Aurora Borealis and surface temperature cycles linked

Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.

Aren’t there statistical methods that can determine correlation? It would be good to see those.
@jimmi_the_dalek: The mechanism the paper examines is Cosmic rays cause cloud formation. The interaction between cosmic rays and the magnetosphere is what is being proposed. Isn’t that a physical mechanism?

jimmi, did you read the paper? 😉

jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Are you arguing that we should never investigate correlations until after a causation is proven?

Frequency and phase analysis instead of statistics! Now we’re getting somewhere!

jimmi_the_dalek says: November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.
Surely not true.
Surely it only needs thorough observation and discovery of correlation, to qualify as science. Of course we all ardently desire to “explain” the mechanism but to me that’s the magic and grace of Science, not its minimum requirement, when a “eureka” hypothesis does appear, that encapsulates the observed patterns in a formula, verifiable explanation, or law.

GeologyJim says:
November 10, 2011 at 2:21 pm
BTW, Scafetta is proposing a mechanism – solar variance leads to variable cosmic ray flux, which leads to changes in cloud cover (as with Svensmark), which leads to climate variation.
That is what I thought when I first read the paper, but after discussions with Nicola it is apparent his paper is not about solar variation but more about planetary influence on our magnetosphere.

“The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030–2040.”
I believe this same time frame was mentioned in a recent Russian paper I believe I read about here at WUWT. The author then didn’t identify any correlation with other phenomena, but was very certain about cooling until 2030 or so.

“Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.”
Never mind that this comment has been shredded for what it is, mindguard trolling by the warmies. The statement is not true in any event. Lots of unexplained things were measured before they were understood. To assert that science cannot advance unless it knows where it is going is ridiculous.

The paper is not about cosmic rays influences on cloud formation. It is postulating that the gravitational and/or magnetic field of Jupiter and Saturn can influence the activity of the sun. However, to quote from the paper (yes I have read it),
A full theory that would physically explain how the solar wobbling or the planetary tides may influence solar activity has not been developed yet. However, preliminary studies suggest that planetary gravity may increase nuclear rate ( [Grandpierre, 1996] and [Wolff and Patrone, 2010] ) by favoring the movement of fresh fuel into the solar core. The proposed mechanisms would likely produce the major frequencies herein discussed because it is based on the study of the wobbling of Sun around the solar system barycenter as done in Scafetta (2010b).
As I said at the beginning – astrology – the magnitude of gravitational forces from Jupiter on the sun is way, way too small to have such as effect.

Posted on November 10, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes about a new paper from Nicola Scafetta.:
New Paper “A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature” By N. Scafetta 2011
“The claims here are pretty bold, and I’ll be frank and say I can’t tell the difference between this and some of the cycl0-mania calculation papers that have been sent to me over the last few years. “
The global temperatures can easy be simulated in high resolution in the time range of 3000 BC until 3000 CE from the NASA ephemeris of 11 objects in the solar system.
The profiles of the long term anomalies can be simulated with only three or four objects:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/comnispa_ghi4n_9.jpg
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/comnispa_vs_x.jpg
High resolution (month) profiles need eleven objects.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_jux2.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_hadcrut3.gif
Some tide strenght could be better adjusted to the data with math tools.
Basis of this method is to sum up the solar tide functions of the eleven objects. The Moon is not involved.
Read more
V.

Having matched the available data to the cycles and hindcast it to show compelling harmonics, and then used it to predict the future, you have to admire the symmetry, logic and hopefully the truth of a reasonable hypothesis. Time will tell.
At least this adds to the conversation on climate variation mechanisms based on observing data rather than clinging to the CO2 mantra. Unfortunately, it is a “model”.

To those who claim I have not read the paper – I have read more of it than the people who think it is about cosmic rays. Also, the relation to astrology is simple – science has to be quantitative not just handwaving. Do you realise for example that the magnitude of the gravitational field of Saturn on the Sun is less than the effect of the gravitational field of Earth on the Sun? Jupiter is larger but its mass is 1/1000 of the sun’s and it is 800 million kilometers away from the Sun – you work out what the gravitational forces are. Jupiter has a strong magnetic field it is true, being roughly 10 time stronger than Earth’s , but since Jupiter is 5 times as far from the Sun, roughly, the effect of Jupiter’s magnetic field on the Sun, is less than that of Earth’s on the Sun. And I am not claiming that correlations should not be investigated, and am stating that a proposed mechanism for a correlation has to be physically possible.
And for those who reckon I am a troll, or a “warmist” – I am neither – but I realise than skepticism has to work in both directions – and this paper is BS.

Ahem. I meant early 17th century before. Whoops. 🙂

The fit on that temperature graph looks impressive, but I also would like to see a correlation.
The 60 year natural climate cycle is well accepted, at least around here. So, the new data is the aurora 60 year cycle.
Otherwise, more evidence for clouds modulating the Earth’s climate, whatever the physical mechanism.
Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.
What? Surely the cooling phase will cause cooling. Let’s see temperatures projected out 60 years using this method.
Or is this the new normal science, where no one ever predicts anything.

Title: Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
Authors: Ruzmaikin, Alexander, Feynman, Joan, Yung, Yuk L.
Publisher: American Geophysical Union
Citation: Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, D21114, doi:10.1029/2006JD007462, 2006
Abstract: We investigate the possibility that solar variability influences North African climate by using annual records of the water level of the Nile collected in 622–1470 A.D. The time series of these records are nonstationary, in that the amplitudes and frequencies of the quasi-periodic variations are time-dependent. We apply the Empirical Mode Decomposition technique especially designed to deal with such time series. We identify two characteristic timescales in the records that may be linked to solar variability: a period of about 88 years and one exceeding 200 years. We show that these timescales are present in the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere at the same time. The 11-year cycle is seen in the Nile’s high-water level variations, but it is damped in the low-water anomalies. We suggest a possible physical link between solar variability and the low-frequency variations of the Nile water level. This link involves the influence of solar variability on the atmospheric Northern Annual Mode and on its North Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean patterns that affect the rainfall over the sources of the Nile in eastern equatorial Africa.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2014/40231
Nothing new under the sun 😉
BTW, Joan is Dick Feynman’s sister.

