Nicola Scafetta sent me this paper yesterday, and I read it with interest, but I have a number of reservations about it, not the least of which is that it is partially based on the work of Landscheidt and the whole barycentric thing which gets certain people into shouting matches. Figure 9 looks to be interesting, but note that it is in generic units, not temperature, so has no predictive value by itself.
While that looks like a good hindcast fit to historical warm/cold periods, compare it to figure 7 to see how it comes out.
Now indeed, that looks like a great fit to the Ljungqvist proxy temperature reconstruction, but the question arises about whether we are simply seeing a coincidental cyclic fit or a real effect. I asked Dr. Leif Svalgaard about his views on this paper and he replied with this:
The real test of all this cannot come from the proxies we have because the time scales are too short, but from comparisons with other stellar systems where the effects are calculated to be millions of times stronger [because the planets are huge and MUCH closer to the star]. No correlations have been found so far.
See slide 19 of my AGU presentation:
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
So, it would seem, that if the gravitational barycentric effect posited were real, it should be easily observable with solar systems of much larger masses. Poppenhager and Schmitt can’t seem to find it.
OTOH, we have what appears to be a good fit by Scafetta in Figure 7. So this leaves us with three possibilities
- The effect manifests itself in some other way not yet observed.
- The effect is coincidental but not causative.
- The effect is real, but unproven yet by observations and predictive value.
I’m leaning more towards #2 at this point but willing to examine the predictive value. As Dr. Svalgaard points out in his AGU presentation, others have tried but the fit eventually broke down. From slide 14
P. D. Jose (ApJ, 70, 1965) noted that the Sun’s motion about the Center of Mass of the solar system [the Barycenter] has a period of 178.7 yr and suggested that the sunspot cycles repeat with a similar period. Many later researchers have published variations of this idea. – Unfortunately a ‘phase catastrophe’ is needed every ~8 solar cycles
Hindcasting can be something you can easily setup to fool yourself with if you are not careful, and I’m a bit concerned over the quality of the peer review for this paper as it contains two instances of Scafetta’s signature overuse of exclamation points, something that a careful reviewer would probably not let pass.
Science done carefully rarely merits an exclamation point. Papers written that way sound as if you are shouting down to the reader.
The true test will be the predictive value, as Scafetta has been doing with his recent essays here at WUWT. I’m willing to see how well this pans out, but I’m skeptical of the method until proven by a skillful predictive forecast. Unfortunately it will be awhile before that happens as solar timescales far exceed human lifespan.
Below I present the abstract, plus a link to the full paper provided by Dr. Scafetta.
=============================================================
Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle
ScienceDirect link
Nicola Scafetta, ACRIM (Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab) & Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
Abstract
The Schwabe frequency band of the Zurich sunspot record since 1749 is found to be made of three major cycles with periods of about 9.98, 10.9 and 11.86 years. The side frequencies appear to be closely related to the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn (range between 9.5 and 10.5 years, and median 9.93 years) and to the tidal sidereal period of Jupiter (about 11.86 years). The central cycle may be associated to a quasi-11-year solar dynamo cycle that appears to be approximately synchronized to the average of the two planetary frequencies. A simplified harmonic constituent model based on the above two planetary tidal frequencies and on the exact dates of Jupiter and Saturn planetary tidal phases, plus a theoretically deduced 10.87-year central cycle reveals complex quasi-periodic interference/beat patterns. The major beat periods occur at about 115, 61 and 130 years, plus a quasi-millennial large beat cycle around 983 years. We show that equivalent synchronized cycles are found in cosmogenic records used to reconstruct solar activity and in proxy climate records throughout the Holocene (last 12,000 years) up to now. The quasi-secular beat oscillations hindcast reasonably well the known prolonged periods of low solar activity during the last millennium such as the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton minima, as well as the 17 115-year long oscillations found in a detailed temperature reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere covering the last 2000 years. The millennial three-frequency beat cycle hindcasts equivalent solar and climate cycles for 12,000 years. Finally, the harmonic model herein proposed reconstructs the prolonged solar minima that occurred during 1900–1920 and 1960–1980 and the secular solar maxima around 1870–1890, 1940–1950 and 1995–2005 and a secular upward trending during the 20th century: this modulated trending agrees well with some solar proxy model, with the ACRIM TSI satellite composite and with the global surface temperature modulation since 1850. The model forecasts a new prolonged solar minimum during 2020–2045, which would be produced by the minima of both the 61 and 115-year reconstructed cycles. Finally, the model predicts that during low solar activity periods, the solar cycle length tends to be longer, as some researchers have claimed. These results clearly indicate that both solar and climate oscillations are linked to planetary motion and, furthermore, their timing can be reasonably hindcast and forecast for decades, centuries and millennia. The demonstrated geometrical synchronicity between solar and climate data patterns with the proposed solar/planetary harmonic model rebuts a major critique (by Smythe and Eddy, 1977) of the theory of planetary tidal influence on the Sun. Other qualitative discussions are added about the plausibility of a planetary influence on solar activity.
