Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes about a new paper from Nicola Scafetta.:
A new paper has just appeared
Nicola Scafetta 2011: A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics In Press doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013
This paper is certainly going to enlarge the debate on the role of natural climate variability and long term change.
The abstract reads [highlight added]
Herein we show that the historical records of mid-latitude auroras from 1700 to 1966 present oscillations with periods of about 9, 10–11, 20–21, 30 and 60 years. The same frequencies are found in proxy and instrumental global surface temperature records since 1650 and 1850, respectively, and in several planetary and solar records. We argue that the aurora records reveal a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations. Likely in addition to a Soli-Lunar tidal effect, there exists a planetary modulation of the heliosphere, of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth and/or of the electric properties of the ionosphere. The latter, in turn, has the potentiality of modulating the global cloud cover that ultimately drives the climate oscillations through albedo oscillations. In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. We show that a harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora records and deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa. The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.
The highlights listed in the announcement of the paper read
► The paper highlights that global climate and aurora records present a common set of frequencies. ► These frequencies can be used to reconstruct climate oscillations within the time scale of 9–100 years. ► An empirical model based on these cycles can reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations. ► Cyclical astronomical physical phenomena regulate climate change through the electrification of the upper atmosphere. ► Climate cycles have an astronomical origin and are regulated by cloud cover oscillations.
========================================================
Dr. Scafetta writes in and attaches the full paper in email to me (Anthony) this week saying:
I can forecast climate with a good proximity. See figure 11. In this new paper the physical link between astronomical oscillations and climate is further confirmed.
What the paper does is to show that the mid-latitude aurora records present the same oscillations of the climate system and of well-identified astronomical cycles. Thus, the origin of the climatic oscillations is astronomical what ever the mechanisms might be.
In the paper I argue that the record of this kind of aurora can be considered a proxy for the electric properties of the atmosphere which then influence the cloud cover and the albedo and, consequently, causes similar cycles in the surface temperature.
Note that aurora may form at middle latitude or if the magnetosphere is weak, so it is not able to efficiently deviate the solar wind, or if the solar explosions (solar flare etc) are particularly energetic, so they break in by force.
During the solar cycle maxima the magnetosphere gets stronger so the aurora should be pushed toward the poles. However, during the solar maxima a lot of solar flares and highly energetic solar explosions occurs. As a consequence you see an increased number of mid-latitude auroras despite the fact that the magnetosphere is stronger and should push them toward the poles.
On the contrary, when the magnetosphere gets weaker on a multidecadal scale, the mid-latitude aurora forms more likely, and you may see some mid-latitude auroras even during the solar minima as Figure 2 shows.
In the paper I argue that what changes the climate is not the auroras per se but the strength of the magnetosphere that regulates the cosmic ray incoming flux which regulate the clouds.
The strength of the magnetosphere is regulated by the sun (whose activity changes in synchrony with the planets), but perhaps the strength of the Earth’s magnetosphere is also regulated directly by the gravitational/magnetic forces of Jupiter and Saturn and the other planets whose gravitational/magnetic tides may stretch or compress the Earth’s magnetosphere in some way making it easier or more difficult for the Earth’s magnetosphere to deviate the cosmic ray.
So, when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun, they may do the following things: 1) may make the sun more active; 2) the more active sun makes the magnetosphere stronger; 3) Jupiter and Saturn contribute with their magnetic fiend to make stronger the magnetic field of the inner part of the solar system; 4) the Earth’ magnetosphere is made stronger and larger by both the increased solar activity and the gravitational and magnetic stretching of it caused by the Jupiter and Saturn. Consequently less cosmic ray arrive on the Earth and less cloud form and there is an heating of the climate.
However, explaining in details the above mechanisms is not the topic of the paper which is limited to prove that such kind of mechanisms exist because revealed by the auroras’s behavior.
The good news is that even if we do not know the physical nature of these mechanisms, climate may be in part forecast in the same way as the tides are currently forecast by using geometrical astronomical considerations as I show in Figure 11.
The above point is very important. When trying to predict the tides people were arguing that there was the need to solve the Newtonian Equation of the tides and the other physical equations of fluid-dynamics etc. Of course, nobody was able to do that because of the enormous numerical and theoretical difficulty. Today nobody dreams to use GCMs to predict accurately the tides. To overcome the issue Lord Kelvin argued that it is useless to use the Newtonian mechanics or whatever other physical law to solve the problem. What was important was only to know that a link in some way existed, even if not understood in details. On the basis of this, Lord Kelvin proposed an harmonic constituent model for tidal prediction based on astronomical cycles. And Kelvin method is currently the only method that works for predicting the tides. Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide-predicting_machine
Figure 11 is important because it shows for the first time that climate can be forecast based on astronomical harmonics with a good accuracy. I use a methodology similar to Kelvin’s one and calibrate the model from 1850 to 1950 and I show that the model predicts the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2010, and I show also that the vice-versa is possible.