jimmi_the_dalek;
And I am not claiming that correlations should not be investigated, and am stating that a proposed mechanism for a correlation has to be physically possible.>>>
Well the specific criticisms you levelled are one thing, the range of possibilities is another. Sure, Jupiter’s gravity has little effect on the Sun. But it does have a very small effect. Astronomers first started discovering planets orbiting other stars by watching for “wobbles” in the position of the star caused by giant planets pulling them in different directions from one part of their orbit to another. So yes, it is small, but it isn’t zero. When you move something as big as the sun just a wee bit, there’s an awfull lot of energy involved, not to mention that the sun is pretty much liquid, so there’s other potential effects different from how a great big rock would behave under the same circumstances.
But that’s not all. While Jupiter’s gravity may not effect the sun a whole lot, it effects the orbits of all the other planets in the solar system, including ours. As for your argument that Jupiter’s magnetosphere is minniscule compared to the sun, sure, but compared to earth’s it isn’t, and it does affect ours.
Further, consider Doug Jone’s comment:
“It implausible that the magnetic fields of Jupiter or Saturn could affect the magnetic fields in the inner solar system, since the solar wind is supersonic- no disturbance created at 5 or 10 AU can propagate back toward the sun any further than the bow shock at each planet.>>>
Well that may be, but who says it has to? Consider Jupiter in an orbital position where it is 90 degrees ahead (or behind for that matter) earth’s position. Now the magnetic field of Jupiter is at a right angle to the solar wind headed directly toward earth, and the magnetic fields and gravitational fields of both planets plus the sun are all interacting ion ways that would absolutely alter the magnetic fields and gravity wells of the inner solar system.
Lastly, while Scafetta focused on the above issues, he did speak also of lunar orbits and tidal effects. Consider that the moon’s orbit is elliptical, and also that it varies in terms of its angle compared to the equator. Never mind the the magnetic fields and gravity wells, just consider the amount of water that the moon, over the course of its various cycles, pulls massive amounts of water from north to south and back again. Do you suppose that affects climate?
I’m betting it does. The number of variances in the orbits of the moon, the earth, and other planets is HUGE. We can’t possibly calculate them all, as the example of the difficulty of calculating from the laws of physics alone how high the tides will be and when. Despite that, we can match the complexity of the known variances in the moon’s orbit to the tides, and wind up predicting them rather accurately without calculating all the physical processes involved. that the variances in the orbits of the various bodies taken into account by Scafetta match so closely to the variances in the arora and can both hindcast and forecast them is remarkable.
While one can argue that the physical processes aren’t known, so it isn’t proof, I’ll suggest another way of looking at it. Given the accuracy of the forecast and the hindcast, and the thousands upon thousands of variables it would take to describe the physical processes, what are the chances the analysis hit a correlation that close based on the orbital positions of the planets and moon alone was a coincidence? Trillions to one?
Not a chance. trillions is way to small.
Home run Scafetta, home run!

Doug Jones says:
November 10, 2011 at 3:43 pm
So your suggesting Jupiter has no effect on the sun’s magnetic field as Jupiter orbits the sun, that could affect sunspot activity which has some effects on Earth’s magnetic field?

Too much information, so let’s just keep it simple.

jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Do you realise for example that the magnitude of the gravitational field of Saturn on the Sun is less than the effect of the gravitational field of Earth on the Sun? Jupiter is larger but its mass is 1/1000 of the sun’s and it is 800 million kilometers away from the Sun – you work out what the gravitational forces are. Jupiter has a strong magnetic field it is true, being roughly 10 time stronger than Earth’s , but since Jupiter is 5 times as far from the Sun, roughly, the effect of Jupiter’s magnetic field on the Sun, is less than that of Earth’s on the Sun…
——————————————————
Good points. But, how would we detect the earth’s influence ? This is totally synchronized with our year’s cycle. No long term periodic effect can arise. Same with Venus, with a period of much less than 1 year.

Edbarbar
“I simply don’t think there is a clear understanding of gravity at present.”
There is not a clear understanding of the cause of gravity, but there is a very clear understanding of its magnitude and how that depends on the mass and separation of objects. Likewise magnetic fields. It is because the magnitude is understood that this paper is implausible in the extreme.
Philip Bradley
“The 60 year natural climate cycle is well accepted, at least around here”
Indeed, so it would seem. But, it is usually described as a “quasi-cycle”, e.g. in that paper, by which they mean it turns out at 60 + or – 4 . The fact that it is not a constant value is enough to rule out an astronomical origin – the orbits of the planets are precise – they do not gain or loose 4 years every now and then. It is not necessary to know exactly how something is caused, to state some of the reasons which could not be the cause.

“jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.””
Indeed? I know how we can describe and measure mass, inertia, momentum and gravity. I have no idea what mass, inertia, momentum and gravity actually are.
Gravity appears to suggest that all matter in the universe is coupled to all other matter in the universe.
I find it very difficult to understand how an attractive force can connect all matter. So, I have no understanding of what mass actually is and how mass is able to communicate with mass.
Perhaps you could help me out.

Moon Jupiter and Uranus?
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/kevster1346/uranusspeck.jpg
Sony cybershot point and shoot.

Doug Jones says @ November 10, 2011 at 3:43 pm

It [is] implausible that the magnetic fields of Jupiter or Saturn could affect the magnetic fields in the inner solar system, since the solar wind is supersonic- no disturbance created at 5 or 10 AU can propagate back toward the sun any further than the bow shock at each planet.

How do you know there is no dipole feedback at 90 degrees to the ecliptic and how would you propose checking for the existence of and measuring such an effect with the solar wind roaring through, possibly inducing changes in the former? Are we not looking at dynamos within a dynamo here? Only asking 🙂

I don’t think people get my initial statement….
The authors of that paper have an apparent correlation , and they suggested a mechanism. But their mechanism (gravitational and magnetic fields due to Jupiter) is physically impossible. So their proposed mechanism is in the realm of astrology, not physics. You don’t like that observation? Well tough, learn something about the relative magnitudes of forces. In science you have to be quantitative not just qualitative – if a given proposed cause is not of a magnitude to result in an observed effect of a particular size, then it is not the cause.
And stop making comments about the IPCC and climate science – I am not trying to defend them, because two wrongs do not make a right. Scepticism properly applied looks in both directions. If something is rubbish then it should be described as that even if it would support something you want to be true