Link to paper: Scafetta_JStides
UPDATE 3/22/2012 – 1:15PM Dr. Scafetta responds in comments:
About the initial comment from Antony above,I believe that there are he might have misunderstood some part of the paper.
1)
I am not arguing from the barycentric point of view, which is false. In the paper I am talking
about tidal dynamics, a quite different approach. My argument
is based on the finding of my figure 2 and 3 that reveal the sunspot record
as made of three cycles (two tidal frequencies, on the side, plus a central
dynamo cycle). Then the model was developed and its hindcast
tests were discissed in the paper, etc.
{from Anthony – Note these references in your paper: Landscheidt, T.,1988.Solar rotation,impulses of the torque in sun’s motion, and
climate change. Climatic Change12,265–295.
Landscheidt, T.,1999.Extrema in sunspot cycle linked toSun’s motion. Solar
Physics 189,415–426.}
2)
There are numerous misconceptions since the beginning such as “Figure 9 looks to be interesting, but note that it is in generic units, not temperature, so has no predictive value by itself.”
It is a hindcast and prediction. There is no need to use specific units, but only dynamics. The units are interpreted correctly in the text of the paper as being approximately W/m^2 and as I say in the caption of the figure “However, the bottom curve approximately reproduces the patterns observed in the proxy solar models depicted in Fig. 5. The latter record may be considered as a realistic, although schematic, representation of solar dynamics.”
{from Anthony – if it isn’t using units of temperature, I fail to see how it can be of predictive value, there is not even any reference to warmer/cooler}
3) About Leif’s comments. It is important to realize that Solar physics is not “settled” physics. People do not even understand why the sun has a 11-year cycle (which is between the 10 and 12 year J/S tidal frequencies, as explained in my paper).
4)
The only argument advanced by Leif against my paper is that the phenomenon is his opinion was not observed in other stars. This is hardly surprising. We do not have accurate nor long records about other stars!
Moreover we need to observe the right thing, for example, even if you have a large planet very close to a star, the observable effect is associated to many things: how eccentric the orbits are and how big the star is, and its composition etc. Stars have a huge inertia to tidal effects and even if you have a planet large and close enough to the star to produce a theoretical 4,000,000 larger tidal effect, it does not means that the response from the star must be linear! Even simple elastic systems may be quite sensitive to small perturbations but become extremely rigid to large and rapid perturbations, etc.
It is evident that any study on planetary influence on a star needs to start from the sun, and then eventually extended to other star systems, but probably we need to wait several decades before having sufficiently long records about other stars!
In the case of the sun I needed at least a 200 year long sunspot record to
detect the three Schwabe cycles, and at least 1000 years of data for
hindcast tests to check the other frequencies. People can do the math for how long we need to wait for the other stars before having long enogh records.
Moreover, I believe that many readers have a typical misconception of physics.
In science a model has a physical basis when it is based on the observations
and the data and it is able to reconstruct, hindcast and/or forecast them.
