    http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
    The text displayed at that link is also displayed below:
    “Cosmic rays and cloud formation
    CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science; the results could greatly modify our understanding of clouds and climate.
    Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth’s atmosphere from outer space. Studies suggest they may have an influence on the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets). This is supported by satellite measurements, which show a possible correlation between cosmic-ray intensity and the amount of low cloud cover. Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth’s energy balance; changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate. Understanding the underlying microphysics in controlled laboratory conditions is a key to unravelling the connection between cosmic rays and clouds.
    The CLOUD experiment involves an interdisciplinary team of scientists from 18 institutes in 9 countries, comprised of atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic-ray and particle physicists. The PS provides an artificial source of ‘cosmic rays’ that simulates natural conditions as closely as possible. A beam of particles is sent into a reaction chamber and its effects on aerosol production are recorded and analysed.
    The initial stage of the experiment uses a prototype detector, but the full CLOUD experiment will include an advanced cloud chamber and a reactor chamber, equipped with a wide range of external instrumentation to monitor and analyse their contents. The temperature and pressure conditions anywhere in the atmosphere can be re-created within the chambers, and all experimental conditions can be controlled and measured, including the ‘cosmic ray’ intensity and the contents of the chambers.”
    ——end of quote————
    CERN also had a very pretty and extremely interesting pdf on the CLOUD project and the possible relationship between the sun and the climate at this link:
    http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/IPAC10/talks/frymh02_talk.pdf
    The basic idea is that when the sun is weak, more cosmic rays hit the earth and this leads to increased formation of nano scale nuclei that facilitate cloud formation. So the key change is not in the sun’s visible light but in the the sun’s magnetic flux (the lower the magnetic flux, the more galactic cosmic rays can enter the earth’s atmosphere). Unlike the visible light from the sun, the solar magnetic flux varies quite a bit.
    It will be interesting to see what CERN discovers in their experiments. Clouds are a big mystery yet hugely important in the earth’s climate system.

  87. Dr S, from the entry you provided:
    ‘Polar wind is “the permanent outflow of ionization from the polar regions of the magnetosphere.”[1] The term was coined in 1968 in a pair of articles by Banks and Holzer[2] and by Ian Axford.[3] Since the process by which the ionospheric plasma flows away from the Earth along magnetic field lines is similar to the flow of solar plasma away from the sun’s corona (the solar wind), Axford suggested the term ‘polar wind.’ ‘
    Thank you, although there is a problem with dates here. You see, the discovery by Cassini of the anti-planetward electrons were made in 2006 and I am interested in the observations from that mission using the particle spectrometer MIMI, on the Cassini Space Probe. “They discovered electrons not only being accelerated toward the planet, but also away from it (Nature, February 9, 2006).” This acceleration is significant, causing intense X-ray emission associated with auroras in Jupiter’s polar regions.
    What you provided is interesting but they are likely two different phenomena.
    I may be barking up the wrong tree. However, a non-gravitational planetary-solar connection seems intensely interesting to me.

  88. Smokey:

    :There is no testable, empirical evidence showing that CO2 affects temperature [it may, but the effect is too small to measure].

    This is not correct. There is plenty of evidence, just not the sort a layperson might appreciate…such as data on the absorption of IR by CO2. This is indirect evidence to be sure,

    If the sensitivity number was large, temperature would track CO2 closely. But it doesn’t. And the only established correlation shows that a temperature rise results in a rise in CO2 – not vice-versa.

    That’s not a very effective way to think about it. To start with, you want to look at total forcings (which includes sulfates and total solar irradiance). When you do that, the first thing you find is that there was little net anthropogenic forcings (according to people who study this in detail) prior to 1975. So really we only have 35 years over which there is (much) change at all in temperature thought to be associated with anthropogenic forcings.
    Secondly, your comment “a temperature rise results in a rise in CO2 – not vice-versa.” It just isn’t relevant, we have other data (alluded to above) that establishes the existence of a greenhouse gas effect. There’s little question that water vapor feedback will enhance the relatively small “classical” greenhouse gas effect associated with the anthropogenic Co2 forcing.
    As it happens, we are currently doing an experiment that will probably unambiguously (over time) establish a relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature change, namely the near doubling of atmospheric CO2 over maybe 350 years. At the very least this will establish an upper limit on environmental CO2 sensitivity, more likely we will have a bracketed number. I may or may not be alive long enough to see that, who knows…
    I’m going to be traveling the next three days or so….probably won’t have a chance to check back in on this thread, hope this gives you some food for thought.

  89. I have to agree with Dr Leif Svalgaard.
    Too much filtering
    Getting this in perspective here is the real remperature HADCRUT3V with Scafetta’s plot uperimposed.
    http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/2227/scarfhadcrut3vt.png
    This shows that from 2000 the temps should have dropped 0.1C they did not
    It shows that from 2012 to 2022 the temps should increase 0.1C
    To my mind this means that the temp is increasing at 0.1C/decade (to balance Scafetta’s drop) and that by 2022 there should be a further 0.2C rise (Scafettas prediction plus the o.1C/decade)

  90. Scaffeta’s work should be at the least thought provoking. Dogmatic responses for phenomenon beyond our complete understanding should be made only at your own peril. “Cycology” can also be dangerous but one thing that makes me look more closely at this paper is the fact that I have taken raw temperature data from NM and West Texas and by plotting annual average temperatures for a number of sites and using the Xcel polynomial fit on the plots, have noted a 60 year cycle that (when there is enough data) extends through 100+ years for at least the following cities: El Paso, TX, La Tuna,TX (near El Paso), Cimarron, NM, Roswell, NM, and Clayton, TX. Sun driven PDO and AMO cycles seem to drive this. But of course everyone wants to know what drives that? Is Scafetta on to something? No one ever said that climate questions would be easily answered but we should look for answers back in the dark corners and not be too quick to decide which corners are appropriate. For SW New Mexico according to the next swing in the temperature cycle, we should expect a cooling trend over the next 20+ years. For the last few years at the NM sites, they seem to have peaked and are now trending down. The next few years will show whether the 60 year cycle continues to hold. Klotzbach and Gray’s observed and hindcast hurricane values of NTC (Net Tropical Cyclone) activity from 1950 to 2007 seems to follow this 60 year cycle. WUWT?

  91. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 13, 2010 at 9:27 pm
    rbateman says:
    October 13, 2010 at 9:14 pm
    it seems reasonable that planetary alignments can subtly influence things like ocean currents, again over time.
    No, that is not reasonable.
    ==================================
    On a related subject, check a recent paper in Elsevier (January of this year) by Nils-Axel Mörner.
    Linking a possible connection of solar wind changes between solar minima and maxima….may cause changes in Earth’s rotational speeds….which in turn may cause multi-decadal shifts in some of the prominent ocean currents on the planet, such as the Gulf Stream.
    It is an excellent paper [though Leif, he still does refer to the outdated TSI measurement…I know you will be quick to zero in on that 🙂 ]. I can not find the link but if anyone wants to email me at sharkhearted@gmail.com I can send it to you.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  92. Steve Fitzpatrick:

    . The argument that the models are OK for estimating responses to applied forcing is completely specious: there is no way to verify the performance of the models in the absence of accurately known forcings, so no way to know if a model’s response to an applied hypothetical forcing is accurate.

    I think you’ve way overstated your case on this one.
    There are certainly ways to verify the performance of the models in the absence of accurately known forcings. The reason is, that some forcings are relatively well understood, and do vary over time in a well-understood manner (certaintly TSI, possibly also forcings associated with large eruptions). Beyond that, to the degree we can set bounds on the total forcings, we can set commensurate bounds on the forcings.
    The idea that this can’t be done “in the absence of accurately known foricngs” is actually what is completely specious. This is the sort of thing that gets done in different branches of science all the time and goes under moniker of the “inverse problem”.
    Mind you I’m not defending how well they are doing this, but if you haven’t, you should probably at least familiarize yourself with how they estimate the forcings before being so hypercritical of it. This is currently done separately from running the full 3-d codes. The point is this is completely doable in principle, even if right now not in practice (if not, then it’s just a limitation of computer resources and nothing more).
    The worry I have is echoed by George Taylor’s comment on the inability of the models to accurately capture the atmospheric ocean oscillations. That’s a pretty technical issue, so I’ll leave it to another time & place. See my comment to Smokey about “being out-a-here.”

  93. MikeTheDenier says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm
    It seems to me that if the orbit of a planet can cause the wobble of a distant star, thus allowing we earthlings to detect the existance of such planets, then we must accept that planets in our own solar system will cause our own star to wobble. Since our star affects our climate then the wobbles must also have some effect on our climate.
    REPLY: A prescient thought, thanks- Anthony

    I do not see how this logic holds. We have known since Newton that every object in the solar system causes wobbling in the orbit of every other object in the solar system, it is a plain consequence of Newton’s law of gravity. The Sun and the planets are in constant free fall.
    Since the Suns mass is so much larger than the combined mass of the rest of the solar system, the wobbling is rather miniscule (about 2 solar radii), as illustrated by my simulators here, here and here.
    I am not saying there isn’t a relation, but rather that we have not yet seen a credible mechanism for how the orbital mechanics can affect solar activity in a way that also affects the earths climate in a measurable way. Of course, the Milankovitch cycles are real and well known, but that is a different issue.
    We know that CO2 has an effect on climate. Is the effect of anthropogenic CO2 measureable? I would say no. Similarly, I would say that if a mechanism for how these wobbles could affect our climate could be presented (no such mechanism is known to me), the computed effects on climate would be similarly not measurable.

  94. Carrick says:
    October 13, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    Smokey:
    There is no testable, empirical evidence showing that CO2 affects temperature [it may, but the effect is too small to measure].
    This is not correct. There is plenty of evidence, just not the sort a layperson might appreciate…such as data on the absorption of IR by CO2.
    =========================
    Produce it then. Let’s see it. Show it forth. NOW.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  95. Secondly, your comment “a temperature rise results in a rise in CO2 – not vice-versa.” It just isn’t relevant, we have other data (alluded to above) that establishes the existence of a greenhouse gas effect. There’s little question that water vapor feedback will enhance the relatively small “classical” greenhouse gas effect associated with the anthropogenic Co2 forcing.
    ==================================
    Who is “we.”?
    And if you have the data, produce it.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  96. Carrick says:
    There’s little question that water vapor feedback will enhance the relatively small “classical” greenhouse gas effect associated with the anthropogenic Co2 forcing.
    ===============================
    There is “little question”, within of the world of feedbacks!!!
    YEAH RIGHT! Posititive feedbacks. Oooh ahh.
    Maybe in A Day After Tomorrow.
    Your logic is so easy to dissect I don’t even need a knife.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  97. Carrick says:
    October 13, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    As it happens, we are currently doing an experiment that will probably unambiguously (over time) establish a relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature change, namely the near doubling of atmospheric CO2 over maybe 350 years. At the very least this will establish an upper limit on environmental CO2 sensitivity, more likely we will have a bracketed number. I may or may not be alive long enough to see that, who knows…
    I’m going to be traveling the next three days or so….probably won’t have a chance to check back in on this thread, hope this gives you some food for thought.
    =============================
    Show it. Prove it. Where is it??
    Why are you avoiding presenting the revealing data that you so describe??
    For now….what you have presented….is not “food for thought”. It is some other form of organic material which shall remain nameless.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  98. @Spence_UK – why is there no way to vote up comments? This is exactly what I thought. The phase match might be something, but…

  99. “Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter control the 11-year solar tides which influence our climate. Then there are the lunar 18-year nodal and 1,800-year declination cycles, the Landscheidt Impulse Of the Torque cycles of the Jovian giants, and finally the Earth’s own Milankovich cycles, which round out the total control of our climate. This isn’t astrology. This is historic, provable, repeatable, predictable fact. This is the climate change elephant in the room.”
    ————————————————————————————
    Shhhhhh, you are not allowed to mention Landscheidt’s name. His (very accurate) predictions of El Nino and La Nina scares the ‘scientists’.