Part of a growing acknowledgement of a link between top down solar effects on the atmosphere and air circulation patters.
Keep it simple.
Solar changes affect the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere especially towards the poles. Mechanism currently unclear but in my view related to atmospheric chemistry involving ozone but with different effects at different levels.
The result is a change in the degree of zonality/meridionality/latitudinal positioning of the mid latitude jets in particular but most likely the entire surface air pressure distribution too.
Long looping jets increase global cloudiness. Shorter more direct jets reduce global cloudiness. No need for cosmic rays to affect cloudiness but there may be some such effect.
I think the consequent effects on global albedo and solar energy uptake by the oceans are by now pretty much a given.
There you have the entire climate change phenomenon in a nutshell. Not even any need for any change in total system energy content to occur. Just a redistribution of energy within the system as the rate of energy flow through the system responds to air circulation changes. We perceive that as climate change because the direction of air flow across surface sensors changes as the positions of the permanent climate zones shift relative to those sensors. The satellites record much smaller changes as the system adjusts the rate of energy leaving the system in order to maintain radiative balance.
The radiative balance is constantly maintained by internal system adjustments that always act negatively to any forcing that tries to change the system energy content. It even deals with the faint sun paradox whereby the Earth’s temperature has stayed much the same over billions of years despite a 30% increase in solar output.
The shifting climate zones have made fools of climatologists.

I can’t really critique the paper at all since I am not a scientist but it sounds pretty far fetched to me. Without something being accurately measured I would put as much faith in any correlation as I would to Michael Mann’s tree ring correlation with global temperature.

If aurora were visible in London in late 14th century they they must have been incredibly powerful.

The magnetic pole has probably moved a considerable distance since then. It is currently moving at a rate of 37 miles / year toward Russia but the rate and direction changes over time.

jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Do we worry about the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on the Sun? No?
The International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/

Eric
“LOL! And so if you put a physical mechanism like the CO2 greenhouse effect into a computer and make a bunch of calculations that is science?
Was Kepler a scientist? Copernicus?
Take your lame rhetoric elsewhere sir.”
This lack of reading comprehension is starting to annoy me. Have I said I believe the IPCC’s computer models (for a point of information I do not). What I have said is that this paper has no plausible physical content, which is another thing entirely.
I will repeat something I said further up:
And stop making comments about the IPCC and climate science – I am not trying to defend them, because two wrongs do not make a right. Scepticism properly applied looks in both directions. If something is rubbish then it should be described as that even if it would support something you want to be true

“jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm
60 + or – 4 . The fact that it is not a constant value is enough to rule out an astronomical origin – the orbits of the planets are precise – they do not gain or loose 4 years every now and then.”
Things are not always as precise as they seem. For example at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet
“Halley’s prediction of the comet’s return proved to be correct, although it was not seen until 25 December 1758, by Johann Georg Palitzsch, a German farmer and amateur astronomer. It did not pass through its perihelion until 13 March 1759, the attraction of Jupiter and Saturn having caused a retardation of 618 days.”
Also, Jupiter and Saturn meet every 19.85 years. Since it is not an even 20.00 years, there will be different seasons on Earth with every meeting. In addition, other planets such as Venus and Uranus also have their influences so years could be added or subtracted. As well, the sun would be at different phases in its sunspot cycle each time so it is not surprising that we have 60 + or – 4.

jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Jimmi, can you answer this question:
Yes I can actually – it is of the order of 10^23 (ratio of the masses since the distance of myself from the earth the same as the distance of the earth from me) Which is tiny.>>>
OK, so the question now is, are you prepared to follow some math and perhaps learn something?
The question is actually a trick question of sorts. The ratio is exactly 1:1
No, I’m not kidding. The formula for calculating the amount of force that two bodies exert on each other is:
F=(G*m1*m2)/r^2
Where F = Force
G is a constant
m1 is the mass of one body (let’s say you)
m2 is the mass of the other body (let’s say earth)
r is the distance between the centres of gravity of the two masses.
So let’s go through the assumptions you’ve made to show why they are commonly made mistakes.
Assumption 1: The ratio of gravitational force is determined by the relative mass of the two bodies. Incorrect. It doesn’t matter if YOU are m1 and the earth is m2 or the other way around. The force between the two is exactly the same. If the earth exerted more force on you than you exert on the earth, then you would actually move the earth simply by standing on it.
Assumption 2: The distance between you and the earth is tiny. Again, common assumption that since you are standing on it, the distance is zero. But it isn’t because r in the formula above is calculated between the centres of gravity of the two bodies. The diameter of the earth being about 13,000 kilometers, r is, in this case, about 6,500,000 meters. Not close to zero at all.
In fact, if the distance between two bodies approaches zero, then the force between them approaches infinity because 0^2 is still 0 and anything divided by zero is infinity. If you followed this far, you should now understand what a “black hole” is. When matter is compressed so much that the distance between any two particles starts to approach zero, the force between them becomes so great that it collapses time and space. Trust me, though you might hug the earth with all your might, you’re in no danger of creating a black hole.
Now take what you’ve learned and apply it to some of the things you’ve said. How much force does Jupiter exert on the Sun? Answer: exactly as much as the Sun exerts on Jupiter.
Now take the next step. Jupiter orbits the Sun, and I’m betting if I asked you exactly at which point inside the Sun it is the Jupiter orbits around, I’m guessing that you, like most people, would say the centre of the Sun. You’d be wrong again.
The answer is that when two bodies are in orbit, their orbits revolve around the centre of gravity of the two bodies taken together as one. For you standing on the earth surface, your mass is in fact so small that you probably can’t measure the change in centre of gravity of you and the earth if your mass were to instantly double. But it isn’t zero. Juptier on the other hand, is big enough to cause the centre of gravity of it and the sun to be somewhere between the centre of the sun and the surface of the sun. Both Jupiter and the Sun orbit around that centre of gravity. So, Jupiter being rather small compared to the Sun, has a very large orbit, and the Sun has a very small orbit. But if you were so far away in space that all you could see was the Sun as a tiny point of light, and you had instruments accurate enough, you would be able to figure out that something the size of Jupiter exists, because over time, you would notice that the star isn’t sitting still, it is wobbling around itself.
Now let’s keep going and talk tides. The moon raises tides on earth, even though it is only one sixth the mass of the earth, it raises tides of several meters in some cases, and does so based on a 24 hour rotation. Now certainly, Jupiter is far less than one sixth the mass of the Sun, but it has YEARS to raise a tide on the sun, not hours.
OK, that’s enough physics for me tonight.

