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.
Maybe the influence on the earths magnetosphere could account for possibility number 1) “The effect manifests itself in some other way not yet observed.”, or has been observed 45 years ago: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967SSRv….6..655S
Robert
Robert Brown – It is now abundantly clear that the Younger Dryas was an impact caused aberration . http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/01/1110614109.abstract
Since February 2010 I have submitted my discovery of the relation between the solar tide functions and the terrestrial climate functions to climate authorities and blogs.
Phil Jones, http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/jonesp
Eduardo Zorita, http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/
Thomas Edwards, http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~twdedwar/
Anders Moberg, http://people.su.se/~amobe/research.htm
Ulf Büntgen, http://www.buentgen.com/index.html
Nicola Scafetta, http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/
Christoph Spötl, http://www.oeaw.ac.at/kfq/spoetl.html
Fritz Vahrenholt, http://www.kaltesonne.de/?page_id=49
Sebastian Lüning, http://www.kaltesonne.de/?page_id=49
Robert Ehrlich, http://mason.gmu.edu/~rehrlich/
Frederik Ljungqvist, http://su-se.academia.edu/FredrikCharpentierLjungqvist
Henrik Svensmark, http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Staff/All.aspx?lg=showcommon&id=38287&type=person
Nicole Vollweiler, http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/ruca/ruca07-3/klima.html
Leif Svalgaard, http://www.leif.org/
Luboš Motl, http://motls.blogspot.de/
Roy Spencer, http://www.drroyspencer.com
Anthony Watts, http://wattsupwiththat.com/
There where always ignorance on my discovery. I do not know, what the reason is, that science people, who are looking to the processes on the Sun because of climate relevant functions are practicing silence.
I have submitted a guest posting to WUWT on this discovery without any reply. Later I have put the posting in a pdf file and published it on my site. My paper from August 2010 is known here > http://www.volker-doormann.org/ghi_solar_s.pdf <.
I have mentioned in this blog in many comments to postings of Dr. N.S. but although I have informed him by email in 2010 on my discovery he never has replied to my email and not on comments in this WUWT blog until today.
Some text from my page: In February 11th 2010, some eight years after the discovering of Quaoar by Chad Trujillo und Michael E. Brown, while looking to the common cycle of the couple Quaoar and Pluto, and their strange gymnastic around the sun, it was obvious to me, that the triples of conjunctions and oppositions are connected with Eddy’s warm climate phases and the triples of squares (90°) are connected to cold climate phases like the so called “Little ice age’ in the Maunder minimum. Simply by folding the heliocentric aspect angles of Quaoar and Pluto at 90° the Geometric Harmonic Index (GHI) was born, and could be compared first with an adapted curve Eddy has outlined in his paper. Especially the two minimum around 1500 CE and 1700 CE are showing precise coincidences with two of the three Square aspects in the cold Maunder minimum, but also the warm times of Rom in the first century CE and the 13th century CE. Because of the strange pattern of this common cycle of Quaoar and Pluto, it is not easy to find the time length of the period. But from ephemeris now available for ±3000 years, a length of 1827 years can be estimated from three cycles in total. It was clear that tide effects we have on earth have mostly the same aspect pattern from sun and moon, as this unknown mechanism. But physicians tell us that the masses and distances are mostly irrelevant for tide effects on the sun surface for such far objects like the couple of Quaoar and Pluto beyond Neptune. Nonetheless it is well known that, because an opposition of the couple of Sun and Moon results in the very same way as a conjunction of the couple for the height of the tide mostly two times daily, this halves the length of the period down to 913.5 years, and comes near to the estimated cycle length of roughly 1000 years, which J. A. Eddy has seen from the 14C data. Also two of the three maximum values in the GHI are appearing in the 22nd and 23rd century, from conjunction aspects of Quaoar and Pluto. “
After N.S. has stated that his cycle gymnastic is limited on a ~60 year cycle because of no acceptable proxies for longer times, he now cames up with a 983 year sinusoid function pasting in phase to known 2k year proxies.
I have prepared some weeks ago a comparison graph for Frederik Ljungqvist:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/comparison_ghi_l.jpg
and shown here for nothing.
I have given up to explain ad nausem why this math gymnastic is hobby handycraft but not a valid method of science.
