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
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)
Enneagram says:
October 15, 2010 at 6:02 am
THE LOGOS, THE WAVE ITSELF, THE WORD!
The unified field devours all rationality, it seems.
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.
It does. An impressive o.5 millimeter bulge, compared to the 1,392,000 kilometer solar diameter. Only 10 orders of magnitude difference….
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.
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.
Leif Svalgaard says: October 15, 2010 at 9:12 am
…………..
It appears you don’t read either:
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 they would get all the information from me.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/scafetta-on-60-year-climate-oscillations/#comment-508214
Stanford is not only big fish around.
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
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…
( ?! )
I am always polite to all respondents.
My graph for NAP
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
was viewed 1082 times in the last 24 hours (including number of universities) and yourself 6 times (last at 17:13:14 London time). Obviously lot of interest.
Remember the big fish would starve to death if it didn’t feed of minnows.
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.
.
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…
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.
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!
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
vukcevic says:
October 15, 2010 at 1:21 pm
It’s really unexplainable while there are so many instruments and satellites which show these things live:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ovens/loops/wxloop.cgi?wv_east_enhanced+48+-update+3600
Whichs show its relation with http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC19.htm
and others from M.Vukcevic.
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
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.
Ninderthana says:
October 15, 2010 at 6:57 pm
The pot calling the kettle black.
So, you admit to be the kettle…
Hi Enneagram:
I regularly keep an eye on these:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
I have more details here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
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.
Leif Svalgaard,
Has Earth influenced the solar wind speed record at interannual-timescales?
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.
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.
Smokey:
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.