Mark ro;
My girlfriend who is 4’9″ frequently alters my position on things even though I’m a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier.>>>
Stop complainging. I upgraded Girlfriend 11.3 to Wife 1.0 and discovered that it deleted all of my opinions and positions entirely as a side effect of the upgrade. Also deleted were Weekly Pokernight 4.2 and Annual Fishing Trip 7.6. I considered trying to downgrade back to Girlfriend 11 (any version) but apparently the upgrade wipes out the existance of the previous Girlfriend version. I was tempted by the potential return of Girlfriend 6.0, but was advised by Wife 1.0 that further attempts to communicate in any way shape or form with Girlfriend 6.0 would invoke Legal Proceedings 2.0. Not certain what that is yet, but it sounds bad.

I wonder what Peirs Corbyn has to say on this?

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:03 pm
He has not predicted anything well yet.
**********************************************
Reply; By applying the repeating patterns of the inner planet and lunar declination 240 cycle affects on the past weathers resultant recorded data, I have been able to forecast daily weather almost as good as the 3 to 5 day out NWS forecast for periods out to ten years at a time.
Mechanism outlined on web site as well as four year old forecast maps, and the next two years also forecast back in 2007.

Hi Anthony
I’ll be frank and say I can’t tell the difference between this and some of the cycl0-mania calculation papers that have been sent to me over the last few years.
The strongest argument in my opinion is that the tides are calculated in a similar manner, so if true and the data fit backwards and forwards in time one should take it seriously. I have often argued that the planet orbits are like a giant clock against which there will be a coincidence of any periodic manifestation, in a similar way that we use 24 hour clocks for defining time changes . I keep an open mind as far as causality, though there should not be much doubt about sun and moon effects, as they are strong enough .
Yes, time will tell, as with all climate related models/predictions.

Nicola Scafetta said @ November 10, 2011 at 9:51 pm
“About the tides Svalgaard does not really appear to understand the issue. Time ago he was claiming that nobody in the past, before Newton, knew that the tides were induced by the moon. I needed to prove to him that in the past, on the contrary, everybody knew that the tides were induced by the moon even if the people did not know about Newtonian mechanics.”
Not “everybody” Nicola. Galileo took Kepler to task for his “astrological” claim that the tides were caused by some mysterious force exerted by the moon. Galileo wrote in the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems that the tides were caused by the rotation of the earth causing the oceans to slosh about. It was the Pope’s scepticism of Galileo’s idea that led to Galileo putting the Pope’s words into the mouth of Simplicio (Idiot) in the Dialogue and his trial for heresy. The heresy was ridiculing the Pope and had little to do with Copernic’ heliocentric theory.

jimmi_the_dalek says: November 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm
There is not a clear understanding of the cause of gravity, but there is a very clear understanding of its magnitude and how that depends on the mass and separation of objects. Likewise magnetic fields. It is because the magnitude is understood that this paper is implausible in the extreme.

Perhaps there is a third element if the magnetic and gravitational influences are too weak… a third force that dares not speak its name….

An aurora is a natural light display in the sky particularly in the high latitude regions, caused by the collision of energetic charged particles with atoms in the high altitude atmosphere. The charged particles originate in the magnetosphere and solar wind and are directed by the Earth’s magnetic field into the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy)

jimmi_the_dalek says:
But their mechanism (gravitational and magnetic fields due to Jupiter) is physically impossible.
Right up there with confusing correlation with causation: thinking you have proven a negative.
Well tough, learn something about the relative magnitudes of forces.
Something about the relative magnitude of forces like: if the sun can swing a mass the size of jupiter around the solar system, then jupiter can swing a mass the size of itself around the interior of the sun?
But, it is usually described as a “quasi-cycle”, e.g. in that paper, by which they mean it turns out at 60 + or – 4 . The fact that it is not a constant value is enough to rule out an astronomical origin – the orbits of the planets are precise – they do not gain or loose 4 years every now and then.
The period and magnitude of the ocean tides changes a little from cycle to cycle, therefore the moon, with its precise orbit, cannot be the origin of tides?
In science you have to be quantitative not just qualitative – if a given proposed cause is not of a magnitude to result in an observed effect of a particular size, then it is not the cause.
So, pulling the trigger on a gun cannot be the cause of a murder, because the four or five pounds of force it takes to pull a trigger is not of deadly magnitude?

Paul Vaughan says:
November 10, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Volker Doormann (November 10, 2011 at 3:30 pm) wrote:
“The Moon is not involved.”
Do you acknowledge that lunisolar cycles are confounded with solar system cycles?
As I have shown in my reply … “High resolution (month) profiles need eleven objects.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_jux2.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_hadcrut3.gif „
… both, longterm global temperature reconstructions and high frequency simulation and climate forecast (month) can be calculated very simple with the solar tide functions of Mercury outwards the Sun, but it do not need the frequency of the Earth Moon.
What is true that all matter (or moving matter) in the universe – including the Earth Moon – is connected i.) by a field that local let matter be in harmony with that field. Because each moving object owns an angular momentum since the Big Bang (which is strong related to the magnetism of the bodies from Moon to big stars), which is not to be destroyed, but only to ‘transferred’ to other objects, common physics has problems thinking mostly in causal mechanism like a steam machine.
But this thinking cannot be used to explain resonance phenomena – like the frequency resonance of Jupiter and Saturn 2.672 nHz : 1.0685 nHz = 2.50078 or 5:2 – of low integer ratios. There is no clear acting direction of force which source has an effect the other object. Same problem in the solar system.
Because of the resonance phenomena, which are ever of harmonic nature, there are quantitative frequencies detectable, which are also connected to the Moon’s frequencies and solar frequencies, but these frequencies are not to be found in global temperature spectra like hadcrut3 . And because this simulation of the high frequency terrestrial climate spectra is based on heliocentric = solar tide geometries including the Earth frequency, the Moon has approximately the same heliocentric frequency as the Earth.
However, it seems that the solved climate code is not a point of interest, but a lot of sayings what is NOT (science) without showing by arguments. But that itself is not science.
V.
‘Superstition brings misfortune’.