  100. Is there a great big elephant in the climate science room that has been there all along and wholly ignored?
    Natural cycles operating over various set periods that repeat themselves over and over could explain much but perhaps this is where astronomy and astrophysics and climate science should be working together instead of in isolation. Funding mechanisms favour one over the others while inter disciplinary co operation is limited to non existent and perhaps that is the problem all along? The various disciplines in competition and involved in petty rivalries and jockeying for that next grant buck can hardly see the bigger picture often staring them in the face.
    This really is a genuine call for more research cash needed I think.

  101. Correlations, filtering, wiggle matching, I have produced few of those; one of the most convincing you can see here, and it is not my data:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-McC.htm
    I know, and more importantly the blessed guardian of heliosphere’s pearly gates Dr.S. knows that correlation is false, but we failed to agree why it is so.
    I think there is good ‘Earthly’ reason for it, while the ‘blessed guardian’ thinks data is no good.
    You may also conclude the correlation’s falsehood, by a closer look at the above graph, but on the other hand, the beauty of the wiggle matching as they say ‘is in the eye of beholder’.

  102. I have always said that there is more to climate than CO2, which never drove climate in the past, but we now have another input into this chaotic system. No wonder GCMs do not work.

  103. This bit from the Conclusion section of the paper is interesting:-
    “It is evident that we can still infer,by means of a detailed data analysis, that the solar system likely induces the climate oscillations, although the actual mechanisms that explain the observed climate oscillations are still unknown. If the true climate mechanisms were already known and well understood, the general circulation climate
    models would properly reproduce the climate oscillations. However, we found that this is not the case. For example, we showed that the GISS Model E fails to reproduce the climate oscillations at multiple time scales, including the large 60-year cycle. This failure is common to all climate models adopted by the IPCC (2007) as it is evident in their figures 9.5 and SPM .5 that show the multi-model global average simulation of surface warming. This failure indicates that the models on which the IPCC’s claims are based are still incomplete and possibly flawed.”

  104. Steve B says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:27 am
    Actually I dont think he was all that accurate, the data is better today….but certainly moving in the right direction.

  105. Firstly, Read Fred Haynie’s site for detail on climate cycles;
    Secondly, Newtons 3 laws of motion. No matter that object move round one another slowly or at distance there is always an effect.
    The jovian planets boil internally, the moon pulls the earth and the earth pulls the moon. The effect is of course proportionate to their relative sizes. A jovian moon has little effect on the planet but the planet has an enormous effect on the moon. As to whether any of this movement changes the sun sufficiently to change the climate on earth, I don’t know and I would need some pretty convincing evidence to believe it would. This paper is not that evidence but it is a start of the debate.

  106. savethesharks says:
    October 13, 2010 at 11:39 pm
    Carrick says:
    October 13, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    As it happens, we are currently doing an experiment that will probably unambiguously (over time) establish a relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature change, namely the near doubling of atmospheric CO2 over maybe 350 years
    This is going to be some experiment. To be able to set up a control climate system and a modifiable climate system in the same space, time and conditions, independent of each other and of our real climate system, is some achievement. Of course, if by any chance you can’t do that then don’t bother doing it, it will be torn apart by any genuine scientists.

  107. Carrick says:
    There’s little question that water vapor feedback will enhance the relatively small “classical” greenhouse gas effect associated with the anthropogenic Co2 forcing
    That is a classic statement. You must explain the physics behind this when you have the time bearing mind that H²O absorbs in the same bands as Co². The only form of heat transfer between them is by kinetic forces, etc, etc. I am genuinely looking forward to this event.

  108. Carrick says:
    October 13, 2010 at 11:22 pm
    SteveF, you might want to look at this. It includes references. (H/T Judith Curry’s website etc etc)
    Carrick
    Barton Paul Levenson is a disciple of RC. He worships daily at the alter of Mannian Fraud the well known god of climate change manipulation and his disciples, Hansen, Bradley et al. All of their theories have long been known, we don’t need to read them again.
    Do you take in anything you read on Co² warming.??

  109. I don’t ‘get’ why people are asking for the physical mechanisms to be explained.
    The author made it clear from the start this was an empirical paper – it’s now up to the theorists to either demolish the paper through reason, argument, or opposing evidence –or search for a mechanism that would deliver the results!
    I see much talk about about the weakness of the gravitational /magnetic forces working at a distance – but not enough about resonance effects.
    My ‘educated guess’ at the missing mechnaism would be that the long term size and shape of the Earth’s magnetic field is influenced by the author’s documented cycles.
    Causative chain: Map the ‘signals’ the author suggests to Earth’s magnetic field – and you get the required variance in cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere – which changes the amount of water vapour – and hence climate change.
    Sorry – I can’t find a causation chain that involves carbon dioxide.

  110. Until the interactions of the many gravity wells of the
    planets and the sun and the gravity map of the solar
    system as a whole have been documented;
    AND
    Until those gravity wells as they are in persistant motion
    within the system are defined and described;
    AND
    Until there is an adequate empirical descripiton of the
    impact or the lack thereof between and among one
    another and the various electromagnetic emanations from
    old sol and the planets;
    THEN

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 13, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    The ‘wobble’ cannot be felt by anybody [including the Sun],
    so there are no effects arising from the wobble…

    lacks any basis of support in either Newtonian or Relativistic
    theories describing the solar system and it’s subsystems.
    Opinion = Opinion
    Fact = Fact
    Let’s not confuse the two.

  111. Leo G says:
    October 13, 2010 at 9:49 pm
    I always thought that the wobble was not an actual physical wobble of the star, but just a wobble of the stars’ light passing through a planets gravity. Is this not correct?
    The ‘wobble’ is real enough, except that it cannot be felt as the Sun is in free fall.

  112. Zeke the Sneak says:
    October 13, 2010 at 9:51 pm
    “They discovered electrons not only being accelerated toward the planet, but also away from it (Nature, February 9, 2006).” This acceleration is significant, causing intense X-ray emission associated with auroras in Jupiter’s polar regions.”
    ‘away from it’, does not mean towards the Sun. Jupiter has a magnetosphere with a tail pointing away from the Sun. Electrons are streaming up into that tail and are thus moving away from the planet and away from the Sun. Same happens at Earth.

  113. I wonder if what he has found is the answer Newton couldn’t find to the three-planet problem.
    It is true that Newton didn’t find the answer but he didn’t look very hard.
    In any case the answer has been known now for over a century and not only for 3 bodies but many bodies.
    Poincare found it even if he did a mistake in his first calculation.
    The result is that the orbits of a 3 planet system are chaotic.
    Despite of what too many people think , it is not possible to predict (or hindcast) the position of the Earth on its orbit for time intervals bigger than about 10 millions of years. Beyond 10 millions years the error has increased exponentially too far and you simply can’t say where the planet was/will be.
    Quite another and more complex problem is the question of the stability of the orbit itself.
    Even if it is true that you can’t know where the Earth was 10 millions years ago, this doesn’t tell immediately something about the orbit itself (eccentricity, average distance etc).
    Concerning the orbits themselves, it has been proven that they are chaotic too but at much larger time scales: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html
    Btw when I say “proven”, it means actually that a computer simulation has been run, because we know since Poincarre that the 3 body problem can’t be solved analytically.
    So next time when you read somebody talking or writing about the Earth orbit parameters 100s of millions or more years ago, you can be sure that he has not a clue.
    Over these time scales one can only make an educated guess based on educated probability guesses (like in the Laskar’s paper linked), but there is no certainty.
    That’s why it can make you laugh when the climate science is “explaining” the climate in the very distant past and … uses the orbital parameters of today 🙂

  114. I’m not sure why its so hard for some of you to grasp that the gravitational forces of huge bodies like Jupiter and Saturn have a small effect on the sun and its inner workings. This is basically what Theo Landeschiedt theorized decades ago. And his solar predictions are shockingly close to accurate. He predicted #24 was going to be a weak cycle decades ago.
    There’s *something* to it…

  115. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says at October 13, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    We have known since Newton that every object in the solar system causes wobbling in the orbit of every other object in the solar system, it is a plain consequence of Newton’s law of gravity. The Sun and the planets are in constant free fall.

    Carsten, I’m still somewhat in doubt to what extend parts of the sun really are in free fall, given that the gravitational field the sun sees is produced by several bodies distributed in space, and also considering that the sun isn’t just a dimensionless point, but a mercurial being of notable extensions. Clearly any given difference would be small, but plasma is also a profoundly unstable demon.
    Zeke the Sneak says at October 13, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    Do these active currents of negatively charged particles effect the sun’s behaviour? If electrons are flowing towards the Sun, doesn’t that mean it is a positively charged anode?

    In his textbook “Die Physik des erdnahen Weltraums” (Bonn 2003), the German astrophysicist G. W. Prölss describes a return current which is entering the sun presumably at the poles. He calculates it’s intensity to be about 10^11 Ampères. Now, if such a current should exist, then the solar wind can’t be electrically neutral as it was often stated here. I really would like to see this puzzle solved.

  116. MattN says:
    October 14, 2010 at 3:56 am
    He predicted #24 was going to be a weak cycle decades ago.
    This is what he predicted ‘decades ago’:
    SWINGING SUN, 79-YEAR CYCLE AND CLIMATIC CHANGE [PDF 309K]
    J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19.
    “The next minimum in the 79-year cycle will occur in 1990. It will be more pronounced than the minimum in 1811.”

  117. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    October 13, 2010 at 11:24 pm
    I am not saying there isn’t a relation, but rather that we have not yet seen a credible mechanism for how the orbital mechanics can affect solar activity in a way that also affects the earths climate in a measurable way. Of course, the Milankovitch cycles are real and well known, but that is a different issue.
    Please read the useful discussion on periodic forcing of chaotic / nonlinear systems, at the end of the Scaffeta paper.
    I think what is missing from Scaffeta’ paper is the issue of whether the forced system has a reactive medium; and also the fact pointed out earlier by Paul Vaughan that a naturally arising oscillation does not have to be a stationary wave.

  118. Hugo M says:
    October 14, 2010 at 4:15 am
    In his textbook “Die Physik des erdnahen Weltraums” (Bonn 2003), the German astrophysicist G. W. Prölss describes a return current which is entering the sun presumably at the poles.
    You said it yourself: “return current”, so current in somewhere and current out somewhere else. Anywhere, it is not that simple. The Heliospheric Current Sheet is a ‘drift current’ controlled by the magnetic field. There is no net charge leaving or entering the Sun leaving it electrically charged.

  119. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2010 at 4:26 am
    MattN says:
    October 14, 2010 at 3:56 am
    He predicted #24 was going to be a weak cycle decades ago.
    This is what he predicted ‘decades ago’:
    SWINGING SUN, 79-YEAR CYCLE AND CLIMATIC CHANGE [PDF 309K]
    J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19.
    “The next minimum in the 79-year cycle will occur in 1990. It will be more pronounced than the minimum in 1811.”

    And he also later predicted the next downturn would be around 2030. Although his predictions are not spot on as many think, Theodor did have the foresight and intuition to recognize the solar drivers, he just didn’t have the data available at the time to be more precise. Thanks to Carl Smith who followed in his foot steps the crucial data is here for us all to use and SC24 is a living example of Carl’s legacy.

  120. “Steve B says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:27 am
    Actually I dont think he was all that accurate, the data is better today….but certainly moving in the right direction.”
    ————————————————————————————-
    He was accurate within 1 month and I guess you never read any of his papers

  121. Tom Vonk: I think I read a long time ago that NASA computed the first numerical solution to the four-body problem when computing the trajectory of either the Pioneers or the Voyagers. I think the four objects were the spacecraft, the sun, Jupiter and one or more asteroids. I haven’t been able to google this up – do you happen to know the details here and have a link?

  122. vukcevic says:
    October 14, 2010 at 4:46 am
    Solar scientists have known for last few decades, that sun has a ‘magnetic hump’ […]
    Why is there a ‘magnetic hump? What causes it? Is there equivalent centre of gravity displacement?

    This has been known for a century, under various names [e.g. ‘active longitudes’]. The same dynamo process that creates the axial magnetic field can also generate equatorial rolls resulting in the ‘humps’. There would be no corresponding gravitational displacements. Tides from the planets are sub-millimeter in height.

