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
Maybe should have said result of..
planetary orbits are a result of solar orbital and cycle..
Pamela Gray, could set you up with a 39 year old sparky, howz bout that. Don’t think he is partial or racist about red hair or anything like that. Maybe the Angus would like a red hair, haven’t .. never mind.
Anyone .. any theories on why the North poles of Jupe and Sat are negative? Do their poles drift with any frequency?
MattN says:
October 14, 2010 at 5:43 pm
“If a further connection with long-range variations in sunspot intensity proves reliable, four to five weak sunspot cycles (R < 80) are to be expected after cycle 23 with medium strength (R ~ 100)."
That paper is so late [and contradicts his earlier ones] that by that time it was becoming clear which way the wind was blowing. E.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD….34.0603S
Carla says:
October 14, 2010 at 6:44 pm
P.S. Leif .. Vuks has a Jack up his sleeve..
From what I have seen, this is highly unlikely. He does have a way with gullible people though…
David Ball says:
October 14, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Watching closely for Dr. Svalgaard’s response.
To what?
Hopefully without the playground name calling and bullying tactics.
It is hard to bully me and name calling comes with the territory, so I can handle that. Don’t worry.
anna v says:
October 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm
You are confusing tides with the barycenter motion. Of course it is correlated, but not causal, otherwise the earth’s mantle would be at least like mashed potato.
In your analogy of the washing machine, the error lies that you think the barycenter is moving. If it were moving, the washing machine would be walking around the floor. ( I have one on wheels). The barycenter is constant by observation.
my last is a reply to :
Richard Holle says:
October 14, 2010 at 5:46 pm
For those that might be interested in some of the history of barycentre science this paper from Fairbridge and Shirley in 1987 show how the old masters were on the right track but focused on the wrong aspects of the poor data available back then.
Fairbridge, Shirley and Landsch**dt all predict a solar grand minimum at 1990, basing their predictions on the zero crossings or where the Sun returns over the SSB. There is no mention of the Uranus & Neptune disturbance in angular momentum although they do notice the unordered solar orbit that is a result, but fail to put the two together. Charvatova does the same thing 1 year later but predicts a solar downturn to start at 2000.
The early diagrams in Jose’s ground breaking 1965 paper do show the the angular momentum perturbations caused by Uranus & Neptune as do the odd diagram via Landsch**dt, but they both also missed it.
It took Carl Smith in 2007 to flesh out the detail when he plotted solar angular momentum produced from the newer DE405/406 JPL Horizon’s data that covers 6000 years….he himself still did not see the connection but I was lucky to stumble on this 1 year later which continues to open new doors.
Fairbridge paper HERE.
I wish you didn’t say that. But you are right. Just because you are a rocket scientist doesn’t mean you are a good communicator.
Carsten Arnholm
“I have read through Scafetta’s paper and I am still missing the mechanisms.”
How about Jupiter setting up the tidal bulge and the inner planets acting on it.
Leif Svalgaard says: October 14, 2010 at 3:08 pm
I don’t play games. If you anything, say it. If not, …
No if-s,
you can take up the challenge, or stop denying something you appear don’t know much about.
Let me make it clear once again:
There is an ongoing physical process taking place in the Northern Atlantic, data for which is a matter of record, actual record, no proxies, no paleo-dating or estimates.
Post 1600 data is squared (raised to power of 2), normalised to the CETs (Central England temperatures) as available from Met Office, Hadley Centre, UK, and presented in this graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
According to the current science there is no link between the physical process in question and the solar cycles, planetary configuration or a AG CO2 emissions.
Leif Svalgaard says at October 14, 2010 at 4:34 am:
Just who proposed the sun was electrostatically charged? That was certainly not me.
But also a “drift current” is a current. A current transports electrical charges, and be it in the form of a truckload of ping-pong balls heading to Stanford, with only one of them carrying a net charge. When originating from the sun, such a current needs a compensating, equalizing current returning to the sun, else indeed the sun (as your desk at Stanford) would finally become a charged body. Since you “kinda co-invented” the Heliospheric Current Sheet (presumably together with Schatten), I really would like to understand how the need of a compensating current fits with your repeated assertion, that the solar wind would be electrically neutral. Perhaps you really meant to say that the solar wind was predominantly neutral?
mcfarmer says:
October 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Yes corn crop yields are down but this is still the third largest corn crop ever produced in the USA
I do believe the subsidies and guaranteed sales based on ethanol requirements just might have prompted the farmers to plant more corn doncha know.
