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
stephen richards:
Not in all the same bands. If they did I agree the effect wouldn’t be important.
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.
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..
OMG who left the sea of bobbers going off in my brain on a galactic scale. aaaargh
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)?
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
Re: Leif Svalgaard
Illuminating. Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
vukcevic: Have I missed something on another thread? I’ve searched but couldn’t find any data or a description. What is the North Atlantic Precursor? What’s the source data and how do I duplicate the NAP data in this graph?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
Why does it only impact the North Atlantic and Central England Temperatures?
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.
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
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.
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
Re: Paul Birch
We disagree fundamentally. I propose that we do so respectfully.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
vukcevic, please feel welcome to send the data. Please also send an explanation of what it represents. Thank you.
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