  123. The climate is chaotic.
    The planetary orbits are chaotic.
    Since it is not physically possible to formulate barycentric motion.
    I suggest,
    -to use one of the strange attractor
    The climate is chaotic.
    The planetary orbits are chaotic.
    Since it is not physically possible to formulate barycentric motion.
    I suggest,
    -to use one of the strange attractor.
    There exists a large literature which attempts to determine optimal choices for the delay
    http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Grassberger-Procaccia_algorithm

  124. So the tide is a couple of millimeters. But much mass moves with that tide. That’s a big ole Iron Butterfly clanking its chained wings.
    =========================

  125. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 13, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    Now that we have discovered other planetary systems a simple test of this is possible: does magnetic activity or stellar irradiance match the barycentric movements in these other systems? The data so far says no. I’m sure people can find the relevant links themselves.
    Once again Leif misses the mark. He should know that one of the prime selection criterion that are used for planetary doppler searches of planetary systems, is to avoid stars with evidence of significant solar activity cycles. Apparently, stars that have significant magnetic activity in their H and K CaII lines produce too much “noise” in their radial velocities to allow effective searches for exo-planets in these systems to
    be feasable. The radial velocity “noise” drowns out the small cyclical radial velocity signature of any possible planets in these systems.
    Indeed, I believe that one of the reasons that doppler-based planetary searches have not discovered any solar systems that have multiple Jovian-size planets in circular orbits, located at distances in the range of 3 – 30 A.U, is the simple fact that selection criterion used to choose stellar candidates actually precludes these type of solar systems.
    I predict that if we were to systematically look at G type stars with established long term solar cycles, we would find that these systems will have multiple Jovian-size planets in near circular orbits, located at distances spanning 3 – 30 A.U. I also predict that the period of parent stars magnetic activity cycle (i.e. “Solar Cycle”) will be
    related to some combination of the synodic periods of the outer Jovian-like planets.

  126. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 13, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    Now that we have discovered other planetary systems a simple test of this is possible: does magnetic activity or stellar irradiance match the barycentric movements in these other systems? The data so far says no. I’m sure people can find the relevant links themselves.
    Once again Leif misses the mark. He should know that one of the prime selection criterion that are used for planetary doppler searches of planetary systems, is to avoid stars with evidence of significant solar activity cycles. Apparently, stars that have significant magnetic activity in their H and K CaII lines produce too much “noise” in their radial velocities to allow effective searches for exo-planets in these systems to
    be feasable. The radial velocity “noise” drowns out the small cyclical radial velocity signature of any possible planets in these systems.
    Indeed, I believe that one of the reasons that doppler-based planetary searches have not discovered any solar systems that have multiple Jovian-size planets in circular orbits, located at distances in the range of 3 – 30 A.U, is the simple fact that selection criterion used to choose stellar candidates actually precludes these type of solar systems.
    I predict that if we were to systematically look at G type stars with established long term solar cycles, we would find that these systems will have multiple Jovian-size planets in near circular orbits, located at distances spanning 3 – 30 A.U. I also predict that the period of parent stars magnetic activity cycle (i.e. “Solar Cycle”) will be
    related to some combination of the synodic periods of the outer Jovian-like planets.

  127. What size am I you say? Big enough to deal with middle school boys having behavior problems, but too small of an Irish troll to live under a drawbridge. I live under a footbridge spanning a bubbling brook.
    Folks, I recommend, no…I highly recommend, that you buy a number of books describing the Sun. Leif, do your recommendations from a couple years ago still stand or do you have additions you would recommend for an informative library?
    A short list of your favs would be great, once again.

  128. From the conclusion section of Nicola Scafetta’s paper [www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf ]
    “The results herein found show that the climate oscillations are driven by multiple astronomical mechanisms. Indeed, the planets with their movement cause the entire solar system to vibrate with a set of frequencies that are closely related to the orbital periods of the planets. The wobbling of the Sun around the center of mass of the solar system is just the clearest manifestation of these solar system vibrations and has been used herein just as a proxy for studying those vibrations. The Sun, the Earth–Moon system and the Earth feel these oscillations, and it is reasonable that the internal physical processes of the Earth and the Sun synchronize to them.”

    ————
    In my reading of the paper, it comes down to the Scafetta statement “The Sun, the Earth–Moon system and the Earth feel these oscillations and it is reasonable that the internal physical processes of the Earth and the Sun synchronize to them.”
    I conclude that the sole basis of his above statements is the he has processed some data on the SCMSS, CMSS, and the earth surface temps. With his data processing he says there is correlation between them.
    I conclude that someone has a lot of homework to do to establish a physical reality that contains the existence of planetary movement causing measurable earth climate changes. I wish that someone a lot of luck.
    John

  129. What Dr. Scarfetta is missing is the causal link between the planetary orbital periods, solar activity and the Earth’s Climate. This does not dismiss the possibility that such a link could exist, it just says that the mechanism is (currently) unknown.
    The answer to his dilemma is the Moon. The Lunar tides of the Moon do have a discernible influence upon long term climate here on Earth.
    The Moon has been moving away from the Earth ever since its formation billions of years ago. As it has moved away its orbital period has continuosly changed. This means that the properties of the Lunar Orbit have been shaped and moulded by combined tidal and gravitational effects of Venus and Jupiter, particularly at times when the orbital periods of these planets have been a sub-multiple of the orbital period of the Moon.
    I will be showing in a paper to be published in 2011 that long term changes in the Lunar orbit are synchronized with long term changes in Barycentric motion of the Sun.
    I cannot discuss these links in this forum as yet until I can get my paper published.
    It might be eventually shown that the level of solar activity on the Sun is determined
    by the barycentric motion it undergoes due to the gravitational influences of the Jovian planets. It might also be reasonable to argue that changes in the level of solar activity have an effect on the Earth’s climate. All I am saying is that what ever effects changes in solar activity have upon the Earth’s climate are being greatly reinforced by synchronized changes in the long-term variations in strength of lunar tides
    experienced here on Earth.
    I believe that the Lunar tidal effects will be identified as the (dominant) mysterious “amplification mechanism” that strengthens the apparent link between solar activity and the Earth’s climate.

  130. vukcevic says:
    October 14, 2010 at 5:03 am

    The field is one and only, so any change in one field can affect the other parts of it, of course they act at an angle: magnetism/electricity:90 degrees apart, gravity:180 degrees apart.
    YOU CAN PROVE IT WITH YOUR IPOD BEFORE THE NEXT EARTHQUAKE HITS YOUR PLACE:
    http://itunes.apple.com/br/app/gravity-meter-pro/id360592895?mt=8
    OR WITH A RADIO:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/29238677/Earthquake-3
    I don’t want you to believe in my theory but TEST IT with whatsoever gadget or instrument you like, the Field is a UNIFIED FIELD.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
    Of course, this means that we live in an ordered universe, a world with a “canon”, with an implied “ethos”, which is and will be strongly opposed and resisted by the preachers of chaos and randomness and the “uncertainty principle”or the “post-normal science”. That kind of thinking has taken us to a lot of anti human theories (you name it: all “progressive” ones).
    Choose your trench at the Armageddon battle field, the time is due!

  131. DireWolf,
    Kopernikus was never an astrologist. He was an astronomer.
    You mix him up with Kepler.
    The problem with this particular work:
    The guy selects a few frequencies from the “climate” and takes them exacty equal the rotation periods of the two planets.
    He uses amplitudes and phases as free parameters.
    No surprize he gets corellated lines.
    All bullshit.

  132. Ref – vukcevic says:
    October 13, 2010 at 2:54 pm
    “Not much new there.”
    _____________________
    Isn’t science still a one-problem-at-a-time job? When was the last time this subject was covered in this way in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics?
    Ref – MikeTheDenier says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm
    “It seems to me that if the orbit of a planet can cause the wobble of a distant star, thus allowing we earthlings to detect the existance of such planets, then we must accept that planets in our own solar system will cause our own star to wobble.”
    __________________
    Got a feeling everything in the Universe wobbles.
    Must have something to do with one of the 14 dimensions of space and time.
    Thanks for posting this link Anthony!

  133. Ninderthana says:
    October 14, 2010 at 6:26 am
    Once again Leif misses the mark. He should know that one of the prime selection criterion that are used for planetary doppler searches of planetary systems, is to avoid stars with evidence of significant solar activity cycles.
    No, that is not true at all. E.g. the Kepler mission stares at 150,000 stars with no selection at all. Here is more on the proposed test: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1010-0966v1.pdf
    Pamela Gray says:
    October 14, 2010 at 6:45 am
    Folks, I recommend, no…I highly recommend, that you buy a number of books describing the Sun. Leif, do your recommendations from a couple years ago still stand or do you have additions you would recommend for an informative library?
    Below are my current ‘must read’ list. Unfortunately, many people here will not learn about science, but prefer to ‘Choose your trench at the Armageddon battle field’
    1) The Magnetic Universe, J.B.Zirker, ISBN 0-8018-9302-X, 2009 [easy]
    2) The Sun from Space, K.R.Lang, ISBN 978-3-540-76952-1, 2009 [easy]
    3) Physics of the Sun, D.J.Mullan, ISBN 978-1-4200-8307-1, 2010 [medium]
    4) Heliophysics I-III, ed. C.L.Schrijver & G.L.Sisco, ISBN 978-0-521-11061-7, 2009-2010 [intermediate] http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521110617

  134. Once more I would like to introduce the concept of clocks.
    Clocks as regular repetition of motion in time In this sense each planet is two clocks (spining, and orbit), the whole planetary system is a giant clock, the sun with its spin and its cycles other clocks.
    Meditate on clocks.
    I say that all clocks are correlated. Does someone dispute this? They are correlated because a function can be found to describe each, and then in time there will be beats and coincidences which have nothing to do with causality.
    Now let us accept that there are cycles of the earth’s climate. These cycles will correlate with any clock you want to use to clock them, effectively.
    Causality needs transfer of energy, and from all these celestial clocks the only appreciable energy transfer comes from the moon to the earth. That is where I would concentrate for a causal relation. The transfers of energy from the planets to the sun are minuscule and not to be taken seriously, imo. In my region of the earth for more than a thousand years the phases of the moon have been used to predict short term weather by farmers and sailors.
    A mechanism of correlation where causation is very very far removed from the present, is gravitational transfers of the type that have made the moon always facing us. In this model, if a clear correlation exists with the clock “Jupiter” or whatever, it will be because over the millenia the Moon clock synchronized with the “Jupiter” clock . Or another mechanism : when the planets formed the synchronization came about.

  135. vukcevic says:
    October 14, 2010 at 8:51 am
    It has a magnetic cycle. Dr.L.S will tell you magnetic cycle is due to the planet’s proximity.
    Indeed it might be, although the authors even question that. This is the point people are missing: The gravitational effects fall off with the cube of the distance, so if the planet is 100 times closer [as is the case here], the effect is a million times stronger.

  136. stephen richards says:
    October 14, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Carrick says:

    There’s little question that water vapor feedback will enhance the relatively small “classical” greenhouse gas effect associated with the anthropogenic Co2 forcing


    That is a classic statement. You must explain the physics behind this when you have the time bearing mind that H²O absorbs in the same bands as Co². The only form of heat transfer between them is by kinetic forces, etc, etc. I am genuinely looking forward to this event.
    Not quite. There is some overlap but it’s far from complete.
    This link
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/
    includes this graphic
    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/daly_spectra.gif
    which provokes the following comment from Steve McIntyre.

    Sometimes you hear people say that there’s just a “little bit” of CO2 and therefore it can’t make any difference: but, obviously, there’s enough CO2 for it to be very prominent in these highly relevant spectra, so this particular argument is a total non-starter as far as I’m concerned.

    As more CO2 is added to the atmosphere the average height at which energy is emitted to space increases. Higher means Colder so the energy emitted is reduced (S-B law: E=sigma x T^4). To restore the incoming=outgoing energy balance the earth must heat up. A further point: If there is less CO2 in the atmosphere there would likely be less water vapour since both evaporation and the capacity of the air to hold moisture is a dependent on temperature.