It is not my point to discuss anathema disciplines in science here; it’s just to understand some ideas from history http://doormann.tripod.com/astroclima.htm (mostly German)
It is not my thing to speak here as guest on an integer behavior, but it is not my understanding of respect and discussion culture.
Have fun with his stuff.
V.
Is the inverse relationship considered? (I can’t read the entire article on my phone.) Have similiar cyclical solar influences driven mass and orbits over time in addition to climate changes?
When I plug the values for mass (m1=sun), (m2=planet) and radius (distance from planet to sun) I get Jupiter as having the largest gravitational force followed by Venus, then Jupiter then Earth. I didn’t check the radius or mass values for accuracy, but the force from Jupiter would seem to be greater than any other planet by a factor of 10 times. Also I did the calculations in Excel so not sure what happens when you use these very large numbers.
Planet Force (N) Ratio of Jupiter to Other planets
Jupiter 4.21E+29 1.0000
Saturn 3.75E+28 0.0890
Neptune 6.80E+26 0.0016
Uranus 1.42E+27 0.0034
Earth 3.59E+28 0.0852
Venus 5.60E+28 0.1331
Mars 1.66E+27 0.0039
Mercury 1.32E+28 0.0314
Pluto 4.82E+22 0.0000
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:50 am
“There are things not worth discussing. All has already been said about this subject.”
Not really, Leif. The discussion just started.
Looks DOA to me. You might put it back on life support by publishing the reviews you got for the first version.
Agreed, Milankovitch cycles has nothing to do with the Sun.
Tom in Florida says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:37 am
Newtons law of attraction explains the gravitational influence between Earth and Jupiter. Because both masses are taken into consideration, the force will be much less for the Earth given its mass is six orders of magnitude less than the sun.
F = G*m1*m2/r^2
So if my numbers are correct the force between Jupiter and Sun versus Jupiter and Earth is 4.1E+29 versus 1.94E+24 (N) or 217,000 times higher for Jupiter-Sun.
Leif Svalgaard,
“The paper is crap and based on cyclomanic derivations”.
Sometimes one has to put up with a great deal of ridicule to jolt science out of a rut. Poor Wegman endured some really vile treatment before people realised he was right and by then it was too late to apologize.
Those “better journals” you mention (e.g. Nature?) regularly publish junk science based on dendrochronology or models based on CO2 driving global climate.
No matter that the tree-mometers defy history, ice core records and much more. No matter that the CGMs have no hindcasting skill or predictive skill.
Lief,
I forgot to thank you for that interesting information on measuring doppler shift on large stars.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm
“Looks DOA to me. ”
Not to me, Leif. Not to many people.
Try to be more humble in the future, your criticism was filled with ludicrous statements.
@Carsten Arnholm, Norway
>…The Moon is approximately 0.0025 AU from the Earth.
>I believe the tallest tidal wave on the Sun is in the order of 1mm high.
+++++++++++
Is that if the sun were a liquid? What if it were a tenuous gas? More than 1 mm? What if it built up harmonically for a few thousand years?
First there are resonant waves which build up as Jupiter and Saturn align then depart. The whole point about resonant waves is they are much higher than they would be if the gravitational pull was suddenly exerted once. So, everyone calculating 0.06% of the Earth-moon stuff….it is not only about the strength of the pull, it is about the resonance. Further, it may be the influence on the magnetic system of the sun, and that of course affects the heliosphere, which affects the protection from GRC, which affects the rate of cosmic ray impact on Earth’s atmosphere, which affects cloud formation, which powerfully affects temperature.
It was once considered that the Earth’s climate system was completely determined internally. By now the effect of solar activity is agreed, through the indirect mechanism of the heliosphere (perhaps other things too, but apparently not so much the TSI value). So what is the next level of openmindness? If we find the large planets are capable of shaking the sun up a little in a rhythmic fashion, how long would we have to wait for recognition of this reality?
Large planets ‘pulling together’ cyclically
=> gravitational jerking around of the sun, (an object perhaps akin to a marble – the heavy centre – floating in the middle of a balloon where the balloon gets moved with respect to the marble)
=> undescribed mechanism because no one is sure
=> variation in the magnetic field strength of the sun
=> change in the radius of the heliosphere
=> change in the GCR flux hitting the Earth
=> change in cloud cover and duration
=> change in global temperature
Is this really so difficult to follow? The correlation is a heck of a lot better than some mumbo-jumbo from climate models predicting more water vapour in the stratosphere that turns out not to be there.
