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
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
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?
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.
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.
Smokey:
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,
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.
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)
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?
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
Steve Fitzpatrick:
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.”
SteveF, you might want to look at this. It includes references. (H/T Judith Curry’s website etc etc)
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.
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
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
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
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
@Spence_UK – why is there no way to vote up comments? This is exactly what I thought. The phase match might be something, but…
“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’.
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.
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’.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.