Interesting, kudos to Scafetta. Much more convincing that his last paper on this .
It looks like he is using HadCrut3 to judge by the divergence <1880. This is one area where I think the Berk-EST may be nearer the mark. Their method seems more accurate with the older more noisy data and would follow the trends Scafetta's synthesis more closely.
Once B-est have fixed the fact the magnitude of short-term swings and long term rise is probably at least 50% more than it should be , I think they have a skillful means of extracting temperature.

jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.
Science is a method to recognise what IS in nature. That what is in nature is nor to be shown, but to recognised. If truth would to be shown, it would have an observable existence. But it has not. It has only speakers about nothing.
It would be a basic contradiction, if nature is to be divided in more than one order, because then it would be possible that something can be true AND at the same time untrue. It is the own recognition of a scientist that it is impossible that something can be true AND at the same time untrue.
There is only one nature, but a lot of fallacies in statements.
Physics. Physics is the part of science, which deals exactly only with occurrence in the outer world, named forces. Logic, math, algebra, music, harmony are because they have neither a mechanism nor a detectable force NOT part of physics.
Astrology is the science of the logic of the objects the Greeks have called planets, the wandering stars on the sky. Physicians can understand that each frequenting mass multiplied with Plancks constant h is equal to energy E in [eV]. This implies the Doppler effects of the moving surface of the Earth towards East or move away from West.
Astronomy is the science of the laws of the moving planets, J. Kepler has shown in his book Astronomia Nova.
If one is arguing ‘astrology’ seriously, without showing that it has any existence, it is called a straw man fallacy, because it is only used to promote the ‘spirit of the holy science community’. > ‘It’s a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.’ <.
If one is arging valid, he acknowledge the basics of philosophy, and from this it is clear that ‘causal mechanism’ what ever this means, cannot beat the basics of philosophy.
Causality. In nature there are some things not to be proved like endlessness, or a beginning. Because of this causality should have a beginning and an end. But this is in contradiction with the definition of causality and/or a mechanism. A mechanism cannot have and end. Thermodynamicers do know this.
Sayings, personal sayings (avoiding arguments) as authority of the science community are that dirt that covers in public the hidden truth in nature, only to recognize in the own consciousness.
Moreover, like the CO2 dirt, much hard clean work has to be done – like the WUWT blog – which binds people, who are interested in valid scientific arguments, about what IS.
What is real in physics? A velocity? A space in meters? A time in seconds or years? Has time a beginning? Has time an end? Has space and end? Both are no forces, but only idols of the physicians in QM or climate science and the science community.
The phase difference phi = 2 Pi * (R-1) or phi = 2 Pi * [(t2/t1)-1] with R = t2/t1 and t1′ = c’ and t2 the second tune of the interval in the Pythagorean scale of the science of music are based on integer ratios. Most people and children do acknowledge these ratios as true harmony.
R t1=c’ phi

25/24 cis' 15°
13/12 des' 30°
9/8 d' 45°
7/6 dis' 60°
6/5 es' 72°
5/4 e' 90°
4/3 f' 120°
11/8 fis 135°
7/5 ? (2x72°=)144°
17/12 ges 150°
3/2 g' 180°
19/12 gis 210°
8/5 as' (3x72°=)216°
5/3 a' 240°
15/8 b(h)' 315°
7/4 ais 270°
9/5 b(b)' (4x72°)288°
2/1 c'' 360°

In a 2Pi circle like the ecliptic viewed from a geocentric perspective astrologers like J. Kepler do know this language of the stars, and do understand it, because they have learned the language. Physicians have not.
It is a simple but valid argument that if the geometric ratios in the music scale have a reality in a living consciousness, the very same geometric ratios in the sound of the planets must have a reality in this one nature.
The most important (heliocentric) aspects to simulate the terrestrial climate are the conjunction and the opposition, and J. Kepler
has said this for geocentric aspects. These aspects both are well known as tide functions and it takes no wonder that a summing of the tide functions of 11 celestial bodies in the solar system leads to a simulation of the high frequency global climate as published as hadcrut3 data:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_hadcrut3.gif
V.

An early explanation of tides was given by Galileo Galilei in his 1632 Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, …
At the same time Johannes Kepler correctly suggested that the Moon caused the tides, based upon ancient observation and correlations, an explanation which was rejected by Galileo. It was originally mentioned in Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos as being derived from ancient observation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides#History_of_tidal_physics

An Electric Universe…… Why not?

jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm
To those who claim I have not read the paper – I have read more of it than the people who think it is about cosmic rays. Also, the relation to astrology is simple – science has to be quantitative not just handwaving. Do you realise for example that the magnitude of the gravitational field of Saturn on the Sun is less than the effect of the gravitational field of Earth on the Sun? Jupiter is larger but its mass is 1/1000 of the sun’s and it is 800 million kilometers away from the Sun – you work out what the gravitational forces are. Jupiter has a strong magnetic field it is true, being roughly 10 time stronger than Earth’s , but since Jupiter is 5 times as far from the Sun, roughly, the effect of Jupiter’s magnetic field on the Sun, is lessthan that of Earth’s on the Sun. And I am not claiming that correlations should not be investigated, and am stating that a proposed mechanism for a correlation has to be physically possible.
And for those who reckon I am a troll, or a “warmist” – I am neither – but I realise than skepticism has to work in both directions – and this paper is BS.

Jimmy, you like back of the envelope maths. So from http://www.universetoday.com/15141/mass-of-jupiter/ we have the statements:
“The mass of Jupiter is 1.9 x 1027 kg. It is hard to fully understand a number that large, so here are a few comparisons to help. It would take 318 times Earth’s mass to equal Jupiter’s. Jupiter is 2.5 times more massive than all of the other planets in our Solar System combined. Jupiter is actually so massive that if it gained much more mass it would shrink.”
Now you are emphasizing that the effect of gravitational fields are extremely small. But how much force is necessary to keep a planet with a mass of 1.9 x 1027 kg in orbit? The continual velocity change requires a continual acceleration toward the Sun. You think that this requires only an infinitesimally small force?
Stars like the Sun are being identified as having planets around them by the fact that the stars ‘wobble’ due to the orbit of their planets around them. Or more correctly the stars and their planets are orbiting their barycenter – their center of mass. But magically you postulate that the Sun is different it has no wobble indeed the planets around it have no effect whatsoever as the force from the planets is so small? I thought that you were trying to take the scientific position. 😉

About the problem of tides, it was known since ancient times that the major driver was the moon. Every fishermen knew it very well.
It is true that some people have proposed alternative theories, such as Galileo, but these alternative theories were not believed by anybody. Galileo troubles mostly mostly caused by his anomaous theory of tides that even fishermen could disprove at his times. Kepler, instead reasoned correctly basing its theory on actual data and careful observations.
climatereason says:
November 11, 2011 at 4:10 am
Are either of you able to add to my comment about the observed frequency of the Aurora and Erarthquakes during 16th Century Britain-my post at 1.18 refers
tonyb
Probably there is a link between earthquakes and climate and aurora and astronomical cycles and ocean current and LOD etc and everything is physically coupled to everything else.
In any case, my paper focuses on the indirect link between mid-latitude aurora historical records and climate cycles and the coerence of these cycles with astronomical cycles. And I show that with these cycle it is possible with a reasonable accuracy to forecast climate oscillations att hedecadal scale. I use only 4-5 cycles, not just one. Also the paper focuses on the physical mechanisms that may cause these climatic oscillations, that is albedo oscillations, read section 7.
The paper is not supposed to address any possible geophysical problem one might think. Nor it addresses Leif’s cospiratory theory (November 11, 2011 at 12:19 am) according to which the aurora record presents a 60-year cycle because somebody (that Leif does not name) put it in.