>>Leif:
>>The [Sun’s] ‘wobble’ cannot be felt by anybody [including the Sun], so
>>there are no effects arising from the wobble.
Sorry, Leif, you lost me on this one.
The Moon orbits the Earth, and I can feel the effects of this orbiting body myself.
Jupiter orbits the Sun, so why will the surface of the Sun not feel this gravitational disturbance in exactly the same fashion?
.
vukcevic says:
October 15, 2010 at 1:22 am
you can take up the challenge, or stop denying something you appear don’t know much about.
There is no challenge as you have not explained yourself, so, indeed, I have no idea what you are talking about now. In the past it was nonsense, so if something has changed you might enlighten us.
Hugo M says:
October 15, 2010 at 2:00 am
When originating from the sun, such a current needs a compensating, equalizing current returning to the sun, else indeed the sun (as your desk at Stanford) would finally become a charged body.
The magnetic field near the Sun is radial. The drift current is perpendicular to the field, hence circles the Sun, i.e. does not ‘come from’ the Sun. And the Sun and the solar wind is neutral to a very high degree. If you placed a box of electrons weighing 1693 tons on the sun and a similar box on the Earth, their mutual electric repulsion would exceed the gravitational force that keeps the Earth in its orbit. The neutrality comes about because there is no resistance to movements of the charges, so any however small deviation from neutrality is immediately shorted out.
Another example of a drift [and curvature] current is the ‘ring current’ encircling the Earth in the Van Allen Belts.
The Heliospheric Current Sheet has a peculiar shape. http://www.leif.org/research/HCS3.png
The Figure on the right shows its shape near solar maximum [meridional cut]. Here is another view: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS2.png and here: http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Current%20Sheet%20Cartoon.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2010 at 8:37 am
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
What poor old Leif fails to mention is that the Kepler Mission is not using the doppler-technique to search for exo-planetary candidates. I specifically referred to the bias of the doppler method. The doppler-method goes out of its way to avoid stars that have strong solar cycles.
Confirmation of this bias is provided by the paper that Leif cites in his defence.
Almost all of the candidate stars with known multiple planets that are presented in this paper, have no long-term H & K Ca II observations, used to determine long term changes in the level of solar activity. And of the ones that have long-term H-K observations, most show little or no evidence of regular (sinusoidal) variations in solar activity.
What concerns me about the Perryman & Schulze-Hartung paper is that is a classic paper tiger attempt to discredit the Barycentric idea. It appears to pick a single claim by Jose (1965) that solar activity is synchronized with epochs of negative angular momentum and then it makes the assumption that all you need to do is disprove this one mechanism then all of the other (alternative) barycentric mechanism will have to be thrown out the window along with it. This is science at its worst.
Of course the bozos who wrote this paper, mention the possibility of a spin-orbit coupling mechanism being responsible for causing variations in solar activity.
The problem is that they do so without even mentioning our 2008 paper which bears directly on this topic.
Wilson, I.R.G., Carter, B.D., and Waite, I.A., 2008, Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling
Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?, Publications
of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2008, 25, 85 – 93.
Wilson_Carter_Waite_2008.pdf
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf
I would have sent their paper back for major revisions if I had been the referee.
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. Jupiter also raises a bulge on the Sun, with a height of 0.5 millimeter which must be compared to the motions of the granulation which moves a million Texas-sized chunks randomly up and down with a speed of 500 meter/second. It is all a question of proportions.
Hugo M says:
October 15, 2010 at 2:00 am
When originating from the sun, such a current needs a compensating, equalizing current returning to the sun, else indeed the sun (as your desk at Stanford) would finally become a charged body.
A thought experiment: you have N electrons uniformly circling the Earth from East to West and exactly the same number, N, protons circling from West to East. Those movements constitute a current, yet in any little box within the current the number of charges is exactly the same, namely an equal number of electrons and protons. Hence complete neutrality.
Ninderthana says:
October 15, 2010 at 2:55 am
The doppler-method goes out of its way to avoid stars that have strong solar cycles.
How about a link to substantiate this assertion?
The problem is that they do so without even mentioning our 2008 paper which bears directly on this topic.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
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:
Ninderthana says:
October 15, 2010 at 2:55 am
What poor old Leif fails to mention…
Ninderthana says:
October 15, 2010 at 2:55 am
What concerns me about the Perryman & Schulze-Hartung paper is that is a classic paper tiger attempt to discredit the Barycentric idea. It appears to pick a single claim by Jose (1965) that solar activity is synchronized with epochs of negative angular momentum and then it makes the assumption that all you need to do is disprove this one mechanism then all of the other (alternative) barycentric mechanism will have to be thrown out the window along with it. This is science at its worst.