It is evident to everybody reading my paper with an open mind that under the scientific
method, the model I proposed is “physically based” because I am
describing and reconstructing the dynamical properties of the data and I
showed that the model is able to hindcast millennia long data records.
Nobody even came close to these achievements.
To say otherwise would mean to reject everything in science and physics
because all findings and laws of physics are based on the observations and
the data and are tested on their capability of reconstruct, hindcast and/or
forecast observations, as I did in the paper
Of course, pointing out that I was not solving the problem using for example
plasma physics or quantum mechanics or whatever else. But this is a complex
exercise that needs its own time. As I correctly say in the paper.
“Further research should address the physical mechanisms necessary to
integrate planetary tides and solar dynamo physics for a more physically
based model.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
susan smith:
Your various arguments provide examples of the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from illegitimate authority).
The Pompous Git (March 23, 2012 at 6:50 pm):
For the future, I wish you would hold the sarcasm (e.g. “ROFL”) as this distracts attention from the issue at hand to you, thus wasting everyone else’s time.
For those who believe that we should give any weight to authority:
More here.
A scientific work doesn’t have to be falsifiable to be scientific or legitimately publishable under peer review. It can be a report of observations. Or it can be a meta-theory that while not directly falsifiable itself, generates falsifiable hypotheses.
This Scafetta paper is an observation of a statistical fit between some calculations and some data/observations. The calculations, data, statistical inferences or the strength of the statistical inferences can be wrong. But they can be right without justifying all this fuss. Despite the planetary inspiration of the calculations, the hypothesized “link” to solar and climatic variation may ultimately found to be spurious. Future data, the next couple of cycles, may weaken the statistical link. Other periods within the solar system or a better understood solar dynamo may be shown to have a better statistical fit. A more physically based model may confirm the link or show how the such periods of statistical fit can occur yet be spurious.
The physical plausibility of an actual link is better supported by general relativity of extended bodies than by newtonian tides, although the scaling factors are the same, the masses and cubes of the distances. The quadrupole moments of the solar system, the sun, and the yet to be fleshed out extended internal structure of the solar dynamo are all details to be eventually considered. The relatively much weaker role of Saturn may separately turn out to be spurious and replaced by other statistical links and a better understanding of the dynamo/jupiter interactions.
The more massive exo-planets that Svalgaard proposes as counter examples may lack the relationship between orbital and dynamo periods that make coupling of the oscillators given well established examples involving far less wrenching forces. The orbital periods are all an order of magnitude shorter than that of our most familiar stellar dynamo. So the lack of confirmation outside the solar system given the short history and questionable comparability of the examples is hardly a refutation.
From Svalgaard’s slides, I can’t tell how the rotation and revolution descriptions were used. However, from past interactions and the use of the words “free fall”, I know that Svalgaard did not seem to appreciate (few do) the extended body implications of general relativity, that can be approximated by quadrupole and higher moments. However, the conceptual difference from newtonian gravity is easy to appreciate in a dynamic system, just with consideration of the implications of gravity propagating at the speed of light (or less) rather than being an instantanous field. Different components of an extended body will experience accelerations from self-structure and external bodies at different directions and points in time.
Scafettas paper remains an observation and related hypotheses. Ideally, at some point in the future we will have a model of the solar dynamo with convincing intrinsic periodicity and incorporating relativistic planetary influences (or at least gravity propagating at the speed of light) that either confirms of refutes the relationship.
Terry Oldberg said @ur momisugly March 23, 2012 at 9:03 pm
I was genuinely amused by your remark! No sarcasm intended. Please accept my apologies.