  137. sHx says:
    October 14, 2010 at 9:43 am
    Got curious about that. And look what I found: http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/ThreeBody/ThreeBody.html
    No matter what I order it to do my planet comes crashing into one of the suns. Ain’t that fun? 🙂

    Playing with gravity is quite fun. I have had som joy from intruducing real and imaginary objects into the solar system of my simulator (ref. earlier post). All kinds of strange things can happen eventually. I created a “death star” (called Nemesis 🙂 ), and it sometimes caused the Earth to lose the Moon, or Mars to be ejected far above the ecliptic.
    Clearly, the solar system isn’t quite as tidy as most people believe, especially over very long timescales. But I agree with those who suggest links between planetary orbits, solar activity and Earths climate have a lot of work ahead of them. I have read through Scafetta’s paper and I am still missing the mechanisms.

  138. http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
    Again – Rhodes Fairbridge went down this road and had a very good look around. I suspect that his conjectures will sooner or later be seen to be crucial to a fuller understanding of climate variation. See Richard Mackey, 2007, Journal of Coastal Research strangely! There’s some bio details on Fairbridge which can be skimmed, and quite a lot of useful insight into his thinking on this, plus details of related research papers.

  139. The commodities markets (as zillions of analysts can tell you) run on 60 year cycles as well, and have been doing so for hundreds of years. 1940 and 2000 were significant inflection points as well- Interesting!

  140. Regarding the Russian heatwave and in response to posters mentioning the CLOUD experiment, I think you might be interested in this:
    Galactic cosmic ray variation influence on baric system dynamics at middle latitudes
    Irina Artamonovaa, , and Svetlana Veretenenkob
    a Saint-Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
    b Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
    Received 5 August 2009;
    revised 27 April 2010;
    accepted 1 May 2010.
    Available online 11 May 2010.
    Abstract
    Variations of atmospheric pressure in the North Atlantic region during Forbush decreases of galactic cosmic rays were investigated. A noticeable pressure growth with the maximum on the 3rd and 4th days after the Forbush decrease onsets was revealed over Scandinavia and the northern region of the European part of Russia. It was shown that the observed pressure growth was caused by the formation of blocking anticyclones in the region of the climatic Arctic front, as well as by the sharp slowing of the movement of North Atlantic cyclones. It was suggested that the particles that precipitate in the regions of the climatic Arctic and Polar fronts, with the minimum energies E 20–80 MeV and 2–3 GeV, respectively, may influence the processes of cyclone and anticyclone formation and development at extratropical latitudes.
    Keywords: Solar effects; Forbush decreases; Cyclonic activity; Pressure variations

  141. Ok, hold on a second here.
    If Milankovitch cycles (a few degrees of movement) can be blamed for earth’s ice ages of the past, why wouldn’t that same sensitivity equation be applied to the rest of the solar bodies, including the sun ?
    When people say the jovian planets have a miniscule affect on the sun, is there an actual number that can be applied to what is deemed as “miniscule” ? And are there cyclical times when those miniscule effects change by a degree or two or more ? Just curious as to what that might be.
    There could actually be some real meat to this hypothesis. If nothing else, it could lead to some further answers (partial or whole), in terms of physical mechanisms at play with each other.
    There’s something to be said about stepping back and looking at the whole picture in order to get back to the point of basic fundamentals and rethinking the entire process.

  142. Scafetta’s paper is interesting but it presents a voluminous plethora of data which – for me at least – a little hard to get my head around. The very large number of figures includes several apparently contradictory predictions, some of which are clearly inaccurate, for instance the figure 11b reproduced in the post says that we should now be in a temperature trough – it is more likely we are at a peak.
    A much more succinct description of a plausible planetary connection to PDO/AMO climate cycles is given very nicely in Sidorenko et al 2010 – just a two page abstract but very clearly explaining the essentials (it draws from the wok of Ian Wilson):
    http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-9559.pdf
    Here is an extract:
    If the Solar system just consisted of Jupiter and the Sun, the barycentre of the Solar System would move in an almost circular orbit located just above the surface of the Sun (i.e. about 1.08 solar radii), called the sub-Jupiter point.
    Out of interest I have a question to Dr Svalgaard and others with the same anti-barycentric assignment: do you believe the statement in the above quote or not?
    Is there a “sub-Jupiter point” 1.08 solar radii from the sun’s center – or not?
    Is Newtonian gravity correct – or not? Should Isaac Newton be categorised as a climate skeptic for his support of barycentrism? – should your colleague William Connolly get busy purging wikipedia of references to Isaac Newton?

  143. As a non-practicing, classically trained astrologer who doesn’t believe in astrology, I’ve been reading about this stuff for decades. It standard fare on some of the better astrology sites, and there are entire astrological disciplines devoted to climate that require many years of study. Some of the most successful living astrologers–not the ones your read in newspapers and popular magazines–have backgrounds in astronomy and astrophysics.
    Nevertheless, correlation does not equal causation, and seemingly synchronized cycles don’t necessarily even indicate correlation. What the article does suggest is that our climate is cyclical, as almost everyone here has been arguing for years, and that the longer the observational period, the better. On the big time scale, what is or isn’t happening now is more or less an insignificant blip.

  144. phlogiston says:
    October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
    If the Solar system just consisted of Jupiter and the Sun, the barycentre of the Solar System would move in an almost circular orbit located just above the surface of the Sun (i.e. about 1.08 solar radii), called the sub-Jupiter point.
    Out of interest I have a question to Dr Svalgaard and others with the same anti-barycentric assignment: do you believe the statement in the above quote or not?

    Of course it is correct. What is your point?
    There is also a sub-Earth point near the center of the Sun that the Earth [or rather the barycenter of the Earth+Moon] moves about.
    Is there a “sub-Jupiter point” 1.08 solar radii from the sun’s center – or not?

  145. phlogiston says:
    October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
    If the Solar system just consisted of Jupiter and the Sun, the barycentre of the Solar System would move in an almost circular orbit located just above the surface of the Sun (i.e. about 1.08 solar radii), called the sub-Jupiter point.
    If in addition there was a very small planet moving just above the surface of the Sun, e.g. at 1.04 solar radii, would that planet orbit the sub-Jupiter point or the [near] center of the Sun?

  146. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says: October 14, 2010 at 10:17 am
    ……… I am still missing the mechanisms.
    There is a physical process in the most northern reaches of the Atlantic, between Greenland and your homeland, that captures most of CET trends. Data is available, physics of it is ‘down to earth’ but the interpretation is something that science has bothered before, at least not as far as I know, furthermore there is no obvious relationship to the solar cycles or planetary configuration.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
    Eventually I might need a bit of a help from a UK uni to put it all together.

  147. Northern Exposure says:
    October 14, 2010 at 10:59 am
    When people say the jovian planets have a miniscule affect on the sun, is there an actual number that can be applied to what is deemed as “miniscule” ?

    As Leif says: Tides from the planets are sub-millimeter in height.
    Tidal forces are real, but the tidal effects on the Sun as caused by the planets are vanishingly small. Trouble is, there are not many other known mechanisms that could affect the Sun in any credible manner. Such a thing may still exist, for sure, but as nobody seem to be able to find it, a reasonable hypothesis is that it doesn’t.

  148. Carrick,
    I am quite familiar with inverse problems, how they are solved, and how they are used “in different branches of science”… say for example, in geomagnetic prospecting, x-ray tomography, image reconstruction/enhancement, etc.
    I am also familiar with the very broad range of credible net forcing (total radiative forcing less aerosol off-sets). And as I am sure you know, it is clear that each climate model group manages to select a level of assumed aerosol forcing which allows that model’s calculated level of sensitivity to be more-or-less consistent with the observed temperature history. This is an obvious a kludge. With no meaningful constraint on aerosol off-sets there is also no constraint on the size of the aerosol kludge.
    The other obvious kludge has historically been ocean heat uptake, which has only recently been reasonably well measured (by ARGO circa 2003). This kludge is being gradually taken away by accumulating ARGO data. There is a very good reason Kevin Trenberth says he thinks ARGO ocean heat data is wrong: it is broadly inconsistent with high climate sensitivity, and he knows it. High climate sensitivity is only physically reasonable if ocean lag is quite long… and ARGO heat data suggests it is quite short. With better defined ocean heat uptake, it becomes ever more difficult to see how the models could possibly be close to correct in their estimates of climate sensitivity.
    The most robust method of verifying model performance is to reduce uncertainty in the aerosol data. Of course, if there were another Pinatubo size eruption, then the combination of ARGO and limb measurements of stratospheric aerosols would constrain the range of credible sensitivity pretty quickly.
    The inability of the models to capture the (apparent) natural oscillations in the climate, at both long and short time scales, is a clear sign that the models are not a good representation of the physical system. I may not be alive long enough to see it, but I expect that when the models can better capture the pseudo-cyclical behavior of the system, they will diagnose the climate sensitivity somewhere between ~1.2C and ~1.7C per doubling.

  149. phlogiston says:
    October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
    Here is an extract:
    If the Solar system just consisted of Jupiter and the Sun, the barycentre of the Solar System would move in an almost circular orbit located just above the surface of the Sun (i.e. about 1.08 solar radii), called the sub-Jupiter point.
    Out of interest I have a question to Dr Svalgaard and others with the same anti-barycentric assignment: do you believe the statement in the above quote or not?

    Look up the definition of barycentre. This is not a question of belief. It is a mathematical fact that if the solar system consisted of only the Sun and Jupiter, their common centre of mass will alway lie on a straight line between them, and closer to the most massive object. 1.08 solar radii sounds about right. You can compute it yourself, it is not complicated.
    Is there a “sub-Jupiter point” 1.08 solar radii from the sun’s center – or not?
    Sure, if you choose to compute the centre of mass between only the Sun and Jupiter, you will get that answer. However, it does not have any physical significance, it is just a point in space like any other.
    The centre of mass of the whole Solar system follows a more complex path, however, ref. this . But it is still just a point in space.

  150. phlogiston says:
    October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
    Is Newtonian gravity correct – or not? Should Isaac Newton be categorised as a climate skeptic for his support of barycentrism? – should your colleague William Connolly get busy purging wikipedia of references to Isaac Newton?

    What are you talking about? The barycenter is a well defined mathematical point for a system of masses governed by the gravitational force. It is just that, a mathematical point. It has 0 mass and so does not have any effect by itself, other than convenience in calculations, particularly when the solar system is considered as a point within the galaxy.
    The barycenter of the earth moon system is 800km within the mantle of the earth. Nobody observes anything due to the barycenter point running around under the skin of the earth. It is a convenient point to use when calculating the earth/moon system motion versus the sun, that is all.

  151. Vuk etc. says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:06 pm
    There is a physical process in the most northern reaches of the Atlantic, between Greenland and your homeland, that captures most of CET trends. Data is available, physics of it is ‘down to earth’
    There is no such ‘physical process’. How many times must this be pointed out?

  152. I have a general comment: when most people here are so woefully ignorant about simple orbital mechanics [and basic physics] and will believe almost anything, what significance can one attach to their mutterings on climate?

  153. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:42 pm
    There is no such ‘physical process’. How many times must this be pointed out?
    O YES THERE IS ! And you have no idea what it is either!
    Would you get me PhD from your Stanford University, if I can show them that there is, and furthermore it has the most reliable recorded data for any physical process going back to 1600.
    One recent Nobel price winner had PhD theses of 2 pages, I think I will manage that plus page of numbers for the NAP.
    I am ready to put my money where my mouth is, are you?
    Have a good look at it again.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm

  154. “E pur si muove”….anyway you will enjoy “climate disruption”, rather “freezing cold disruption” 🙂

  155. Carrick says:
    October 13, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    “…such as data on the absorption of IR by CO2.”
    Please explain to me how CO2 with three absorbtion bands 2.3, 4.7, and 15 micro how they effect the temperature due to radiation.

  156. Vuk etc. says:
    October 14, 2010 at 1:04 pm
    O YES THERE IS ! And you have no idea what it is either!
    OK, Einstein, explain what you think it is, and why it is different from your previous ravings on this.