Massive weaknesses in this paper. The suggested physical mechanism, as presented in this paper, of cosmic rays and clouds is NOT validly or reliably accomplished. Plausibility (IE the mechanisms well-reasoned details) is entirely lacking in the paper. Mechanisms MUST be girthed with plausibility when being thrown into a paper focused on solar/climate cycle matching. In my opinion, Scafetta’s paper is mortally wounded by such a failing.

steven mosher says:
November 10, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Wow, the readers sure brought their skeptical best on this post.
not.>>>>
Nice drive by insult. Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion?

@Volker Doormann
You’re attracting attention:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/scafetta-and-aurora/#comment-9318
Cautionary note from first-hand experience:
If your commentary becomes too mature, you’ll be banned from that site.
The proprietors of the site have a theory (based on observation, supposedly) that mature commentary deters site visits.

Leif Svalgaard says:
And there is also no 60-yr cycle in the global temperature during the last 2,000 years: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Loehle-Temps.png
If there were, one could not hope to see it in the log graph that you link to.

“davidmhoffer says:
November 10, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Jupiter on the other hand, is big enough to cause the centre of gravity of it and the sun to be somewhere between the centre of the sun and the surface of the sun.
The moon raises tides on earth, even though it is only one sixth the mass of the earth,”
I wish to comment on these two sentences. As for the last one, the moon actually has 1/81 of the mass of the earth. Where you got that 1/6 from is that if you were to stand on a scale on the moon, you would weigh 1/6 as much as on earth. So since the moon averages about 240,000 miles away, the center of mass for the earth-moon system is about 3000 miles from Earth’s center or 1000 miles below the surface of Earth.
As for the first sentence, that is correct. But I just want to add that when several big planets are on the same side as Jupiter, the center of gravity can actually be beyond the surface of the sun.

M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 11, 2011 at 9:58 am
Vukcevic you need to read my paper and the references that it contains that argue for the 60 year cycle first.
For example, you reference CET. You need to realize that CET is a too local record that may be effected by vocano and local patterns. On the contrary in my paper
A. Mazzarella and N. Scafetta, “Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change,” Theor. Appl. Climatol., DOI 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4 (2011).
I use a reconstruction of the NAO that includes CET as well as all other available records from europe and a quasi 60 year cycle appears more clearly.
The same can be said for the other records you reference.
Data analysis is a complex matter that requires careful mathematical and physical considerations in particular when proxy models are used with all their errors and ancertenties.
Not all records are equally valid for a specific purpose, not all records show the same things. This is perfectly normal and it is part of the complexity of the problem.
Moreover FFT is the poorest way to calculate the spectrum for a lot of reasons, beginning by the fact that it is discrete.
In any case, if you believe that your analysis is better and you have a better theory, you need just to write a scientific paper and submit it to a science journal. Once it is pubblished we can discuss it.
My above paper focuses on the Aurora records patterns and global temperature patterns, not on other things. And I show that the two records presents the same major frequencies and these major frequencies correspond to major planetary frequencies.
So, I invite you as well as Leif to focus on the actual content of the paper, not on things that the paper was not supposed to address in any details such as what happened in central england or what happened to the sunspots that are only a small subset of the solar and heliosphere dynamics.

To Ged says:
November 11, 2011 at 10:14 am
Yes, Ged, Leif wants to confuse things in the hope to confuse people less careful than yourself.
To M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 11, 2011 at 11:00 am
I never said that the cycle must be exacly 60 years. In dynamical system the things oscillate around limit cycles, So sometime a physical cycle may be larger than 60 year and another time may be smaller than that. This is particularly true if you look at subsystems. In the literature there are a lot of papers arguing for a 50 to 70 year oscillation in mutiple records. My interpretation is that ther exists a dynamical attractor at about 60-year that would explain the finding. This attactor points to Jupiter and Saturn 60-year oscillation.
If you do not like the interpretation, that is fine for me, but does not change my position.

Vukcevic, can you tell us whY?…
AnimKEhfv
http://i41.tinypic.com/8zenb7.png

I don’t understand the objections to the 60-yr cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg
The friggin’ Atlantic ocean SST record has it clear as a bell. This shows up in the “global” instrument record although not quite as obvious but you can still see it.

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm
“Thus replication fails and the claim fails.”
Great. Give us a link when your refutation is peer reviewed and published. Personally I don’t think you’ve compared apples to apples and it won’t be accepted but that’s just me. I think you first have to establish a link between mid-latitude auroras and the hodge-podge of other proxies you mention. Scafetta’s discovery is a correlation between mid-latitude auroras which may or may not correlate well with those other proxies. Apples and oranges IMO. At least for now.

davidmhoffer says:
November 10, 2011 at 8:28 pm
“Jupiter on the other hand, is big enough to cause the centre of gravity of it and the sun to be somewhere between the centre of the sun and the surface of the sun. The moon raises tides on earth, even though it is only one sixth the mass of the earth”
The moon has barely 1% the mass of the earth. Jupiter has less than 0.1% the mass of the sun.
You really, really, really need to double check what you intend to write as facts before you hit that “post comment” button. Seriously dude. Even I do that. If you don’t someone else will and it ends up being very embarrassing.