Apologies to Leif Svalgaard and the community if my usage of “Dr.” has given an incorrect impression. I know in some cultures the term has been standardized and misuse of the term has even been criminalized. I merely intended it to express the respect I have for Dr. Svalgaard’s willingness to share his knowledge and insight that merit such consideration.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 23, 2012 at 9:11 pm
the extended body implications of general relativity
are too minute at the distances of the planets to matter and are not even taken into account in the most accurate astronomical ephemeris we have http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons although the general relativity has for decades been incorporated http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/8903/1/02-1476.pdf
None of that provides your credentials or cv such as your educational background (degrees obtained) and past work history. I am familiar with your publication history. If you had a page with this information it would reduce any confusion.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 23, 2012 at 9:11 pm
The more massive exo-planets that Svalgaard proposes as counter examples may lack the relationship between orbital and dynamo periods
My comments were directed to Scafetta’s notion that the influence in tidal. For such, the influence is direct and depends very much and simply on masses and distances.
From Svalgaard’s slides, I can’t tell how the rotation and revolution descriptions were used
There is an unfortunate conflation between tidal and ‘barycentric’ ideas. A good description of the rotation/revolution difference is here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRAS.pdf
Poptech says:
March 23, 2012 at 9:30 pm
If you had a page with this information it would reduce any confusion.
This might reduce your confusion: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Leif-cv.doc
Martin Lewitt (March 23, 2012 at 9:11 pm):
As you point out, it is not logically necessary for a scientific work to satisfy falsifiability of claims. However, it is necessary for a scientific theory to satisfy falsifiability. In this blog, Dr. Scafetta states: “Leif, get it. Your prejudices are not shared by everybody. To oppose a scientific theory it is not enough to say: I do not believe in it. You must propose an alternative theory that agrees better with the data. Do you have it or not?”
It sounds to me as though Dr. Scafetta is claiming his work to be a scientific theory. Wherein lies the falsifiability of the claims of this theory? It seems to me that the falsifiability lies nowhere.
I saw this in leif.org/resume.txt
Leif Svalgaard
I have developed system software for the past 45 years.
My work experience (according to testimonials) is equivalent to
1) a master’s degree in computer science
2) advanced graduate work leading to a doctoral dissertation
I have extensive experience with system level APIs for a great many systems
including AS/400, Unix, and PC.
I have implemented large networking systems for Lockheed used
by several telephone companies.
I have designed, implemented, and debugged system software and
CASE tool software at all levels. Including the historically important
RC4000 multiprogramming Operating System.
I have documented strong skills in design, implementation, and debugging
(ranging from high-level languages through assembler and ‘front-panel’
lights).
Below are a some transcripts of letters in my possession
regarding my computer experience.
…………………………………..
So I am not sure what this line means
“1968 PhD equivalent at University of Copenhagen in Geophysics.”
in http://www.leif.org/EOS/Leif-cv.doc
Not sure what equivalent is, and who decides?
Robert says:
March 23, 2012 at 11:01 pm
“1968 PhD equivalent at University of Copenhagen in Geophysics.”
in http://www.leif.org/EOS/Leif-cv.doc
Not sure what equivalent is, and who decides?
Magister Scientiarum Geophysics
The equivalence is based on number of years. The system has changed a bit since 1968. We didn’t have PhD back then.
I [as you can see] have had a dual career in two different fields. The cv was geared at the computer experience. I have not needed one for the geophysics/solar physics one for many years so didn’t have one handy.
Leif Svalgaard,
Standish indicates that the ephemeris calculations are based upon general relativity, it is which relativistic time frame to use that is being discussed. He argues the earth’s time frame works well and is less complicated and less risk of error than using barycentric coordinate time.
I don’t think we rule out transfers of angular momentum between Jupiter and the Sun involving much of the Sun’s volume, but less than 2% of the sun’s mass as a possible significant influence on the solar dynamo.
Terry Oldberg,
I don’t agree with Scafetta’s assertion that Svalgaard must propose an alternative theory. We can all await one. Scafetta’s explanation of his results is arguably a theory. Although his results are for a limited time series of data, the extension of those results outside those time frames is theoretical, and new data may falsify it. Even if new data is consistent with the theory, the theory may still be falsified by better mechanisms, a more physical or accurate basis for the periodicity for instance, perhaps a more credible replacement for Saturn’s hypothesized role.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:05 am
I don’t think we rule out transfers of angular momentum between Jupiter and the Sun involving much of the Sun’s volume, but less than 2% of the sun’s mass as a possible significant influence on the solar dynamo.