Hi Ian, I agree with your comment, the negative aspect of AM is now old hat. It has no validity in modern planetary theory, but it was a useful stepping stone.
Michael was unaware of your work and mine along with Scafetta, but is now up to date, he explained that he has been caught up in the Astronomy world. But his distance star barycentric diagrams do look interesting, our system may not be all that common.
Leif Svalgaard says: October 15, 2010 at 2:48 am
vukcevic says:
There is no challenge as you have not explained yourself, so, indeed, I have no idea what you are talking about now. In the past it was nonsense, so if something has changed you might enlighten us.
No it was not nonsense, it is ad astra per aspera
Many US and world universities and some research institutions have the same data somewhere in their libraries, I just put graph together. There is a relatively simple physical link for mechanism regulating long term temperature movements in the North Atlantic. It is just a matter writing it all down in a coherent manner.
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 theywould get all the information from me.
After all Stanford got $100 million from ExxonMobil for climate research, my graph will cost nothing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2010 at 3:05 am
Hugo M says:
October 15, 2010 at 2:00 am
When originating from the sun, such a current needs a compensating, equalizing current returning to the sun, else indeed the sun (as your desk at Stanford) would finally become a charged body.
A thought experiment: you have N electrons uniformly circling the Earth from East to West and exactly the same number, N, protons circling from West to East. Those movements constitute a current, yet in any little box within the current the number of charges is exactly the same, namely an equal number of electrons and protons. Hence complete neutrality.
~
What happens when you create a deficit of “protons” like now, by adding more electrons to the mix?
(we expect more later in the cycle?)
vukcevic says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:22 am
There are no differences at all!!
Let´s put it this way:
Let´s imagine we all are at a beautiful and very long Californian Beach, which runs exactly (what a coincidence!) from north to south.
Now, WUWT regular M.Vukcevic stands, if seen from the east, from sunrise, he stands 45 degrees north, at 2 O´clock.
Now, there is another guy watching the scene, watching the sea: Also a WUWT regular, Mr.Evans; he is at 10 O´clock, 45 degrees south, if seen from the east.
Now, let´s see to the sea: Wow!, there we behold a very peculiar scene: Surfing on a at least 18 feet tall wave, there is a surfer, but he wears a strage swimsuit, it looks like a Dominican priest brown and white cloak….but, wait!, he also wears on his head a…Viking helmet with two golden bright horns on it!…..he seems to be shouting aloud something….let´s hear him…Oh!, we can hear it now, he is shouting and asking: What waves?, What waves?…..Don´t you see it?…..I AM THE SUN AND I AM JUST FALLING IN A FREE FALL !!!!….if you don´t understand it I will call by grand children to teach all of you!
But…..WAIT!, what do we see below, under that big wave?…..It seems…….YEAH!, it´s that italian little guy, that Scafetta guy, swimming under the wave….and he´s waving his arms and also shouting: BEWARE, BEWARE!….THESE BIG GRAVITY WAVES WILL ENGULF US ALL AND WE´LL DROWN !!
WUWT regular can´t help arguing and shout to the Viking-Dominican Priest-Surfer, while observing the scene from 45 degrees north: CAN´T YOU SEE IT?, DON´T YOU SEE THAT BIG MAGNETIC WAVE, which comes moved by the GMF and being attracted by all these black sand magnetite grains all along the beach?
But, from 45 degrees south, at 10 O´clock, we also hear WUWT regular Evans, also shouting: BEWARE,BEWARE!, DON´T YOU SEE IT?, that BIG AND SHINING SPIRAL BIRKELAND CURRENT will fry up that little italian guy in it!
But….wait, let´s cool it down, WHO IS OBSERVING US ALL?, ……Oh….Sh****!
ANTHONY IS OBSERVING US ALL!……HE IS GOD!…..or rather THE LOGOS, THE WAVE ITSELF, THE WORD!
Carla says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:24 am
Read the following:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
vukcevic says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:22 am
my graph will cost nothing.
reflects its worth, I guess.
Carla says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:24 am
What happens when you create a deficit of “protons” like now, by adding more electrons to the mix? (we expect more later in the cycle?)
Where would they come from?