  157. Jupiter & Saturn impact on solar wind / magnetic impact to the Earth is (together with the moon influence) core to Piers Corbyn long term wheather and extreme events predictions (through his Wheatheraction business) ; only accessible through payment !

  158. Leif Svalgaard says: October 14, 2010 at 1:35 pm
    OK, Einstein, explain….
    Let’s leave Einstein alone, he was not very nice to his wife Ms Mileva Maric, another Serb a scientist in her own right, my heros are Tesla and Milankovic and philosopher Petar II Njegos.
    Some of the graphs, as in McCracken are integrated, this graph
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
    uses square rather than linear law dependence; and forget about gmf, it is not.
    Are you ready to deal?

  159. Why the doubt that Jupiter and Saturn could influence Earth’s climate? Down in the southern hemisphere we have to warn visitors that, latitude for latitude, the intensity of the sun’s radiation in mid-summer is currently about 7% greater here than in the northern hemisphere (so be sure to wear a hat – its even more because of less pollution!) What is less well known is that, because of barycentric movement, the difference in maximum intensity of solar radiation between northern and southern hemispheres itself varies in the range of about 3% to 11% – the extremes are rare but variation in the range 6% – 8% is not. One would think that by itself might have some influence on climate. More significant, I would guess, would be the difference between total annual solar energy received by the north and the south and how that varies from year to year. I have no idea what this is – not much, I assume, and would like to know, but it seems unlikely that there is no variation at all – and it wouldn’t take much to be significant.

  160. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 13, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    “Now that we have discovered other planetary systems a simple test of this is possible: does magnetic activity or stellar irradiance match the barycentric movements in these other systems? The data so far says no. I’m sure people can find the relevant links themselves.”
    I followed Geoff Sharp’s link to the paper – M.A.C. Perryman and T. Schulze-Hartung: The barycentric motion of exoplanet host stars- and the data so far does not say no. Nor does it say yes. The authors suggest the study of two stars, HD 168443 and HD 74156 could provide an answer, but at present there is insufficient data. This paper was published 6/10/10. If Leif has a link to a paper showing that a star with Jovian sized exoplanets does not have solar cycles synchronised with the orbital cycles of the masses within that star system I would be interested to read it.

  161. vukcevic says:
    October 14, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    uses square rather than linear law dependence; and forget about gmf, it is not.
    I don’t play games. If you anything, say it. If not, …

  162. I do not know, and have little opinion on whether Dr. Scafetta’s work is valid. What I DO want to point out is that Climate Science would have been exploring these avenues 20 years ago if it hadn’t been captured by Activists with a dream of changing the world!!!
    When you reread the statement that they could see no other reason for the alledged temp increase (it couldn’t have been poor data and statistical techniques could it?) than the continuing rise in CO2, it should be obvious that they WEREN’T LOOKING!!!!!

  163. PJP says:
    October 13, 2010 at 7:37 pm
    “I see very little (read none) discussion in any of the AGW papers (or skeptic papers for that matter[)] why the specific filters used were chosen.”
    Agreed! Few, if any, climate studies show any acquaintance with the (complex-valued) transfer function of the filter employed, let alone with purpose of filtering. Thus many are left befuddled by the outputs obtained, which leads to blind proscriptions against any filtering by those unschooled in signal analysis.
    The “ringing” of very narrow-band filters (i.e., outputs highly autocorrelated over large lags) is exactly what one should expect analytically as a consequence of the well-known “reciprocal spreading” property of Fourier pairs. This is by no means a mysterious, let alone spurious, artefact of such filters, but an intrinsic property of bandwidth. Unless the signal contains strictly periodic components (true spectral lines), the variance of the output also decreases as the filter bandwidth is decreased in the signal decomposition. That’s the basis on which analog spectrum analyzers of varying frequency resolution were designed before the advent of digital technology.

  164. Konrad says:
    October 14, 2010 at 3:05 pm
    If Leif has a link to a paper showing that a star with Jovian sized exoplanets does not have solar cycles synchronised with the orbital cycles of the masses within that star system I would be interested to read it.
    The field is in its infancy. Here is one example:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4515
    ” We do not detect enhancement in the activity of the star that may be related to the conjunction of the planet”
    There are other examples. [but few so far]. My comment was that here is a method of putting the wishful thinking to the test.

  165. What is not discussed about the sun is the fact that there might be strong solar activity that travels around its surface. That is, the solar flares might be happening all the time, but when we do not see them, they are happening at the back side of the Sun!
    We do not have any imaging/satellites of what exactly happens behind the Sun. So, there might be some El Nino-style event on the surface of the Sun that goes around the surface slowly, taking eleven years (or more, depending on which cycle we examine).

  166. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2010 at 4:24 pm
    Leif, thank you for the link. I am beginning to see the problem with this method of putting the (wishful) thinking to the test. Any comparison between star systems similar to our own may require a study over a decade in length.

  167. Leif, this is the paper I was refering to: http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/extrema.htm
    “If a further connection with long-range variations in sunspot intensity proves reliable, four to five weak sunspot cycles (R < 80) are to be expected after cycle 23 with medium strength (R ~ 100)."
    I have seen his reference elsewhere for a minimum at 2030.
    We'll see. So far he's on the mark with #24.

  168. anna v says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    _____________Reply;
    The next time your washing machine goes into spin dry with several towels, a fluffy pillow and a couple pairs of jeans, try to keep in mind the center of balance of the whole assembly is the same as the barycenter of the earth moon system, as it walks across the floor.
    The barycenter of the Earth moon system moves the center of mass of the Earth around the same as the middle of the load of clothes moves the washer around.
    In the case of the earth moon system each cycle of 27 to 28 days moves the center of mass of the Earth up and down over 30% of its size, while it is being slung forward and back in its orbit speed about the same amount. So every time the moon goes North to South the Earth’s center of mass moves 800km to 1200km South to North.
    The forces felt on the earth are felt to its core as a compression wave as the angular momentum pivots around the barycenter, creating the tidal bulges in the Earths crust, oceans and atmosphere, which move relative to the point above the barycenter.
    Given the standard washing machine does not move around 1/3 of it’s height and width, even at the worst unbalance case, would you let it go that way for 4.8 billion years with out feeling it?

  169. Bob D says:
    October 14, 2010 at 2:48 pm
    What is less well known is that, because of barycentric movement, the difference in maximum intensity of solar radiation between northern and southern hemispheres itself varies in the range of about 3% to 11% – the extremes are rare but variation in the range 6% – 8% is not.
    This statement is incorrect Bob, the only variation in TSI received is because of the elliptical shape of our orbit brought about by very slow changes from planet perturbations. The Barycentre has no effect on the Sun/Earth distance.
    But was it happening right now that is beyond doubt, is the solar path and velocity around the SSB are in a different place to “normal”. As shown in my previous link to other stars this departure from normal requires a system with at least 4 major planets, their mass proportions and distances are also important. Distant exoplanet hosting stars so far are showing a different pattern of movement suggesting they are in balance…unlike our own solar system right now.
    Many exoplanet bearing stars also exhibit star spots, but I agree this area of research is in its early days.

  170. Planetary theory.. oooh scarey
    Planets orbits are laid out due to solar orbit and cycles. Maybe what they are seeing is the mirroring of this. The planetary orbits are a mirror of the solar cycle because of the solar orbit and cycles. Not the (main) driver ..
    Geoff, talked with Galactic central bar room and wanted to know if they were still driving this train, they are.
    They wanted to know if you were ok, seems they hear your name mentioned often. lol
    P.S. Leif .. Vuks has a Jack up his sleeve..

  171. Watching closely for Dr. Svalgaard’s response. Hopefully without the playground name calling and bullying tactics.

  172. Pamela Gray, could set you up with a 39 year old sparky, howz bout that. Don’t think he is partial or racist about red hair or anything like that. Maybe the Angus would like a red hair, haven’t .. never mind.

  173. Anyone .. any theories on why the North poles of Jupe and Sat are negative? Do their poles drift with any frequency?

  174. MattN says:
    October 14, 2010 at 5:43 pm
    “If a further connection with long-range variations in sunspot intensity proves reliable, four to five weak sunspot cycles (R < 80) are to be expected after cycle 23 with medium strength (R ~ 100)."
    That paper is so late [and contradicts his earlier ones] that by that time it was becoming clear which way the wind was blowing. E.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD….34.0603S
    Carla says:
    October 14, 2010 at 6:44 pm
    P.S. Leif .. Vuks has a Jack up his sleeve..
    From what I have seen, this is highly unlikely. He does have a way with gullible people though…
    David Ball says:
    October 14, 2010 at 6:47 pm
    Watching closely for Dr. Svalgaard’s response.
    To what?
    Hopefully without the playground name calling and bullying tactics.
    It is hard to bully me and name calling comes with the territory, so I can handle that. Don’t worry.

  175. anna v says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    You are confusing tides with the barycenter motion. Of course it is correlated, but not causal, otherwise the earth’s mantle would be at least like mashed potato.
    In your analogy of the washing machine, the error lies that you think the barycenter is moving. If it were moving, the washing machine would be walking around the floor. ( I have one on wheels). The barycenter is constant by observation.

  176. For those that might be interested in some of the history of barycentre science this paper from Fairbridge and Shirley in 1987 show how the old masters were on the right track but focused on the wrong aspects of the poor data available back then.
    Fairbridge, Shirley and Landsch**dt all predict a solar grand minimum at 1990, basing their predictions on the zero crossings or where the Sun returns over the SSB. There is no mention of the Uranus & Neptune disturbance in angular momentum although they do notice the unordered solar orbit that is a result, but fail to put the two together. Charvatova does the same thing 1 year later but predicts a solar downturn to start at 2000.
    The early diagrams in Jose’s ground breaking 1965 paper do show the the angular momentum perturbations caused by Uranus & Neptune as do the odd diagram via Landsch**dt, but they both also missed it.
    It took Carl Smith in 2007 to flesh out the detail when he plotted solar angular momentum produced from the newer DE405/406 JPL Horizon’s data that covers 6000 years….he himself still did not see the connection but I was lucky to stumble on this 1 year later which continues to open new doors.
    Fairbridge paper HERE.

  177. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:53 pm
    I have a general comment: when most people here are so woefully ignorant about simple orbital mechanics [and basic physics] and will believe almost anything, what significance can one attach to their mutterings on climate?

    I wish you didn’t say that. But you are right. Just because you are a rocket scientist doesn’t mean you are a good communicator.

  178. Carsten Arnholm
    “I have read through Scafetta’s paper and I am still missing the mechanisms.”
    How about Jupiter setting up the tidal bulge and the inner planets acting on it.

  179. Leif Svalgaard says: October 14, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    I don’t play games. If you anything, say it. If not, …
    No if-s,
    you can take up the challenge, or stop denying something you appear don’t know much about.
    Let me make it clear once again:
    There is an ongoing physical process taking place in the Northern Atlantic, data for which is a matter of record, actual record, no proxies, no paleo-dating or estimates.
    Post 1600 data is squared (raised to power of 2), normalised to the CETs (Central England temperatures) as available from Met Office, Hadley Centre, UK, and presented in this graph:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
    According to the current science there is no link between the physical process in question and the solar cycles, planetary configuration or a AG CO2 emissions.

  180. Leif Svalgaard says at October 14, 2010 at 4:34 am:

    You said it yourself: “return current”, so current in somewhere and current out somewhere else. Anywhere, it is not that simple. The Heliospheric Current Sheet is a ‘drift current’ controlled by the magnetic field. There is no net charge leaving or entering the Sun leaving it electrically charged.

    Just who proposed the sun was electrostatically charged? That was certainly not me.
    But also a “drift current” is a current. A current transports electrical charges, and be it in the form of a truckload of ping-pong balls heading to Stanford, with only one of them carrying a net charge. When originating from the sun, such a current needs a compensating, equalizing current returning to the sun, else indeed the sun (as your desk at Stanford) would finally become a charged body. Since you “kinda co-invented” the Heliospheric Current Sheet (presumably together with Schatten), I really would like to understand how the need of a compensating current fits with your repeated assertion, that the solar wind would be electrically neutral. Perhaps you really meant to say that the solar wind was predominantly neutral?