The effects of extended bodies in G.R. is thought not to be significant when the bodies are small compared to their distance. There may be effects in very close-in pulsars and such, but even there the gravitational wave loss for PSR1913+16 calculated without regard to the problem with extended bodies matches very well the observations. In addition, the barycenter crew invokes Uranus and Neptune which are even smaller and much farther away.
that Svalgaard must propose an alternative theory. We can all await one.
I actually showed in my referee report that one gets three peaks simply by having an amplitude modulation of the regular [dynamo] solar cycle and that therefore the proposed tidal mechanism was not needed. The unobserved tidal effect by several close-in massive planets [and also the barycentric effects, if any] makes the tidal hypothesis in the solar system look ineffective. My conclusion [and that of the other referees] was that the paper was just numerological curve fitting as so many other ‘cycle’ claims and that yet another one would advance the science.
Volker Doormann says:
March 23, 2012 at 4:43 pm
I have published a paper on August 14 in 2010 on solar tide functions and a main cycle of 913.5 years .
http://www.volker-doormann.org/ghi_solar_s.pdf
The topic of this thread is the scientific value of claims stated by Dr. N, Scafetta.
As it is discussed, he has taken sinusoid cycles of years out of FFT analysis of available 2ky temperature spectra and claims these cycles plus a solar tide function as new.
But these thoughts are long known to him from my above paper.
Taking the real astronomical functions and fitting the strength of the tide couples one can match mostly all known temperature proxies:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_jux2.gif
From this it shows, that the Newton law of gravity is not the cause of this phenomenon; this can be argued by the significant time coherence of the non sinusoid function of the main couple of Quaoar and Pluto, because of the great ellipticity of Pluto.
This shows also, that the work of Scafetta summing up < 5 pure sinusoid cycles in calendar years has no scientific value, because it explains not from which geometry the cycles are coming from. A year has no own value in science.
To identify the cause of the geometry in solar tide functions is science, because geometry is science.
That solar tide functions of Mercury and Earth have a geometric relation to the global sea level oscillations is significant and was show here many times:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_ solar_tide.gif
There is a new paper by Peter A. Sturrock, showing that solar functions are changing the radioactive decay rate of isotopes on Earth, but also the distance Sun/Earth does change the decay rate.
It was shown here that the Homestake neutrino measurement has shown similarities to the global Earth temperatures.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_snu_ghi8.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_sst_snu_ghi8.gif
Physics is not settled.
Remark. All philosophical entertainment and attacking persons by names here is OT and spam because it explains not the reality of solar tide function from distant objects in the solar system and from near objects. (L. Wittgenstein citat is known here.)
V.
susan smith says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Thank you for your comment, Susan, but why on earth would you concern yourself with the credibility of the critics? Forget the critics, you should be focusing on the credibility of the critics’ ideas. That’s all that counts. It doesn’t matter whether E=MC^2 was discovered by a faithful man or a philanderer (he was). All that matters is whether the idea is true.
In other words, it’s not about me. It’s about whether my ideas, or Dr. Scafetta’s ideas, or your ideas, can withstand the slings and arrows of the outrageous criticism and investigation and falsification that is the hallmark of science.
My best to you, welcome to the discussion,
w.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:31 am
that yet another one would NOT advance the science.
wayne Job says:
March 23, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Thanks, wayne. I agree. We can only understand the climate within the context of the whole. And as I have said before, I do think that fluctuations in the sun could be affecting the climate. I simply have never found an explanation of the sun’s fluctuations, either through my own extensive investigations, nor through reading the work of others. In particular, I greatly distrust the picking of arbitrary cycles and extending them. When closely examined, to date they all fall apart.
My watchword is, “Nature simply isn’t that simple”. Every time I think it is, it’s not.
Fortunately, we have things like the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Carnot Cycle and the Constructal Law to help us make sense of the planet-sized constantly evolving and changing heat engine that is the climate.