@Hoffman
Adding insult to injury the force of gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance so the moon, at 1% the mass of the earth at a distance of 250,000 miles has approximately 400 million times as much gravitational pull on the earth as Jupiter does on the sun with Jupiter being about 2000 times as distant and 10 times less relative mass. Not going to be much of a tide on the sun from Jupiter. Maybe a micrometer? That’s why detecting planets around other stars is so difficult. They really need a planet as big Jupiter orbiting as close as Mercury to detect the wobble caused by the offset in barycenter. Either that or they need very long observation times to pull smaller deflections out of the noise.
Sheesh.

Werner Brozek;
Thanks for the correction, you are of course correct on both points.
Dave Springer;
See how easy it is to have a civil conversation about a complex topic? I’ve since dropped the thread, but I don’t recall you apologizing or admitting how completely and totaly wrong you were about IT penetrating water during a heavy rainstorm by posting a link to a paper that you apparently hadn’t read or understood because it supported my point, not yours. Frankly, even when I agree with you on something, which I frequently do, I’d rather not voice my support because of your bullying, ad hominem attacks, foul mouth and ignorant attitude. You seem to be one of those people who think they can pull themselves up by putting someone else down. I feel sorry for you.

Nicola Scafetta says:
November 11, 2011 at 1:38 pm
to Dave Springer
“the records are limited because those aurora were in the past seen and recorded mostly in the cities. After 1900 street light has made very difficult to see these auroras and mobody cared to report the aurora as seen in the country-side.”
WTF? We’re talking 1966 not 1666. In 1966, incredible as it may seem to boys your age, we had telephones, radio, AND television not to mention hundreds of millions of people living in mid-northern latitudes away from streetlights. No aurora visible in mid-latitudes went unreported between 1966 and present. The excuse you just pulled out of your backside is unacceptable and absurd on the face of it. You’re either lazy or hiding something. Either way it’s a FAIL.
“You argument with the clous is not valid. More auroras were seen during the multidecadal cold periods, that is the most cloudy ones.”
Really? I thought it was common knowledge that clear nights are the cold ones and cloudy nights are the warm ones. I’m afraid that’s another FAIL. Three strikes and you’re out. Don’t try bullshitting me a third time.
” Moreover, there aurora are not observed in just one location but in a very large region.”
Which is bloody well why no aurora could possibly have been missed after 1966 because so very much of the Northern Hemisphere was populated, even in rural locations, with instantaneous communications. The number of astronomical observatories on mountaintops alone by 1966 makes your premise incredibly poorly thought out. I hope the rest of your work isn’t as shallow but now I wonder.

Volker Doormann (November 11, 2011 at 11:25 am) declared:
“I’m off.”
Yes. Here’s your 1800 year cycle:
Keeling, C.D.; & Whorf, T.P. (2000). The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change. PNAS 97(8), 3814-3819.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full.pdf
It’s child’s play to trace it hierarchically / historically up to longer J-S cycles of the solar system, but that’s deflecting attention – via confounding – away from home (Earth-Moon system).

M.A.Vukcevic (November 11, 2011 at 12:11 pm) requested:
“Could you be more specific?”
You draw attention to N-S geomagnetic Y-asymmetry here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
Curious to hear if/how you see it connected to this:
AnimKEhfv: http://i41.tinypic.com/8zenb7.png

davidmhoffer says:
November 11, 2011 at 2:14 pm
davidmhoffer says:
November 11, 2011 at 2:14 pm
“Dave Springer; See how easy it is to have a civil conversation about a complex topic?”
Any possibility of that went out the window when you talked about me losing a few teeth over some perceived slight. Besides, I can’t have a conversation about a complex topic with you. That implies an exchange of ideas between peers. All I can do with you is lecture and that’s not possible if you won’t STFU. So I’m left doing drive-by corrections and some mockery for the entertainment value.

Ian W at 6:47 am
“Now you are emphasizing that the effect of gravitational fields are extremely small. But how much force is necessary to keep a planet with a mass of 1.9 x 1027 kg in orbit? The continual velocity change requires a continual acceleration toward the Sun. You think that this requires only an infinitesimally small force?”
No I think it needs the acceleration due to the gravitational potential of an object 1000 times as massive.
“Stars like the Sun are being identified as having planets around them by the fact that the stars ‘wobble’ due to the orbit of their planets around them. Or more correctly the stars and their planets are orbiting their barycenter – their center of mass. But magically you postulate that the Sun is different it has no wobble indeed the planets around it have no effect whatsoever as the force from the planets is so small? I thought that you were trying to take the scientific position. ”
OK so since various people have mentioned it, I think it is time to think about what this wobble means (I have never denied its existence by the way). Lets try a thought experiment, what physics calls a “to first approximation” scenario, which is useful for working out the most important features, and then asking how the real system differs.
So take a solar system with just a star and a heavy planet. Now imagine a model which is just two weights connected by a rod. Find the balance point, which is the center of mass. Let the two object rotate about that point. If you are and observer outside the system what do you see? Well the “star” is sometime one side of the center of mass, sometimes the other, so to an outside observer it appears to “wobble” in its position. But here’s the important bit – that wobble has no effect on the properties of the star because all the distances are constant So thats the “to first approximation” – the wobble is simply the rotation about the center of mass, and has no effect on the properties of the star. Now the real system – because the planet has an elliptical rather than a circular orbit, its distance varies slightly. It is only this variation which might cause a change in the properties of the star. Jupiter’s distance changes by about 4% from maximum to minimum – so the question is, can that modulation have a significant effect? I say no.

jimmy_the_dalek;
good points.
I’d forgotten the rotation of the sun, but my point still stands. The moon raises quite the tide in a 24 hour cycle. Jupiter has weeks. Only one millimeter? Let’s take your word for it at this point. While the earth is covered mostly in water, it is a fairly thin layer compared to the diameter of the planet as a whole. The sun on the other hand is molten (though it may have a core of some sort that is different for a variety of reasons) but the fact of the matter is that gravitational pull from something the size of Jupiter shifts things inside the sun as well as raising a tide. As Werner Brozek pointed out, when the planets aligne, the centre of mass actually lies outside of the surface of the sun. That’s quite the wobble to impose on something as big as the sun and at the same time claim that variations in orbit don’t affect climate on earth because it is “impossible”. Consider also that if Jupiter and Saturn can raise tides on the sun and cause it to wobble about itself in space, that they also affect the orbit of the earth. For all we know, the fluctuations induced in earth’s orbit are the larger factor than changes induced in the sun, or perhaps they are additive, or perhaps they work against each other. We need not know the answer to those questions in order to observe that specific alignments of the planets and moon in relation to the earth correlate to climactic conditions. If so, let us investigate and discover the reasons why, or if it is a coincidence.
If coincidence, it is a really really BIG coincidence. But impossible? Hardly.