Hi Willis,
I do take your analysis on this (and other issues as well) very serious.
But, Scafetta is trying to find a relationship, with numbers that are between certain values. Isn’t that the same problem as when one is to find relationships with solar cycles, which also do not have a really fixed period of time?
In my earlier post I used km instead of m. My apologies.
F = G*m1*m2/r^2, mass in Kg and distance in meters, F in Newtons.
Jupiter #1
Saturn #2
(The % is the ratio of planet’s to Jupiter’s effect on Sun)
Jupiter 4.21E+23 100.000%
Saturn 1.26E+23 29.941%
Neptune 2.27E+22 5.395%
Uranus 1.92E+22 4.572%
Earth 1.32E+21 0.315%
Venus 1.08E+21 0.256%
Mars 1.42E+20 0.034%
Mercury 7.32E+19 0.017%
Pluto 2.77E+18 0.001%
Earth-Jupiter 1.84E+19 N or 22,900 times less than Sun-Jupiter attraction
If Jupiter and Saturn were in alignment the Force could be 130% versus 70%. Assuming that the force is not negligible this would be a huge change (almost a doubling of the net force).
Professor Scafetta you might consider that with the cyclical nature of earth’s obliquity that the solar insolation available is being modulated by another factor which may go a long way to explaining why planetary motion affects earth’s climate. Based on what we now know about the cosmic ray link to cloud formation in regards to the solar wind’s output shielding the solar system from galactic cosmic rays, maybe we have over looked a more mechanistic explanation here.
Since the earth’s obliquity varies from 22.1 to 24.5 degree (regulated by the moon) does it not stand to reason that the earth’s magnetosphere ALSO positions itself relative to the sun in the same angle? If so, is it not reasonable to expect that different angles of magnetosphere orientations have greater or lesser shielding values to galactic cosmic rays? Hence as the magnetosphere decreases in orientation to the sun MORE galactic cosmic rays are allowed to strike the earth’s atmosphere inducing greater cloud cover. It may be causation that satisfies Anthony’s #2 correlation you have documented.
comparisons with other stellar systems where the effects are calculated to be millions of times stronger
Forget this old red herring. The point is Jupiter is accelerating parts of the object it is orbiting, mainly Earth and Venus. Then the rest of the object, the Sun, has to counter that acceleration.
So when looking at other systems, is there a large planet AND smaller inner planet(s)?
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Not to many people
Sure, you have your sycophants among the unwashed masses.
But, show us what the reviewers said.
Crispin in Johannesburg says:
March 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm
gravitational jerking around of the sun
Not even Nicola believes this. The planets do not jerk the Sun around, nor the other way around. All bodies are in free fall in the solar system [Galaxy, Universe] and feel no forces [except tides] just like an astronaut on a spacewalk is not jerked around by the very massive Earth just a hundred miles below.
To Crispin in Jo’burg:
Do not believe Leif, he knows about the Sun but nothing about planetary orbits.
The orbits are not a free fall but describe difficult spirals as all astronomers
know (“jerking in space”) except Leif….he urgently need some introductory
lectures on astronomy…
just to quote from an astronomical website about the Earth’s orbit; “is having J-2
cross track motion equations of a harmonic oscillator….” and not like a motion
when Leif drops his wine glass….sorry to say…
JS
Leif Svalgaard says: March 21, 2012 11:42 am
“There are things not worth discussing. All has already been said about this subject.”
Not really, Leif. The discussion just started.
MMMM … Almost sounds like the science is settled???
We seem to have evidence that the Earth has been in a cycle of relatively long glaciation timespans interspersed with relatively short interglacials.
There are many arguements about the cause for this.
Landscheidt’s work is one attempt to find some reason.
Like it or not it seems equally credible to “greenhouse gases” creating energy, cold objects warming warmer objects, trapping energy permanently, solar insolation is one quarter of the solar constant, there is a solar “constant”, getting the factor of four wrong, relying on models which disagree with observation, faking model’s mistakes, adjusting the temperature records, ignoring urban heat island effects, making obviously outrageous predictions based on no evidence, ignoring same outrageous predictions when they fail and trying to hide them, etc etc.