Unfortunately, a constantly evolving entropy-maximizing natural heat engine is not generally taken as the appropriate paradigm for the climate.
Instead, a bozo-simple linear connection between forcing and response is the current paradigm.
Go figure.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 21, 2012 at 10:19 am
“…you can still claim that the parameters have some real-world basis because they are supposedly “closely related” to one of the literally hundreds of possible astronomical cycles.”
This is a valid criticism. Given the full set of astronomical cycles, it is not unlikely that you can find some which are close to those which, when arbitrarily combined, can reproduce whatever cyclic behavior you are trying to reproduce.
That the climate exhibits quasi-cyclic behavior is not plausibly deniable, try as some do. But, I still believe it is more likely due to random excitation of natural resonances, particularly one with an associated period near 60 years, in the ocean/land/atmospheric system of the Earth.
Legatus says:
March 21, 2012 at 9:40 am
“… if it was purely a random variation of climate cycles not related to the sun, it would not be nearly so regular.”
Not so. Random excitation of high Q resonances can produce very stable-appearing oscillations over finite intervals.
Dave Worley says:
March 21, 2012 at 10:33 am
“perigee”
Perihelion.
Steve from Rockwood says:
March 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Many people in this thread seem to misunderstand this point, though others see it clearly. But, for the record, so far as the Sun is concerned, the maximum effect it “feels” from Jupiter is the difference between Jupiter’s gravitational tug at the closest and most distant points (a.k.a., the “tidal force”). Otherwise, the two bodies are in gravitational free fall with respect to one another, i.e., they do not “sense” their relative accelerations.
lgl says:
March 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm
“Then the rest of the object, the Sun, has to counter that acceleration.”
See above comment to Steve from Rockwood: there is no actual acceleration. The bodies are following geodesics in space. That is why astronauts in orbit feel weightless.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 21, 2012 at 4:00 pm
“…all astronomers know (“jerking in space”) except Leif….he urgently need some introductory lectures on astronomy…”
No, Leif is right about this. See above.
dscott says:
March 21, 2012 at 2:00 pm
” If so, is it not reasonable to expect that different angles of magnetosphere orientations have greater or lesser shielding values to galactic cosmic rays?”
Though I think it is a long shot, that is the best hope I see for there being a significant linkage – basically a small “signal” modulating a larger one, similar to the way a transistor works to “amplify” its input.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:05 am
Leif Svalgaard,
Standish indicates that the ephemeris calculations are based upon general relativity, it is which relativistic time frame to use that is being discussed. He argues the earth’s time frame works well and is less complicated and less risk of error than using barycentric coordinate time.
I don’t think we rule out transfers of angular momentum between Jupiter and the Sun involving much of the Sun’s volume, but less than 2% of the sun’s mass as a possible significant influence on the solar dynamo.
My thanks to Martin Lewitt for this and his other comments. I hope he might find the time to enlarge on this one, for the benefit of those like myself who would like to understand more about the way the JPL ephemeris is constructed and the conceptual basis underlying the frame of reference it operates from.
I am in full agreement with him regarding the possibility that future research may discover that the synchronicity of Saturn’s motion may be augmented by other planetary motions which match the observed periodicities in solar activity and terrestrial climate fluctuations. In fact my own research and that of others within the small community which studies solar system dynamics as it relates to the possibility of solar-planetary feedbacks has already found several possible candidates.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/breakthrough-major-discovery-on-planetary-solar-connection/
Venus has a ‘tidal’ power on the Sun approximately equal to that of Jupiter, and as I discovered last night from an old Stanford University news release, two of the Sun’s deeper layers exhibit a countervailing speeding up and slowing down of latitudinal circulation which would be most simply described as ebb and flow – a tidal phenomenon. The periodicity of 1.3 years involved matches that of the interaction of tides on the Sun produced by Jupiter and Venus, in combination with the synodic period of Earth and Venus, and Earth’s orbital period, which matches the periodicity of a similar ‘ebb and flow’ at higher solar latitudes.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/the-sun-dances-the-soho-two-step/
There is an interesting analogy between these latitudinally differentiated tidal frequencies and terrestrial tidal and storm cycles, which have a 60 year component in oceanic oscillations near the equator, and a 45 year component at high latitudes, evidenced by many thousands of years of the formation of beach ridges on eustatically rebounding Siberian and Canadian shorelines. 60 and 45 year cyclicities abound in the synchronicities discovered in planetary motion.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/further-terrestrial-evidence-of-planetary-cycles-affecting-climate/
There is more in Heaven and Earth Pachaurio
Than is dreamp’t of in your philosophy
Bart says:
March 24, 2012 at 1:37 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 21, 2012 at 10:19 am
“…you can still claim that the parameters have some real-world basis because they are supposedly “closely related” to one of the literally hundreds of possible astronomical cycles.”
