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
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.??
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 🙂
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…
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says at October 13, 2010 at 11:24 pm
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Solar scientists have known for last few decades, that sun has a ‘magnetic hump’ currently located around 240 degrees heliocentric longitude, and apparently it drifts slowly at decadal rate.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC7.htm
Why is there a ‘magnetic hump? What causes it? Is there equivalent centre of gravity displacement?
Hugo M says:October 14, 2010 at 4:15 am
…..
I’ve put some of the loose bits together to synthesize a picture which may or may not represent reality, but here it is anyway:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm
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.
“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
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?
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.
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
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.
=========================
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.
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.
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.
————
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
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.
Don B says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Klyashtorin and Lyubushin wrote “Cyclic Climate Change and Fish Productivity” in which they detailed many more-or-less 60 year cyles.
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?
And we must know that this study has been backed by UN’s FAO , the same UN of Pachauri’s charming IPCC….