Perhaps Landscheidt did favour his hypothesis but he has at least a few “runs” on the board while the IPCC is still batting zero.
His prediction from 2004 was that the Earth would cool to a major minimum around 2030. The only “stay” to this cooling will be ElNino events, however he suggested LaNina will become the norm and ElNino will be weak or non-existent.
From 2009\2010 Australia has followed his prediction with a return to very wet events (LaNina brings rain to Eastern Australia) three years in a row and we’re still in the middle of one in mid Autumn 2012 – it ought to be easing off now, it ought to be easing off now…..
Another few years ought to demonstrate if his predictive value is real – even if you disagree with his hypothesis.
But it makes as much sense as what is promoted by the IPCc – especially the line that the CO2 already in the atmosphere will prevent a return to glaciation. This has not been observed in the past proxies BUT would certainly be more beneficial than harmful if it were possible – provided we don’t burn in hellfire first.
Robert Brown says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:27 am
Thanks, Robert. OK, I’ll bite. What scientific value is there is projecting three cycles with the following lengths:
a) kind of the same length as an average of the spring tidal period of “Jupiter and Saturn” (presumably combined, although Jupiter is way larger than Saturn), but actually different.
b) a length that may or may not be associated to a quasi 11-year solar dynamo cycle but who knows, and
c) the sidereal period of Jupiter.
You’ll have to point out the scientific value in that, because I can’t see it.
Bear in mind that last time we heard from Scafetta he was loudly insisting that one of the crucial cycles was (2X + Y) / 4, with X and Y being lunar precessions … but now that cycle has disappeared entirely, I guess the moon is no longer in ascendancy … science at its finest.
Where’s the value?
w.
timebandit says:
March 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Actually, in Scafetta’s work it’s the lack of science that’s settled …
w.
timebandit says:
March 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Not really, Leif. The discussion just started.
You are way too late for the boat. It sailed long ago.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 21, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Last time Dr. Scafetta was loudly insisting that one of the critical cycles was (2X + Y)/4, where X and Y were lunar precession cycles. Now, that’s all disappeared entirely … the Moon vanishes, and you call that a “smallish effect”?
If a an approximately 9 year cycle is off by a tenth of a year, in two millennia that adds up to a couple hundred years difference in the result … how is that a “smallish effect”?
Sure, you are welcome to overlook all of that and acclaim Dr. Scafetta as the new scientific messiah.
Me, I pay attention to the details as well as the large picture. When a man trades in the Moon for the spring tides of Jupiter and Saturn, I tend to notice …
w.
Willis, no getting excited….. a true scientist sometimes overshoots, this may be
the case with the Moon…..trial and error in virgin lands where nobody has ploughed
yet, or if, then only by light scratching on the surface…….
but here its different: He found the rich mine, the 60 year cycle,…..
let him drop the smallish stuff and let him concentrate on the heavy guns…..
Let the Moon watchers also do some contribution: Moon&CLIMATE, good topic….
We should not overload Nick Scafetta so he can stay in shape and focus on the
big stuff…..
Cheers JS
Steve from Rockwood says:
March 21, 2012 at 12:56 pm
When I plug the values for mass (m1=sun), (m2=planet) and radius (distance from planet to sun) I get Jupiter as having the largest gravitational force followed by Venus, then Jupiter then Earth. I didn’t check the radius or mass values for accuracy, but the force from Jupiter would seem to be greater than any other planet by a factor of 10 times.
As long as it is a fact that heliocentric synodic double frequencies of 6.3 oscillations per calendar year from the couple of Mercury and Earth effects the global sea level oscillations with the same frequency, you (and other) can learn that Sir Newton’s gravitation idea has nothing to do with the relations between solar synodic functions and the sea level oscillations.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/Sea_level_vs_solar_tides1.htm
This becomes also clear, because far distance small bodies like Quaorar and Pluto or Neptune have the main impact on the terrestrial climate magnitudes.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi2_x.jpg
So called heliocentric ‘tide functions’ showing tide like geometries, but that does not mean that Sir Newton’s gravitation, what ever that is, must be the cause for the relation. Moreover it is not compatible with the observed real geometries.
It should be discussed why tide like solar functions from objects with high densities despite of a far or near distance can explain terrestrial climate functions and frequencies and phases.
Newton is dead.
V.