  181. mcfarmer says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm
    Yes corn crop yields are down but this is still the third largest corn crop ever produced in the USA
    I do believe the subsidies and guaranteed sales based on ethanol requirements just might have prompted the farmers to plant more corn doncha know.

  182. >>Leif:
    >>The [Sun’s] ‘wobble’ cannot be felt by anybody [including the Sun], so
    >>there are no effects arising from the wobble.
    Sorry, Leif, you lost me on this one.
    The Moon orbits the Earth, and I can feel the effects of this orbiting body myself.
    Jupiter orbits the Sun, so why will the surface of the Sun not feel this gravitational disturbance in exactly the same fashion?
    .

  183. vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2010 at 1:22 am
    you can take up the challenge, or stop denying something you appear don’t know much about.
    There is no challenge as you have not explained yourself, so, indeed, I have no idea what you are talking about now. In the past it was nonsense, so if something has changed you might enlighten us.
    Hugo M says:
    October 15, 2010 at 2:00 am
    When originating from the sun, such a current needs a compensating, equalizing current returning to the sun, else indeed the sun (as your desk at Stanford) would finally become a charged body.
    The magnetic field near the Sun is radial. The drift current is perpendicular to the field, hence circles the Sun, i.e. does not ‘come from’ the Sun. And the Sun and the solar wind is neutral to a very high degree. If you placed a box of electrons weighing 1693 tons on the sun and a similar box on the Earth, their mutual electric repulsion would exceed the gravitational force that keeps the Earth in its orbit. The neutrality comes about because there is no resistance to movements of the charges, so any however small deviation from neutrality is immediately shorted out.
    Another example of a drift [and curvature] current is the ‘ring current’ encircling the Earth in the Van Allen Belts.
    The Heliospheric Current Sheet has a peculiar shape. http://www.leif.org/research/HCS3.png
    The Figure on the right shows its shape near solar maximum [meridional cut]. Here is another view: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS2.png and here: http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Current%20Sheet%20Cartoon.pdf

  184. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2010 at 8:37 am
    No, that is not true at all. E.g. the Kepler mission stares at 150,000 stars with no selection at all. Here is more on the proposed test: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1010-0966v1.pdf
    What poor old Leif fails to mention is that the Kepler Mission is not using the doppler-technique to search for exo-planetary candidates. I specifically referred to the bias of the doppler method. The doppler-method goes out of its way to avoid stars that have strong solar cycles.
    Confirmation of this bias is provided by the paper that Leif cites in his defence.
    Almost all of the candidate stars with known multiple planets that are presented in this paper, have no long-term H & K Ca II observations, used to determine long term changes in the level of solar activity. And of the ones that have long-term H-K observations, most show little or no evidence of regular (sinusoidal) variations in solar activity.
    What concerns me about the Perryman & Schulze-Hartung paper is that is a classic paper tiger attempt to discredit the Barycentric idea. It appears to pick a single claim by Jose (1965) that solar activity is synchronized with epochs of negative angular momentum and then it makes the assumption that all you need to do is disprove this one mechanism then all of the other (alternative) barycentric mechanism will have to be thrown out the window along with it. This is science at its worst.
    Of course the bozos who wrote this paper, mention the possibility of a spin-orbit coupling mechanism being responsible for causing variations in solar activity.
    The problem is that they do so without even mentioning our 2008 paper which bears directly on this topic.
    Wilson, I.R.G., Carter, B.D., and Waite, I.A., 2008, Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling
    Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?, Publications
    of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2008, 25, 85 – 93.
    Wilson_Carter_Waite_2008.pdf
    http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf
    I would have sent their paper back for major revisions if I had been the referee.

  185. Ralph says:
    October 15, 2010 at 2:34 am
    The Moon orbits the Earth, and I can feel the effects of this orbiting body myself.
    I cannot, you must be very sensitive. If you are thinking of the tides, it is not ‘you’ that feel anything. but the Earth with a diameter of ~13,000 km. This raises a tidal bulge of about 350 millimeter. Jupiter also raises a bulge on the Sun, with a height of 0.5 millimeter which must be compared to the motions of the granulation which moves a million Texas-sized chunks randomly up and down with a speed of 500 meter/second. It is all a question of proportions.

  186. Hugo M says:
    October 15, 2010 at 2:00 am
    When originating from the sun, such a current needs a compensating, equalizing current returning to the sun, else indeed the sun (as your desk at Stanford) would finally become a charged body.
    A thought experiment: you have N electrons uniformly circling the Earth from East to West and exactly the same number, N, protons circling from West to East. Those movements constitute a current, yet in any little box within the current the number of charges is exactly the same, namely an equal number of electrons and protons. Hence complete neutrality.

  187. Ninderthana says:
    October 15, 2010 at 2:55 am
    The doppler-method goes out of its way to avoid stars that have strong solar cycles.
    How about a link to substantiate this assertion?
    The problem is that they do so without even mentioning our 2008 paper which bears directly on this topic.
    Sounds like sour grapes to me.

  188. David Ball says:
    October 14, 2010 at 6:47 pm
    Hopefully without the playground name calling and bullying tactics.
    You are presumably referring to this kind of playground manners:
    Ninderthana says:
    October 15, 2010 at 2:55 am
    What poor old Leif fails to mention…

  189. Ninderthana says:
    October 15, 2010 at 2:55 am
    What concerns me about the Perryman & Schulze-Hartung paper is that is a classic paper tiger attempt to discredit the Barycentric idea. It appears to pick a single claim by Jose (1965) that solar activity is synchronized with epochs of negative angular momentum and then it makes the assumption that all you need to do is disprove this one mechanism then all of the other (alternative) barycentric mechanism will have to be thrown out the window along with it. This is science at its worst.
    Hi Ian, I agree with your comment, the negative aspect of AM is now old hat. It has no validity in modern planetary theory, but it was a useful stepping stone.
    Michael was unaware of your work and mine along with Scafetta, but is now up to date, he explained that he has been caught up in the Astronomy world. But his distance star barycentric diagrams do look interesting, our system may not be all that common.

  190. Leif Svalgaard says: October 15, 2010 at 2:48 am
    vukcevic says:
    There is no challenge as you have not explained yourself, so, indeed, I have no idea what you are talking about now. In the past it was nonsense, so if something has changed you might enlighten us.
    No it was not nonsense, it is ad astra per aspera
    Many US and world universities and some research institutions have the same data somewhere in their libraries, I just put graph together. There is a relatively simple physical link for mechanism regulating long term temperature movements in the North Atlantic. It is just a matter writing it all down in a coherent manner.
    Let’s make your challenge simple: Only you have to do is to pop along to offices of Dr-s Matson, Chamberlain or like, show them my graph and theywould get all the information from me.
    After all Stanford got $100 million from ExxonMobil for climate research, my graph will cost nothing.

  191. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 15, 2010 at 3:05 am
    Hugo M says:
    October 15, 2010 at 2:00 am
    When originating from the sun, such a current needs a compensating, equalizing current returning to the sun, else indeed the sun (as your desk at Stanford) would finally become a charged body.
    A thought experiment: you have N electrons uniformly circling the Earth from East to West and exactly the same number, N, protons circling from West to East. Those movements constitute a current, yet in any little box within the current the number of charges is exactly the same, namely an equal number of electrons and protons. Hence complete neutrality.
    ~
    What happens when you create a deficit of “protons” like now, by adding more electrons to the mix?
    (we expect more later in the cycle?)

  192. vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2010 at 5:22 am
    There are no differences at all!!
    Let´s put it this way:
    Let´s imagine we all are at a beautiful and very long Californian Beach, which runs exactly (what a coincidence!) from north to south.
    Now, WUWT regular M.Vukcevic stands, if seen from the east, from sunrise, he stands 45 degrees north, at 2 O´clock.
    Now, there is another guy watching the scene, watching the sea: Also a WUWT regular, Mr.Evans; he is at 10 O´clock, 45 degrees south, if seen from the east.
    Now, let´s see to the sea: Wow!, there we behold a very peculiar scene: Surfing on a at least 18 feet tall wave, there is a surfer, but he wears a strage swimsuit, it looks like a Dominican priest brown and white cloak….but, wait!, he also wears on his head a…Viking helmet with two golden bright horns on it!…..he seems to be shouting aloud something….let´s hear him…Oh!, we can hear it now, he is shouting and asking: What waves?, What waves?…..Don´t you see it?…..I AM THE SUN AND I AM JUST FALLING IN A FREE FALL !!!!….if you don´t understand it I will call by grand children to teach all of you!
    But…..WAIT!, what do we see below, under that big wave?…..It seems…….YEAH!, it´s that italian little guy, that Scafetta guy, swimming under the wave….and he´s waving his arms and also shouting: BEWARE, BEWARE!….THESE BIG GRAVITY WAVES WILL ENGULF US ALL AND WE´LL DROWN !!
    WUWT regular can´t help arguing and shout to the Viking-Dominican Priest-Surfer, while observing the scene from 45 degrees north: CAN´T YOU SEE IT?, DON´T YOU SEE THAT BIG MAGNETIC WAVE, which comes moved by the GMF and being attracted by all these black sand magnetite grains all along the beach?
    But, from 45 degrees south, at 10 O´clock, we also hear WUWT regular Evans, also shouting: BEWARE,BEWARE!, DON´T YOU SEE IT?, that BIG AND SHINING SPIRAL BIRKELAND CURRENT will fry up that little italian guy in it!
    But….wait, let´s cool it down, WHO IS OBSERVING US ALL?, ……Oh….Sh****!
    ANTHONY IS OBSERVING US ALL!……HE IS GOD!…..or rather THE LOGOS, THE WAVE ITSELF, THE WORD!

  193. vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2010 at 5:22 am
    my graph will cost nothing.
    reflects its worth, I guess.
    Carla says:
    October 15, 2010 at 5:24 am
    What happens when you create a deficit of “protons” like now, by adding more electrons to the mix? (we expect more later in the cycle?)
    Where would they come from?

  194. Ref – phlogiston says:
    October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
    There is definitely something. Time for a “Corona”?
    __________________________
    Anton says:
    October 14, 2010 at 11:17 am
    Well said. Knowing that we don’t know something is the first step to knowing what we don’t know. I also think that we sometimes get fooled by our own little paradyme(s) into thinking that what we think actually makes sense and we therefore think that something out of the ordinary is foolish –and don’t even bother to think twice about it.
    ____________________________
    Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    How has that point varied in the past 5B years? What of harmonics? (Not speaking of local or galactic input at all.) Everything wobbles for a reason.
    _____________________________
    anna v says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    “That is all.”? Seems to be the eye of this hurricane. A ‘point’ is a ‘point’ is a ‘point’, tis true. But what is there that is ‘significant’ about this point and ‘not significant’ about any other?
    __________________________
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:53 pm
    True, but life is not science, nor is it anything else we choose it not to be. Life is the chaos of chaos, in search of answers to questions unknown. (as John Denver would say)

  195. Leif Svalgaard says: October 15, 2010 at 7:23 am
    l.s. reflects its worth, I guess.
    Well, you guessed wrong again. True scientists do not guess, they investigate, they research, they pursue opportunity of a new discovery. I thought you are in the business of promoting science, not suppressing new ideas. I also know that you were rifling trough the contents of my website, looking for clues.
    For your interest I have also added the trend lines.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
    Can’t get much closer, can they?
    The CETs and climate movements are not ‘chaotic’, there is a fundamentally good reason for getting out of the Little Ice Age. North Europe should know and understand it. It is likely that the same physical process caused the medieval warming period including sudden plunge into the LIA.
    By close monitoring of the NAP process it may be possible to anticipate in good time, another radical change of direction in the climate movements.
    Another ‘iota’ in the great book of knowledge.

  196. vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2010 at 8:34 am
    I also know that you were rifling trough the contents of my website, looking for clues.
    If you won’t supply any, one has to go see for oneself. Found nothing of worth, though.
    By close monitoring of the NAP process it may be possible to anticipate in good time, another radical change of direction in the climate movements. Another ‘iota’ in the great book of knowledge.
    If you do not describe the NAP, you have nothing. If NAP is in any way related to what you used to peddle, then it is still nonsense.