Leif said,
Just cranking through the same data the same way is not replication
Pity no one pointed this out to Muller and the BEST team.

JJ at 11:23 pm
“So, pulling the trigger on a gun cannot be the cause of a murder, because the four or five pounds of force it takes to pull a trigger is not of deadly magnitude?”
Well you have just put a major positive feedback in there – pulling the trigger initiates a chemical reaction. I hope you are not going to say the earth’s climate system has major positive feedbacks, because around here people tend to shout at you for that.
“The period and magnitude of the ocean tides changes a little from cycle to cycle, therefore the moon, with its precise orbit, cannot be the origin of tides?”
The amplitude changes, which is entirely explainable as due to the positions of moon, sun and their distances from the earth. I do not think there are major changes in the period – do you have information to the contrary?

@ Dave Springer
The aurora catalog was not compiled by me. The appropriate reference are in the paper: read them or write to those authors for explanation. The above is the exaplantion I heard from people expert in those records. The record that ends in 1966 refers to the Faroes’ Island that are located North England which were quite more isolated than the central and north Europe where it was becoming increasingly difficult to see mid-latitude aurora and people lost interest in emphasizing them as they were doing in the past.
@ Ged
well written!
It is very inappropriate in science to dismiss a finding based on specific records simply claiming that different records do not show the same identical patterns. Each record is produced by its own physics and each record stresses the patterns compatible with its own physics. It is perfectly normal that different records present different patterns. Thus, a comparison may be made only after that the physical link between two records is established.
So what people do is to look for those records and thecniques that may reveal a physical coupling mechanism that other records may not reveal as well or as clearly.
If all records would present the same identical patterns everything would be linearly coupled to everything else and no errors would exist, which is not the case in natural systems.
The problem with Leif is that he does not appear to understand basic phylosophy or how science of complex systems really works. It is like as if I say that today in NY it is raining, and Leif responds that I am wrong because he looked at the weather in CT and it was not raining so he could not replicate my claim! Does such a reasoning make any sense to anybody?
As Ged understood, “There are references though, and mounting data that shows this 60 year phenomenon”. In figure 3 of my paper I show some of these records, but many others are present in the references.
Not all records present the same identical patterns. So what? the correct question is to understand why. Is it because the chosen data are very local? is it because the data are disrupted by something else? is it because there are errors in the measurments? is it because the data are mostly sensitive to something else? is it because the data are just different? is it because of complex non linear couplings? etc.
Moreover, in Figure 11 I buid a model based on these cycles and show that the relative climate patterns can be forecasted with a precision far above the IPCC models.
So, Leif just need to be more open minded and stop with his hand waving logic that proves nothing about my paper and much about his behavior. If he does not like my theory he is very welcome to propose an alternative theory and shows that it works better than mine!
For example, does Leif know of any IPCC climate model that has been able to “forecast” the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2010 and backward from 1850 to 1950 as I show in my figure 11B? Please, name one!
@ jimmi_the_dalek:
in the paper I do not do just curve fitting. I show that the harmonic model based on those specific astronomical cycles seen inthe aurora record from 1700 to 1900, for example, is able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2010. You may fit a record with an infinity of curves that you like, but if the functions that you use have nothing to do with the dynamics of the system, that same model would immediately fail any forecasting.
Your definition of science (a theory must be supported by a mechanism, if not it is astrology) has nothing to do with science but with methaphysics. In science a theory should be able to agree with the data and reproduce and forecast them. The ultimate mechanisms may be simply unknown. All science of complexity is based on the assumptions that a macroscopic system can be described by using empirical models which do not need to be explicitly backed by microscopic physical explanations. And the ultimate mechanisms explaining the fundaments of physics are unknown (what is the mechanisms that explain gravity, what is the mechanisms that explain the time contraction in special relativity? etc).

jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 11, 2011 at 3:29 pm
“So take a solar system with just a star and a heavy planet. Now imagine a model which is just two weights connected by a rod. Find the balance point, which is the center of mass. Let the two object rotate about that point. If you are and observer outside the system what do you see? Well the “star” is sometime one side of the center of mass, sometimes the other, so to an outside observer it appears to “wobble” in its position. But here’s the important bit – that wobble has no effect on the properties of the star because all the distances are constant So thats the “to first approximation” – the wobble is simply the rotation about the center of mass, and has no effect on the properties of the star. Now the real system – because the planet has an elliptical rather than a circular orbit, its distance varies slightly. It is only this variation which might cause a change in the properties of the star. Jupiter’s distance changes by about 4% from maximum to minimum – so the question is, can that modulation have a significant effect? I say no.”
You fail to take into account the sun’s rotational period vs. the orbital period about the sun/jupiter barycenter. The latter I happen to know is 12 years. I don’t think the sun and Jupiter are tidally locked like the earth and the moon so let me look up the former… that’s about 25 days. So Jupiter is going to produce some tides on the sun. You and I would both be guessing if we said we knew what effect those tides might have although I’d tend to agree it’s going to be pretty minimal given the strength of Jupiter’s gravity on the sun is millions of times weaker than the moon’s pull on the earth.
By the way, you WERE wrong about calling the OP astrology just because there’s no mechanism. A correlation without a known cause is a mystery. Science is full of mysteries. In fact science is all about mysteries! If there were no mysteries there would be nothing left to explain and nothing for science to do. Engineers could then take over (as if we don’t rule the roost already… lol) completely. Astrology on the other hand lacks mechanism AND correlation. If there’s no correlation there’s nothing to explain. It isn’t science until you can at least come up with some effect that needs explaining.

Leif Svalgaard says: November 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm
…I use independent data of geomagnetic activity, … cosmic ray data, sunspot numbers, and even climate, and show that none of these show any 60-year cycle over long enough time periods [centuries]. Thus replication fails and the claim fails.
Rubbish. Scafetta has already showed six different indices in his paper which all show with stunning clarity the formative presence of a 60-year cycle: PDO, AMO, auroras, monsoons, meteorites, and global temperatures (detrended etc). Thus replication has already succeeded so the claim holds so far. The correlations are highly evocative, I don’t know how to quantify them statistically but visually they shout. Thus the likelihood increases that your apparent non-correlations may have other factors at work, that do not disprove the presence of a 60-year cycle.