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
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!
In my post, October 13, 2010 at 9:22 pm, the links to my references plots got cut off.
Here are the corrected links. Sorry for the mix-up.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/lt-temp-1650-2008-1-Rxrdy.gif
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/lt-temp-1750-2008-4-EyvXd.gif
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/lt-temp-1800-2008-14-9ZSv8.gif
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.
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!
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
Ninderthana says: October 14, 2010 at 6:34 am
…………
There is a star similar in size to our sun (1.5x larger) with a large planet nearby 4.4x Jupiter (but very close). It has a magnetic cycle. Dr.L.S will tell you magnetic cycle is due to the planet’s proximity.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4713
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.4515v1.pdf
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.
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.
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 13, 2010 at 6:42 pm
“…the three-planet problem.”
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? 🙂
stephen richards says:
October 14, 2010 at 2:58 am
Carrick says:
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.
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.
sHx
Although you can have some pretty patterns, you can also launch your planet into another universe, just set both variables to 0.5.
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.
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.
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!
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
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
October 14, 2010 at 10:17 am
Scafetta’s paper and I am still missing the mechanisms.
Length of the day perhaps?
Here ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
In the Nr.8 you can find that relation.
In the page 50, fig.9.1
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.
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?
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.
All I find is more correlation graphs. What kind of mechanism is proposed?
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?
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?
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.
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.