Of course the proposed harmonic model may be greatly improved with additional harmonics. In comparison the ocean tides are predicted with 35-40 harmonics.
But this does not change the results of the paper that is: 1) a clearer evidence that a physical link between the oscillations of the solar system and the climate exists, as revealed by the auroras’ behavior; 2) this finding justifies the harmonic modeling and forecast of the climate based on astronomical cycles associated to the Sun, the Moon and the Planets.
So, it is also important to understand Kelvin’s argument to fully understand my paper.
…
This work is the natural continuation of my previous work on the topic.
Nicola Scafetta. Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate
oscillations and its implications. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Volume 72, Issue 13, August 2010, Pages 951-970
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610001495
Abstract
We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate
oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature
records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets
present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5
and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large
climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.25°C,
and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the
orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are
also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to
the Moon’s orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these
astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature
oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century.
It is found that at least 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has
been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate
oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or
cool until 2030–2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively
discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization
of coupled oscillators.
=======================================================
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. OTOH, Basil Copeland and I looked at some of the effects of luni-solar on global temperature previously here at WUWT.
While the hindcast seems impressive, a real test would be a series of repeated and proven short-term future forecasts. Time will tell.
Nicola Scafetta said @ur momisugly 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.
Just The Facts says:
November 10, 2011 at 10:28 pm
I know, but it is important that we challenge each other. It is how many errors are identified, flaws are exposed and lessons are learned.
You are being a bit presumptuous, but OK, as long as you learned something. When things are different from what you think, always first assume that you are wrong. That is a good skeptical stance. As Richard Feynman pointed out, the easiest one to fool is yourself.
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….
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:51 pm
In scientific research people start with the data and try to understand what the data tell us.
The auroral counts are difficult to calibrate, but we know that when mid-latitude aurorae occurs they are always accompanied by magnetic disturbances. And we have fairly good data about those going back to the 1840s. So, they should show a 60-yr period if there is one. Here is the FFT power spectrum of the geomagnetic Ap-index back to 1844: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Ap-1844-2011.png as you can see there is a sharp peak at 0.5 year [this is the well-known semiannual variation – that activity is smallest at the solstices], and a broad peak around 11 years [this is the solar cycle variation], but no trace whatsoever of a peak anywhere near 60 years, although we have almost three intervals of 60 years.
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?
Ingvar Engelbrecht says:
November 10, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Correlations are correlations. Cause has to be found.
No, there might be a cause, but it doesn’t have to. Sufficient fudging will always give you correlations.
I know, but it is important that we challenge each other. It is how many errors are identified, flaws are exposed and lessons are learned.
###########
wow and I thought gavin was the only one who could not admit his errors frankly.
Wow, the readers sure brought their skeptical best on this post.
not.
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’.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Richard Holle says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:15 pm
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.
Daily weather where? In Timbuktu? Is weather the same all over the globe?
I believe his method involves repeating patterns. So as long as you have a history going back far enough for any location, his method may be applied to it. At least that’s what I gather from a 2 min visit to his site.
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.
Crosspatch and others comented on my original post as to why there were so many reports of the aurora borealis being visible from the south of England that I noted in the historic accounts of 1550 to 1650 during a visit tothe Met office archives
Crosspatch said;
“My guess is that the skies of the South of England were much darker at night in 1550-1650 than they are today. Aurorae that might have been visible then may be completely invisible now. Also, London is at about the same latitude (51degN) as Winnipeg, Canada (49 degN). Winnipeg sees aurorae rather often.”
What was equally interesting and may or may not be relevant, is how many earthquakes were mentioned during the same time period. They were never serious as here in the UK we tend to have tremors rather than full blown earthquakes, but the[y’]re sufficient in numbers that they warranted a complete section in the reference book I was reading.
tonyb
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:51 pm
In scientific research people start with the data and try to understand what the data tell us.
If one adds a 60-yr wave: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-2011-plus-60yr-wave.png one does get a strong peak near 60 years: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Ap-1844-2011-plus-60yr-wave.png , but since the original data does not have such a period, no peak is seen for that.
Phew…. I remember in my youth being told scientists are big headed.
Now in my dotage I am beginning to believe it. 🙂
Geoff Sharp says:
You are missing the point Vuk, Nicola is proposing a link between the Earth’s magnetosphere and tidal/magnetic links from Jupiter and Saturn. Right up your alley I would have thought.
Hi Geoff, long time no see….
Last July I wrote:
I suggest have a careful look at this NASA’s link:
Observe that a large fraction of the solar system, in its equatorial plane, gets engulfed with the CME.