  197. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    October 15, 2010 at 9:13 am
    What is unknown is any mechanism to modulate solar activity from planetary motions. Tidal forces follow from this law, but none of the planets create tidal bulges worth mentioning on the Sun.

    Dear Carsten, it’s the other forces of the Unified Field:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field

  198. vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2010 at 9:52 am
    show them my graph and they would get all the information from me.
    If you have something for WUWT, present it here or shut up.
    Stanford is not only big fish around.
    Most big fish don’t care much for the small fry…

  199. Leif Svalgaard says: October 15, 2010 at 2:56 am
    Ralph says:
    October 15, 2010 at 2:34 am
    The Moon orbits the Earth, and I can feel the effects of this orbiting body myself.
    I cannot, you must be very sensitive. If you are thinking of the tides, it is not ‘you’ that feel anything. but the Earth with a diameter of ~13,000 km. This raises a tidal bulge of about 350 millimeter.

    Yes, I was thinking of tides. My feet (and King Canute’s too) get wet when the Moon is overhead or opposite, thus I can feel the effects of the Moon’s orbit. (And the synchronisation of menstrual periods and other biological processes with Lunar cycles implies that the body can feel tidal forces on their own.)
    And yes, the Sun reacts similarly to Jovian gravitational forces. But does this not contradict your assertion that the Sun cannot ‘feel its wobble’ – ie react to Jovian gravitational forces? Plainly it can, and that stirring up of the Sun’s matter must have an effect on it, just as the Moon has an effect on the Earth.
    .

  200. vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2010 at 10:36 am
    I am always polite to all respondents.
    ‘rifling through’ is polite?
    yourself 6 times (last at 17:13:14 London time).
    so you cannot any more accuse me of not looking.
    And central point of propaganda is to repeat the lie over and over in all possible fora and ways. You do push it into people’s face a lot.
    Remember the big fish would starve to death if it didn’t feed of minnows.
    or bottom dwellers…

  201. Ralph says:
    October 15, 2010 at 10:41 am
    Yes, I was thinking of tides. My feet (and King Canute’s too) get wet when the Moon is overhead or opposite, thus I can feel the effects of the Moon’s orbit.
    No, ‘you’ cannot feel any effect. The Earth can [because its diameter is 13,000 km] and you feel the effect of that.
    And yes, the Sun reacts similarly to Jovian gravitational forces. But does this not contradict your assertion that the Sun cannot ‘feel its wobble’ – ie react to Jovian gravitational forces? Plainly it can
    Where does that ‘plainly’ come from? The horse before the cart?
    But, of course, the Sun feels the tides. It is just that they are insignificantly small.

  202. vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2010 at 10:36 am
    We are at the bottom of the food chain: We feed them all! :From the krill to the old fat lady laying topless on the beach.
    Yes!, we are the plankton of the Seas!

  203. Leif Svalgaard says: October 15, 2010 at 10:45 am
    And central point of propaganda is to repeat the lie over and over in all possible fora and ways.
    Precisely! It appears the above mentioned method is indeed employed to negate the most reliable data available data going back to 1600, and by so dispersing doubt on the credibility and honesty on a number of prestigious institutions and numerous individuals who during 3 or more centuries did honest work for benefit of the future generations and the science in general. It is indeed, something to be denounced by all of us!
    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. –Arthur Schopenhauer
    Well that appears to be the fate of CET-NAP

  204. In part for barycenter enthusiasts pondering U-N failures to reliably indicate terrestrial oscillations, I share the following speculation:
    Speculation:
    A. (1) Terrestrial stratospheric volcanism, (2) terrestrial nutation residuals, and (3) seasonal patterns in geomagnetic aa index relate to (4) the contrast of (a) solar cycle phase and (b) barycentric solar radial acceleration phase.
    B. The Gleisberg cycle may be nothing more than a warped beat of nonstationary cycles (a) & (b), which have average lengths equivalent to the reciprocals of Jupiter’s Neptune-sidebands. (Bear in mind that J & N are the innermost & outermost, highest- & lowest-frequency Jovians, which means they set barycentric spatiotemporal boundary conditions.)
    C. Many who still believe in mythically-stationary “60 year cycles” may not have yet invested the effort to conceptually realize why Corbyn’s “SLAM” and Donner & Thiel’s figure 4a resemble SCL’.
    Donner, R.; & Thiel, M. (2007). Scale-resolved phase coherence analysis of hemispheric sunspot activity: a new look at the north-south asymmetry. Astronomy & Astrophysics 475, L33-L36. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078672.
    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2007/45/aa8672-07.pdf

  205. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 15, 2010 at 3:19 am
    The pot calling the kettle black.
    David Ball says:
    October 14, 2010 at 6:47 pm
    Hopefully without the playground name calling and bullying tactics.
    You are presumably referring to this kind of playground manners:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:53 pm
    I have a general comment: when most people here are so woefully ignorant about simple orbital mechanics [and basic physics] and will believe almost anything, what significance can one attach to their mutterings on climate?
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2010 at 1:35 pm
    OK, Einstein, explain what you think it is, and why it is different from your previous ravings on this.

  206. vukcevic, you may be interested in the maps down the right column here:
    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/enso_impacts.htm
    Good to see someone looking at absolute SSTs (instead of only looking at [potentially seriously-misleading] anomalies):
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.gif
    Thanks for sharing that. It emphasizes the role of the Southern Ocean (Antarctic Circumpolar Current [ACC] & Antarctic Circumpolar Wave [ACW]) and underscores the Humboldt Current’s impact on the SouthEast Pacific.

  207. Paul Vaughan says:
    October 16, 2010 at 4:13 am
    Has Earth influenced the solar wind speed record at interannual-timescales?
    The solar wind speed measured by spacecraft [e.g. ACE at L1: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html ] is, of course, not influenced by the Earth on any time scale.
    Using geomagnetic data one can infer the solar wind speed before the space age http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf
    The usual assumption in these studies is that the Earth’s response function to the solar wind has not changed. This assumption is actually false as the Earth’s magnetic field has decreased over the past several hundred years, and that decrease makes [IMO] it more susceptible to [certain aspects of] solar activity leading us to find [as one does] a slight increase over time of the solar wind speed, where it actually may just be our detector [the Earth] that is getting more sensitive.
    My conclusion on that is controversial, as some people claim the sensitivity goes the other way. This question is not an active research topic at this time.

  208. SteveF, I apologize for not responding sooner. as I mentioned I’m on the road this weekend and don’t have much free time… I think this is getting too technical to properly discuss in this thread, even though it gets to the heart of the matter. Maybe one of us can write up a comment and see if Jeff ID will post it up on his blog?
    I think the issues to explore are 1) what is the effect of atmospheric-ocean oscillations on global mean temperature, 2) what are the consequences of failing to properly model atmospheric-ocean oscillations on AOGCMs for their utility in the estimation of environmental sensitivity of CO2 emissions?
    I think both #1 and #2 are still active research topics in climatology, so I think it is unfair for anybody to brush off their importance on the one hand (I don’t) but equally unfair to brush off the models (as I think you are doing) without being able to definitively demonstrate the importance of capturing atmospheric-ocean oscillations for the estimation of environmental sensitivity of CO2 emissions.
    Regarding the uncertainty in sulfate emissions, I believe this is a solvable problem (we know what manufacturing processes were present that released suflates, there are detailed records of amount of economic activity in which sector, it is calculable…has anybody done this? Not to my knowledge.)
    In any case, how well it was known from 1880-1975 isn’t very interesting with respect to addressing the relative utility in the estimation of environmental sensitivity of CO2 emissions by AOGCMs.

  209. Smokey:

    If the sensitivity number was large, temperature would track CO2 closely. But it doesn’t. And the only established correlation shows that a temperature rise results in a rise in CO2 – not vice-versa.

    Again, Co2 and sulfates are both important drivers. Prior to 1975 they balanced each other (according to the models), so there is no expectation that they would track each other. Even your graph shows a good correspondence post 1975, where the models say they should.

  210. stephen richards:

    That is a classic statement. You must explain the physics behind this when you have the time bearing mind that H²O absorbs in the same bands as Co².

    Not in all the same bands. If they did I agree the effect wouldn’t be important.

  211. The answer is the following:
    As from above:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
    • Gravity opposes the rest of the field at 180°, then:
    • Let us consider G= 1.0 (= 1×10 Nm)
    • As the rest of the field opposes Gravity at 180°, then:
    • The rest of the field it is the cause of eccentricity, which in the case of the Earth is:
    Earth ´s Gravity= 1.0 (see above) – 0.0167 (eccentricity) = 0.9833 ( x 10= 9.833 Nm)
    Where rest of the field= 0.0167 x 10 = 0.167 Nm
    Mercury´s Gravity = 0.38 – 0.2056 (eccentricity) = 0.1744 ( x 10= 1.744 Nm )
    Where rest of the field= 0.2056 x 10 = 2.056 Nm (!!)
    ,etc.

  212. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    October 15, 2010 at 9:13 am
    Pascvaks says:
    October 15, 2010 at 7:35 am
    Everything wobbles for a reason.
    Yes, and the reason has been known for hundreds of years: Newton’s law of universal gravitation.
    What is unknown is any mechanism to modulate solar activity from planetary motions. Tidal forces follow from this law, but none of the planets create tidal bulges worth mentioning on the Sun.
    ~
    Well, if it is “Universal,” and what if I said the galaxy is wobbling.. as it rotates and orbits its way through Intergalactic space..

  213. Re: Leif Svalgaard
    Thanks for the notes.
    ACE records don’t go back very far. Could geomagnetic aa index & OMNI near-Earth solar wind speed data [ http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/ ] be influenced (indirectly via terrestrial climate perhaps) by the Earth-Moon system at interannual timescales (most specifically at the QBO-timescale, but not necessarily by the QBO itself)?

  214. Paul Vaughan says:
    October 16, 2010 at 11:41 am
    ACE records don’t go back very far. Could geomagnetic aa index & OMNI near-Earth solar wind speed data by the Earth-Moon system at interannual timescales (most specifically at the QBO-timescale, but not necessarily by the QBO itself)?
    No, OMNI certainly not, and aa not in any detectable way. There are lunar tides in the ionosphere, but they are very small and almost always below the aa ‘radar’ [and are taken out explicitly if detected]. http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2003/5507/55070405.pdf
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/JZ070i011p02559.pdf

  215. Carrick,
    As stated above, “If the sensitivity number was large, temperature would track CO2 closely. But it doesn’t. The only established correlation shows that a temperature rise results in a rise in CO2 – not vice-versa.”
    You answered with a complete non-sequitur, which simply avoided giving a definitive answer. The fact is that temperature does not track CO2; there is only an apparent correlation coincidental with the planet’s emergence from the LIA.
    I said: “I need facts!” Did you reply with facts? No. Just more conjecture.
    True believers regularly waltz in here from realclimate and similar blogs, assuming they’re going to teach us all a lesson based on their feelings, beliefs and assumptions. The WUWT archives are littered with the pixels of other true believers who came, were provided with facts and citations refuting their CAGW beliefs, and who finally went back to the comfort of their realclimate echo chamber, where their anti-science notions are not routinely corrected like they are here.
    So, here is a basic lesson concerning the scientific method:
    First, scientific skeptics — the only honest scientists — have nothing to prove regarding the CO2=CAGW hypothesis. The believers in the repeatedly debunked conjecture claiming that CO2 is the primary driver of the planet’s climate have the burden of showing that their alternative hypothesis explains reality better than the null hypothesis. They can try to support their hypothesis with accurate, recurring predictions, or with testable, empirical [raw] data; something they seem to have trouble finding. But they provide neither. GCMs in particular are inaccurate.
    Alarmists always seem to forget that it is the job of skeptics to falsify a hypothesis, and that the purveyors of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis have the duty to provide solid, testable, empirical evidence showing convincingly that a minor trace gas is the climate’s throttle. To test that hypothesis requires that its proponents disclose all relevant information that went into formulating it.
    But when push comes to shove, the alarmists’ evidence is kept secret. Twelve years after the MBH98 Hokey Stick, Mann, Bradley and Hughes still refuse to disclose their methodologies. That is because know their hokey stick would be promptly falsified if they followed the scientific method. So they ‘hide the decline,’ and play similar games in order to avoid disclosing their methodologies.
    But it is the job of those promoting a hypothesis to provide all supporting evidence. Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio null sit – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies, since by the nature of things, scientific skeptics cannot prove a negative.
    The onus is on the climate alarmists, who insist instead that we must believe — without providing any testable evidence — in their secretly formulated hypothesis that human emitted CO2 is causing “unprecedented” global warming. That is the empirical evidence that is absent from the alarmists’ endless opinions and conjectures.
    The burden is on those who make the CO2=CAGW claim, yet they have failed to produce the necessary testable, empirical evidence to show that their new hypothesis explains reality better than the long accepted null hypothesis of natural climate variability — which fully explains the current [and very benign] climate, with no need to resort to their belief in the secret juju of human produced CO2 [≈3% of the total emitted annually], which they implausibly claim is the primary cause of a looming runaway global warming catastrophe.
    As if. There is exactly zero evidence of any such runaway global warming. In fact, the climate null hypothesis once again debunks the alternative CO2=CAGW hypothesis. As Dr Roy Spencer puts it, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” If you can falsify the null hypothesis of natural climate variability, post your methodology here.

