Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc. – October 2011
This post has no introduction, per the author’s request, start with the graphs. A PDF of a more complete paper is linked at the end. – Anthony
Motivation
One purpose of this article is to direct the attention of sensible observers to a serious oversight in the mainstream quest for understanding of multidecadal solar-terrestrial relations (section I).
Another is to ask the community to start thinking carefully about what can be learned from rotating multivariate lunisolar spatiotemporal phase relations shared by Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP) and terrestrial climate records, while seizing the same opportunity to highlight critical omissions in “classic” works on alleged solar-barycentric terrestrial influences (section II).
These data exploration notes are volunteered in support of ongoing publicly collaborative multidisciplinary research.
Audience
The diverse audiences addressed might not be the ones preferred by some readers. Addressing rotates priority across a spectrum of functional numeracy & orientation.
Format
Volunteer time & resources are limited, so presentation is skeletal & informal.
Conclusion
The majority of recent multidecadal terrestrial variability is due to natural spatiotemporal aliasing of differential solar pulse-position by terrestrial topology over basic terrestrial cycles including the year.
It’s not the deviation of solar cycle frequency from average solar cycle frequency that’s of practical significance from a terrestrial perspective. Earth, the receiver, has no clock locked to the average solar cycle length, so the pulse-position modulation is differential.
These observations depend on neither the success nor failure of CERN’s CLOUD experiment.
Details
Vaughan, P.L. (2011). Shifting Sun-Earth-Moon Harmonies, Beats, & Biases.
Vaughn Sun-Earth-Moon Harmonies Beats Biases (1MB 25pp PDF)
Best Regards to All,
Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc.
I have no idea what it means, but the sound of the words are pure poetry. Frank Zappa and Shakespeare would have been proud.
I have a nasty hunch this may be a complex spoof aimed to discredit WUWT.
Try downloading and viewing several years of these movies…
http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/archive/monthly/
If you look at movies that are 18 years apart they will look amazingly similar,
the actual lap time of the repeating sequence is 6558 days or about 16.5 days over 18 years, in case you can view it frame by frame.
I suspect that an electrical engineer might spot a few familiar relationships in Paul’s graphs – which basically suggests explanations might be forthcoming if the plasma model was assumed, rather than the standard one.
Correction 6558 days is 16.5 days less than 18 years, calculator screen is hard to see in the dark.
Sorry, should be close italics after “Oh no, please, no. No more deltas nor acronymns even spelled out without simple English explanation of what they represent.. 🙂 “
ClimateForAll said:
“I didn’t become involved in the skeptical movement just to watch one ultra-elitist scientific regime be replaced by another.”
Very good point!
For sure Mr. Vaughan is not proficient at communication, maybe english is not his primary language? The choice of words sometime strongly suggest it is the case. Not everyone is born gifted w/t communication skill, somes must produce considerable effort just to attain acceptable level. Feedback from communication competent people is the key & all must start somewhere! Personally I’ve been severally & regularly beaten by the redaction peoples tasked at “finishing” my text, & yes I know, there is still plenty of “mistreatement” required on me… This is the process required for self improvement.
However I consider it is very innapropriate when this process goes to such low like competing for the best Sadistic derision… We have a good exemple here why the scientific elite is so closed & opaque; there is no chance whatsoever for the candid & inexperienced writer to progress toward anything. The most funny part of it is the fact that this is not enforced by the elitist themself but most of the time by mindless drones not even aware for whom they work for! In fact many sound exactly like the warmista “clique” or any other propaganda machine; Destroy the adversary using demonization, ridiculization, fallacy… Please leave the “hockey team” where it belong, on ice!
Ok now trying to execute rant_mode(FALSE);
Mr. Vaughan, I have no opinion on the content as this is not my field but find it highly interesting, however the article is not even at a level I would qualify as Draft (far from it). Maybe ‘brain storming’ better describe it, but still it seem to me it is not geared toward helping cognitive function for other peoples. A complete rewrite seem required & this time I suggest that you put the effort required for clarity & consistency. I understand it is advertized as a skeletal presentation w/t declared goal to attract attention on the subject, but it is not good to also attract attention to bad quality presentation. It is tempting to think it is better to direct effort to “pure” research activity instead of doing the dull & laborious paperwork composition & Powerpoint things, but after all what is the end result (deliverable) of research activity? Answer: Utilizable knowledge. Utilizable in this context mean also communicable. The problem is once attention has been attracted the spotlight are directed at you & the audience has expectation for a good representation within a reasonable time span. If the show is of insuficient quality or not done in time, your effort will be rewarded w/t a negative reputation & next time you ask for attention, you might end up being ignored.
Moreover, avoid those big assemblage of cryptic words, remember that most technically oriented mind are not necessarily genius grasping complex abstraction in the blink of an eye, but mostly of moderate intelligence BUT gifted w/t a highly structured way at thinking & storing concepts. Wonder why engineering schools put most of the effort at hammering analytical skill & methods into brain of students. The analogy in software is “spaghetti coding” vs structured programming, ever programmed in ‘C’? Ever heard of the KISS paradigm? Not following this principle possibly send the message: “I can make very complex things just to show you all that I love to demonstrate how intelligent I am!”. Lots of commenters before me seem to have interpreted it this ways, probably causing also some negative emotional responses.