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
Underlining effects are close circuits (closing at the solar surface) of magnetic field and electric currents. Both magnetic field and electric current are partially short-circuited by the huge magnetospheres of both Jupiter and Saturn (known as magnetic reconnection).
Every 19.859 years (Leohle and Scafetta -20years cycle) this short-circuiting is particularly effective since both planets find themselves in the same direction. Now imagine our little Earth zipping in between, its tiny magnetic field gets zapped by these huge currents:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm
Heliosphere is highly squashed in the head on direction so the effectiveness of the zap is far more severe when both Jupiter and Saturn find themselves in this head on direction. This happens every 59.5 years (Leohle and Scafetta -60years cycle).
For more details see:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm
and effect on the climate at:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
There is your mechanism.
Now lets there be peace among men!
nicola scafetta | July 26, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Reply
I see that somebody started to think.
Rest of the exchange you can follow on the Judith Curry’s blg Climate etc.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-on-climate-change-attribution/#comment-90560
Finally I concluded:
I wouldn’t bet much money on it though. Reality is most likely more down to earth (or the Earth), but just in case here is a quick reminder:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
nicola scafetta | July 26, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Reply
Well, people need to start from somewhere
Geoff Sharp says:
November 10, 2011 at 2:56 pm
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.
Do you mean as it was discussed on Judith Curry’s blog Climate etc.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-on-climate-change-attribution/#comment-90560
see my post above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/#comment-793943
Further to my post at 12.17 regarding the juxtaposition of earthquakes and aurora borealis in Britain. Below is original extract from a reference book from 1870
“1540 summer exceedingly hot
1541 dry and hot
1573/4 the weather by november pleasant and fair leaves on hawthorn and plane trees before xmas.
1574… Earthquake
.,.
England. There were three earthquakes this year in
England
1574… Plague
…
At Chester. -PiioU
1574… Aurora Borealis
…
Nov. 11. A very remarkable display. -Camden and Slow
1574… Aurora Borealis
…
Nov. 15. id: id:
1574… Aurora Borealis
…
Novetnber 15 and 16. Burton-on-Trent, from 10 p. m.
till dawn, as bright as day, most so at 4 a. m. –
Rer. Steb6ing Sham
1575… Aurora Borealis …
February 13. Brilliant ”
Obviously I am curious as to if there is any conceivable connection between earthquakes and borealis
tonyb
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 11, 2011 at 12:33 am
Underlining effects are close circuits (closing at the solar surface) of magnetic field and electric currents. Both magnetic field and electric current are partially short-circuited by the huge magnetospheres of both Jupiter and Saturn (known as magnetic reconnection).
No. they are not, and the solar wind is carrying everything away from the Earth, Jupiter, and the Sun in any event. The wind is 11 times supersonic, which means that it moves away from the Sun eleven times faster than magnetic and electric effects can travel upstream towards the Sun. I have lost track of how many times this has been pointed out to you. Perhaps this time it will sink in…
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 11, 2011 at 12:33 am
the huge magnetospheres of both Jupiter and Saturn
They are not so huge. The make up about a 1/10,000 of the sky seen from the Sun, so are tiny targets.
climatereason says:
November 11, 2011 at 12:17 am
there were so many reports of the aurora borealis being visible from the south of England that I noted in the historic accounts of 1550 to 1650 during a visit to the Met office archives
perhaps because the Arctic’s magnetic field 1600-1700 was about 10% or so stronger then currently.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 11, 2011 at 1:27 am
….
Your sense of humour has been swept away with the solar wind. You missed the final ‘crescendo’ of my post : “I wouldn’t bet much money on it though”.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 11, 2011 at 1:38 am
perhaps because the Arctic’s magnetic field 1600-1700 was about 10% or so stronger then currently.
A stronger field means fewer aurorae. The influence of the solar wind on the Earth increases if the screening effect of the Earth’s magnetic field decreases. As the field has weakened the past several hundred years, geomagnetic activity and aurorae have increased.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Richard Holle says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:15 pm
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.
Daily weather where? In Timbuktu? Is weather the same all over the globe?
*********************************************
Reply; The global circulation is driven by the solar/lunar tidal effects in sync with the inner planets, the outer planets interactions influence the solar output, which also electromagnetically modulates the ion content and electromagnetic processes, that allow the outer planets to modulate the air flow patterns, with increased or decreased precipitation trends for ANY part of the world you wish to apply the cyclic pattern of data assimilation from past cycles, to the next/current cycle to produce the forecast fore the expected weather parameter you wish to examine.
I am in the process of adding forecasts for Alaska, Canada, and Australia because I have now gotten access to their data base, and they will appear on my site when I can get the development of the mapping process finished.
If you wish you can look at the data for the area of YOUR interest, by the same method and generate a forecast for your self any where in the world you have enough data to give good coverage. More than enough details of the process are publicly viewable on my web site, or if you need assistance just ask.
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