This is a valid criticism. Given the full set of astronomical cycles, it is not unlikely that you can find some which are close to those which, when arbitrarily combined, can reproduce whatever cyclic behavior you are trying to reproduce.
Most of the people who are developing the theory are not so naive as to latch onto just any combination of planetary periods which happen to match the solar and terrestrial cycles observed in proxy records and the instrumental records. Logical considerations related to the theoretical ‘power’ of the several possible physical mechanisms (tides, other types of spin orbit coupling, electromagnetic feedback) inform decisions about the relative likelihood of the effectiveness of different planet’s possible contributions. This ‘narrows the field’ considerably.
In this paper, Nicola Scafetta considers the solar system’s two biggest planets, Jupiter and Saturn. You found periodicities in sunspot data which independently led to the identification of periods which closely match those of these two planet’s interaction.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/bart-modeling-the-historical-sunspot-record-from-planetary-periods/
Which then led to my article:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/
Schwentek and Elling, back in 1984 observed that
“The clearly dominant spectral band in sunspot number, the solar cycle of 10.8 years. is given by the configuration period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.859 yr) times the ratio of their distances from the Sun (0.545)”
Further proof that the orbital distances and periods are intimately linked with fundamental solar quantities is given by the fact that :
Orbital Period (Earth) 1 year
————————————————- = Average Spin Rate (Sun) 0.0843 years = 30.79 days
Orbital Period (Jupiter) 11.86 years
There also seems to be a relationship between the period of conjunction and opposition of Jupiter and Saturn (half the synodic period), Earth’s orbital period and the solar rotation rate near the solar poles.
1 year
—————- = 0.1 years = 36.78 days
9.93 years
Furthermore, the Solar equatorial rotation rate is given by
3* Earth orbital period
___________________________ = 0.07 years = 24.5 days
2* Jupiter – Saturn Synodic period
Given these intimate relationships, it seems obvious to me that the relationships you would expect to develop in the formation of the solar system have been maintained as it has evolved.
That requires feedback. That means the solar system really is a system.
Bart says:
March 24, 2012 at 1:37 am
Given the full set of astronomical cycles, it is not unlikely that you [No, you] can find some which are close to those which, when arbitrarily combined, can reproduce whatever cyclic behavior you are trying to reproduce.
Well, first, do it, show it. Without showing it, it is your theory and nothing more.
Second, please state, that explizit by name, who is a svindler, because his comparisons are faked by arbitrary combined cycles.
The following reproductions are made of only one or two known astronomical cycles:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_edwards_2b.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_ed_plus_Gonzales.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_eddy_cos.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_eddy_zorita_echo.gif
I would be glad if you show here by arbitrary combination of the full set of astronomical cycles a reproduction of the temperature proxies from Eddy, Bob Edwards, Gonzales/Zorita, and hatcrut3 data.
What exactly is ‘arbitrary’ in science? What excactly is ‘random’ in science?
V.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 2:53 am
Furthermore, the Solar equatorial rotation rate is given by
3* Earth orbital period
___________________________ = 0.07 years = 24.5 days
2* Jupiter – Saturn Synodic period
The numerology never stops. How about the height of the Cheops pyramid being one billionth of the distance to the Sun.