  216. Smokey, it is a fact that sulfates act to cool the atmosphere while Co2 tends to warm it. In that respect, your comparison of CO2 versus temperature is itself just nonsense. It is total radiative forcing that matter, not just one of them.
    You can debate how well they are known, that is fair enough, but you are hardly an expert on this topic yourself, so your personal opinion, unsubstantiated with any form of quantitative analysis, matters very little.
    As for the rest…I have no idea what you are trying to say or whose you are addressing. Certainly it was unrelated to anything I’ve said or implied. Nor am I particularly interested in the rules (“onus”, “burden”) by which you think any debate on climate change must follow. Perhaps others think otherwise, more power to them. I doubt anybody on whom you are trying to place a “burden” or the “onus” on is going to accept that.

  217. I’m probably wasting my time explaining this – the scientists already know it and the nutters won’t listen – but it is not sufficient merely to demonstrate a correlation. One has to show that the correlation is statistically significant. That means performing a chi-squared test (or similar) including all the degrees of freedom one would allow oneself in forcing a fit, combined with an information theoretic analysis of all the other hypotheses one might have examined, and all the other correlations that others might have claimed or calculated for that data, and any other data that is not completely independent. Since for all this climate stuff there are literally hundreds if not thousands of possible “cycles”, with numerous correlations to be expected purely by chance, the significance level would have to be well below 0.1% before one could have any rational confidence that one was seeing anything real, even if one were able to hazard a mechanism. If one lacks any plausible mechanism (as in the present example), one would need significance levels considerably stronger yet, perhaps down to 1e-6 or better.

  218. Re: Paul Birch
    On the more interesting climate research fronts, we are in the exploratory data analysis phase. Linear methods aren’t even necessarily sensible for assessing many of the relations and sensible statistical inference is a very long way off on the more speculative &/or exploratory fronts, since the unknown conditional dependencies (Simpson’s Paradox, lurking on countless fronts), combined with the nonstationary multiscale spatiotemporal turbulence, render the assumption of randomness both reckless & indefensible (at this stage).
    Where there are a few exceptions, paid mainstream researchers are doing that work — and they are, for the most part, doing it the way you suggest (as per professional requirement in many cases).
    Meanwhile, volunteers are free to explore.
    So perhaps the issue you are raising is whether exploratory work is worthy of publication. Perhaps not in journals — or perhaps not in all journals.
    And perhaps you are raising an even more fundamental issue:
    Is such exploratory work “science”?
    Perhaps not.

  219. Hi Bob,
    I looked into SSN, magnetic fields etc, but as you know ‘correlation no causation’ is a big problem. Finally, I think I found a physical process which could give the answer.
    There is a similar process going on in the North Pacific, but data is not going as far back, working title for that one is ‘PDO generator’, not exactly appropriate, but will do.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOa.htm
    Why no details? See my post : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/met-office-turns-to-crowdsourcing-climate-data/#comment-509021

  220. Paul Vaughan says:
    October 17, 2010 at 7:08 pm
    “On the more interesting climate research fronts, we are in the exploratory data analysis phase.”
    Climate cyclemania is neither data analysis nor useful exploration; it’s superstition. Fortune telling. Augury. Trying to read meaning into meaningless patterns. In data analysis you calculate statistical significance; in exploration you make a map that future travellers can follow; in science you look for a mechanism. You don’t just scatter yarrow stalks and get all excited when their arrangement matches something in the I Ching.
    “Linear methods aren’t even necessarily sensible for assessing many of the relations and sensible statistical inference is a very long way off on the more speculative &/or exploratory fronts, since the unknown conditional dependencies (Simpson’s Paradox, lurking on countless fronts), combined with the nonstationary multiscale spatiotemporal turbulence, render the assumption of randomness both reckless & indefensible (at this stage).”
    Any lack of independence in the data or any departure from normal error statistics (each very likely) only makes these correlations less significant, not more.

  221. Has Scafetta or anyone else performed a similar study of solar/ temperature cycles that are longer than 60 years? In particular I am wondering whether there is a relationaship with the various cycles which exist within the average sunspot number, i.e. 88, 105, 212, 420 years, as illustrated on page 10 of
    http://sesfoundation.org/dalton_minimum.pdf

  222. vukcevic, sometime I would be interested in hearing an overview of “NAP”. (I just googled “north atlantic precursor”. No explanation turned up. I don’t know what you have graphed.)

  223. Paul Vaughan says:
    October 18, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    “Paul Birch We disagree fundamentally. I propose that we do so respectfully.”
    I have no respect for those who promote erroneous opinions yet refuse to debate them rationally.

  224. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2010 at 3:30 am
    The ‘wobble’ is real enough, except that it cannot be felt as the Sun is in free fall.

    In your idealised world of Newtonian thought experiment it is.
    But since in reality the Sun is not a perfect Newtonian body, it isn’t.

  225. tallbloke says:
    October 20, 2010 at 1:50 am
    In your idealised world of Newtonian thought experiment it is.
    But since in reality the Sun is not a perfect Newtonian body, it isn’t.

    You demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. Describe what a perfect ‘Newtonian Body’ is. How the Sun deviates from that. What sustains that deviation, and what difference it makes.

  226. Paul Vaughan says: October 18, 2010 at 4:26 pm
    vukcevic, sometime I would be interested in hearing an overview of “NAP”. (I just googled “north atlantic precursor”. No explanation turned up. I don’t know what you have graphed.)
    Hi Paul
    If my findings actually were as I think they might be, than there is a need for a confirmation by a proper institutional research. Once I have accumulated all information I think that is relevant (and there might be other aspects to it, beside the climate), I will be getting in touch with one or two UK universities, since whole thing may just be too much for my own capacity to process or to deal with.
    If you wish, I could email you two data files (NAP and PDO-g), then you can do some of your statistical and spectrum analysis. NAP appears to have a 60 year component (1600-2010), while PDO-g (1850-2010) may have a 40 year one.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAP-PDO.htm
    Dr. Svalgaard, I see you are still around, if you wish to have a go at ‘just the data’, I suspect not, but if you do, you would be more than welcome.

  227. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 20, 2010 at 5:42 am
    tallbloke says:
    October 20, 2010 at 1:50 am
    In your idealised world of Newtonian thought experiment it is.
    But since in reality the Sun is not a perfect Newtonian body, it isn’t.
    You demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about.

    Yawn.

  228. Tallbloke,
    I wished you could wake up for a moment and provide a a serious answer. As I already said before, I’m also (or again) in doubt if a rotating, resonating, expanding and partly liquid body of considerable extensions is sufficiently described by Newton’s Law.

  229. vukcevic, please feel welcome to send the data. Please also send an explanation of what it represents. Thank you.

  230. The Close Correlation between Earth’s Surface Temperature and its Rotational Velocity as well as the Close Correlation between the Planetary Orbital Periods and the Periods of the Solar Cycles Prove that Climate Changes are Driven by Galactic Gravitational Waves
    Dr. Gerhard Löbert. Munich. September 24, 2009.
    Physicist. Recipient of the Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics
    Abstract: In a previous Note (see Ref.) it was shown that climate change is driven by solar activity which in turn is caused by the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the core of the Sun. Irrefutable proof of the existence of these super-Einsteinian waves is given by the extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global surface temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth – two physically unrelated geophysical quantities – in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm or Ref.). In the present Note it is shown that the orbital periods of the planets of the Solar System provide further evidence. All periods are very close to integer fractions and multiples of the periods of the Hale and the Gleissberg solar cycles.
    In an excellent paper by the late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt (see http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm) it was shown that the Sun’s Gleissberg activity cycle is closely correlated with the oscillations of the Sun around the center of mass of the solar system. The first and second space derivatives of the gravitational potential of the planets in the vicinity of the Sun are, however, so minute that it cannot be envisaged how the extremely slow motion of the Sun about the center of mass of the solar system could physically influence the processes within the Sun. It is much more likely that a common external agent is driving both the Gleissberg cycle and the related oscillatory barycentric motion of the Sun.
    The small motion of the Sun is, of course, determined, almost entirely, by the motion of the large planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune that revolve around the Sun with periods of 11.87, 29.63, 84.67, and 165.49 years respectively. Note that the sunspot cycle (Hale cycle) has a mean period of 22.14 years (see T. Niroma in http://www.personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot4.html) and in my previous Note “A Compilation of the Arguments that Irrefutably Prove that Climate Change is driven by Solar Activity and not by CO2 Emission” of March 6, 2008 (see Ref.), I pointed out that in the past 150 years the mean surface temperature of the Earth changed in a quasi-periodic manner with a mean period of 70 years, approximately, in accordance with the Gleissberg cycle. If one considers all of the documented sunspot cycles, the mean Gleissberg cycle length is 78.5 years (see T. Niroma). If we stipulate for the moment that there exists – in addition to the 78.5-years wave – a galactic vacuum density wave of 22.14 years period that is driving the Hale cycle, then the addition of both waves leads to a periodic amplitude modulation with a period of 2/(1/22.14 – 1/78.5) = 61.68 years.
    If two galactic gravitational wave trains of 22.14 and 78.5 years period were to pass through the solar system, the gravitational action of these waves on the revolving planets would slowly relocate these celestial bodies until the orbital periods were close to 22.14, 61.68, and 78.5 years (the periods given by the combined wave train) or integer fractions and multiples of these values. The orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn are 1% higher, and 4% lower than one-half of 22.14 and 61.68 years, respectively. The orbital period of Uranus is 8% higher than the period of the Gleissberg cycle. The orbital period of Neptune is 5% larger than 2 times the mean Gleissberg period and that of Pluto is 7% larger than 3 times Gleissberg.
    Note that if the period of the long-term Gleissberg cycle were 7% higher, the three basic periods would be 22.14, 60.13, and 84.0 years and the orbital periods of all outer planets would agree with integer fractions and multiples of these basic periods to an accuracy of 1.5% or less.
    Now to the remaining planets. The following table shows the ratio of the mean Schwabe sunspot cycle period of 11.07 years to the planet orbital period.
    Mars = 6 – 0.11 Earth = 11 + 0.07
    Venus = 18 – 0.01 Mercury = 46 – 0.04
    With an average error of 6% of an orbital period, the orbital periods are whole-number fractions of the mean Schwabe sunspot cycle period.
    As can be seen, the 22.14 years and the 78.5 – 84 years galactic wave trains have brought good order into the Solar System.
    In my opinion, the orbital periods of the planets provide — in addition to the extremely close temperature-rotation-correlation — further evidence for the existence of galactic vacuum density waves with mean long-term periods of 22.14 and 78.5 – 84 years.
    Ref.: http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf

Comments are closed.