You advertise a M.Sc. grade, I’m quite certain that if this is authentic, you can deliver something under a much better form than that. Since it seem now that approximation of a functionnal peer review are only possible in the blogosphere, it would be reasonable to invest sufficient effort & ressource when posting such presentation, even when advertised as informal.
As said before, I consider the topic very interresting & look forward to read more on the subject.
@Lucy Skywalker
Great exemple of what ‘open mind’ is, something that is missing in many PhD!
@davidmhoffer
Great exemple of what ‘pushing for things to move forward’ is, something that is missing in many peoples!
I think maybe perhaps this convoluted language is talking about a harmonic relationship with the other balls in the sky and a phase shift in the harmonics. The music of the spheres may give us some new insight into our little blue ball. Mr Vaughan needs to give us some more information in English, and data, that explains more openly what he is trying to communicate.
As Richard Holle says this fits in well with the work being done on the Tallbloke’s Talkshop. I have been following it (not necessarally understanding it) with fascination. They are attempting to do some real science there as I am sure lots of other non conventional Climate Scientists are doing.
Anyone else reminded of Alan Sokal?
Having scanned Paul’s PDF document, plus a few comments by knowledgable posters, I now understand what he is saying, not the science or maths behind it, but the general slant of his work.
It also re-inforces my statement about others doing similar work when you see the number of papers he references as back ground information.
I think that engineer with experience in the mathematics of oscillators, filters and harmonics — with knowledge of SSB and the like might find it easier to follow the ideas than most. The math is not that bad for those types. The language is “overly concise” because of the jargon — but it can be followed.
Recall that most of this work could be duplicated by observation — that’s the author’s point.
Pull the data — recreate the maps and what do you get?
Mr. Vaughn, is it possible that the Pacific ocean floor could be considered, simplistically, to be similar to the head of a drum? The analogy is, of course, not completely true, since there is that discontinuity in the southern hemisphere. However, I was thinking about tidal forces causing changes of temperature, and was also considering that we are able to use standing waves to create localized areas of heating or cooling. Thus, if the Pacific ocean floor were considered the be similar to the head of a drum, then oscillations of that ocean floor could cause standing waves in the water, which could cause localized heating or cooling. I would surmise that, rather than being at a certain depth, it would be more like a thick slice of water being affected. Thus, depth readings of temperature at a particular location would not be pertinent, but temperatures taken through a region perpendicular to the affect might show it. Considering the massive weight of water being affected, small thermal changes could lead to a fairly large net affect.
Another thought would be, if these standing waves are what cause some of the ocean currents which have been charted. Small changes in temperature could be driving what are effectively large pumps.
“I have a nasty hunch this may be a complex spoof aimed to discredit WUWT.”
Ditto. There are two possibilities. The post may be a very terse and completely unexplained explanation of something. Or, its a spoof.
What is that internet law about not being able to tell the difference between send-ups and the real thing?
I wonder at the “devasting critiques” of so many of WUWT readers of Vaughn’s summary attempt. Maybe Leif says “mumbo-jumbo”, but we don’t know the cause(s) of nothin’ — PDO, AMO, varying solar cycles, Bond events, glacials, interglacials, and so many more (except possibly Svenmark’s theories, IMHO). Until we do, what is the problem of the author’s attempt to call our attention in a more careful way to all the external impingements on our hometown in relationship to the many unknown interactions of our own water, atmosphere, land, ice, magma, rotation, and travels? I am glad Anthony provided this opportunity for a perspective on harmonies and beats. I hope our biases don’t get in the way of a more serious consideration. And yes, Paul, your readers are helping you think about explaining the ideas to us in more depth. Charity, please.
Here is an example of a clear presentation
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1k_DudokdeWit_coherency_final.pdf
So I did something that I always do, I Googled;
planetary motions and climate
and I got this;
Discovery of the Century: True Planetary Motions and Rhythmic Climatic Changes
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/discovery-century-true-planetary-motions-rhythmic-climatic-44849
and earlier I got this;
The Wind Is Blowing, The Earth Is Rotating
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-40760.html
So now I’m trying to find a name for this pseudoscientific field of study.
Is it astrology?
Is it planetoclimatology?
Is it planetocyclicoclimatology?
Is it planetoharmonicacyclicoclimatology?
Is it solarsystemisticusharmonicacyclicoclimatology?
Mike Mann wrote:
OSCILLATORY SPATIOTEMPORAL SIGNAL
DETECTION IN CLIMATE STUDIES:
DOMAIN APPROACH
A MULTIPLE-TAPER SPECTRAL
DOMAIN APPROACH
In order to properly assess the potential impact of forcings external to
the climate system (e.g., possible anthropogenic enhanced greenhouse
forcing), it is essential that we understand the background of natural
climate variability on which external influences may be superimposed.
Atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere interactions include many feedbacks that
have time scales of years and longer. These feedbacks can, in principle,
lead to irregular, but roughly cyclic, low-frequency climate variations
(perhaps the most well-known example of which is the El Nifio/Southern
Oscillation or “ENSO”). If we can separate, in historical and proxy climate
data, large-scale oscillatory, interannual and longer-period climate “signals’’
from the “background” climate variability, (1) it becomes easier to
distinguish natural climate fluctuations from presumed anthropogenic or
other external (e.g., solar) effects; (2) dynamical mechanisms potentially
inferred from these signals provide a means of validating numerical
climate models; and (3) these signals can themselves potentially be used
for long-range climatic forecasting.
***************
What he is trying to say in layman’s terms is that we have to subtract natural variation from the climate data to determine how much effect mankind has made.
I am surprised he understands this concept.
Have we (that is, humanity) accurately tied down what caused the recent ~100ky regular cycles of glaciations in the quaternary, or can we predict with accuracy when the next glaciation will occur?
Until we do perhaps it would be wise to keep an open mind on this solar-planetary theory. However (for myself) I would rather start by having a proper explanation for the really big climatic variations (such as the glaciation cycles) before considering the (probably more subtle) multi-decadal ones.
Didn’t read it. I will wait for the movie.
Orbital dynamics affect every body in our solar system, and it’s likely that subtle gravitational forces from beyond our system also have an effect which varies as we rotate around the Milky Way. Consider the ecliptic plane of the Milky Way for instance: where are we in relation to this central plane of the galaxy? If you consider the long-term gravitational results in re: the rings of Saturn you can see how gravity + time has flattened the rocks into a series of rings which are exactly the gravitational ecliptic plane of Saturn. Now take this concept orders of magnitude larger and apply it to the Milky Way. Isn’t it highly probable that our galaxy is also slowly forming a flat disk of planetary debris at it’s ecliptic? Shouldn’t that ecliptic plane be surrounded by a region of increased space dust? Wouldn’t that “wall of rocks” in space be either “above” or “below” the location of our solar system? Wouldn’t our system “Sol” be oscillating over a period above and below and above and below that ecliptic plane? Shouldn’t the “wall of rocks and dust” have a significant gravitational effect on our system Sol? Are we currently “above” or “below” the ecliptic? Before you answer that question consider that “scientists” used to claim the Milky Way galaxy has four “arms” but more recently say it has two “arms”… so they really don’t have a clue about even the basic shape of the Milky way. I concur with the theory that what the Mayans somehow knew was the cycle of our system Sol crossing the ecliptic of the Milky Way. This guaranteed certainty is remarkably absent from any discussion about various cycles and their interaction. I applaud any true scientist who attempts to bring together the many many cycles into a more comprehensive view of our universe.
I don’t know if I’m more confused by your graphs or by rotating multivariate lunisolar spatiotemporal phase relations” At any rate most papers I can make some sense of this is mess.
This piece was a test. Those of you who understood the author’s message should seek psychiatric treatment without delay. When the Aardvarkian jim-jam reaches a critical frequency, catastrophic resonance within the lopsidian cranial hemisphere is likely to occur. That make ‘yo head hurt something awful.
Myrrh “What is it they didn’t see?”
Perhaps seeing is the wrong verb here. Can you see the wind? If there are particulates being blown by the wind, you can see those, but you can’t see the wind itself. You can see the effects of the wind, you can feel the change of pressure on your skin, you can hear the wind as it moves over objects. Beyond that, even if you observe all of this, what is wind? What creates and sustains it? Two simple answers are: The rotation of the earth on its axis, and the effect of high and low pressure points in the atmosphere.
So it is with harmonics on a very very large scale. You can see some of the effects, which are quite simple. But this goes beyond just seeing the harmonics. Think about the structure of the solar system, and the harmonics that seem to be basic to the system. Why are they basic? Is it perhaps because these harmonics are part and parcel of the structure, where you cannot have one without the other? Do the harmonics define the system, or the system define the harmonics? It would appear to me that the harmonics are defining the system, the ordering of the planets, the ordering of moons about the planets.
Now, we can see the effect of the harmonics (who can see the wind?). But what is actually transferring these effects? We think of harmonics as being sound, but that isn’t the medium here. So the transfer medium has to be a fundamental force. It can’t be photons, so that leaves gravity as the fundamental force which transfers the effects. Which means, we have local gravitational anomalies causing the harmonics, much like ripples on the surface of water when you put your finger in and wiggle it. The centers of gravity of the sun, planets and moons are all oscillating. But, as a series of oscillators, they all are trying to synchronize the oscillations.
Rather than not seeing this effect, it may be poetic to say that we just didn’t hear it correctly.
Am I misremembering or did Anthony jump ugly all over some fellow for pushing the effects of barycentric solar system cycles as the explanation for climate change? I seem to remember the subject being banned or maybe it was just the poster banned from posting the subject. If I’m not misremembering could this be a stealth effort to reintroduce the subject through a very pretty multihued graphic lens and obtuse language? Maybe it was just the barycentric aspect that was forbidden or maybe I’m just plain wrong. No matter this article seems unnecessarily and perhaps stealthily vague.