Claim: Five climate-forcing mechanisms govern 20,000 years of climate change

FOREWORD: I don’t agree with many of the claims made in this paper, particularly the retrograde tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle claims. This is not a peer reviewed paper. That said, I’m willing to allow discussion of it, so be skeptical of these claims and force the authors to defend the work.  As the author writes:

All open-minded readers are invited to discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of this theory or to falsify it.

There’s a summary PDF here. – Anthony

Guest post by Joachim Seifert,

In our new study (PDF), which we introduce here for discussion, we identify five macro-climatic mechanisms that govern a long time span of 20,000 years. In order to “govern”, they have to comply with two basic requisites: (1) clear visibility in paleo-climate proxy records and (2) continuous presence or multiple recurrence in a longer than one millennium time frame.

The state of the art in climate-forcing mechanism analysis is that presently available General Circulation Models (GCMs) underperform substantially in terms of predictive power, showing significant mismatches and model deficiencies in model-data comparisons.  This may not surprise when macro-forcing mechanisms were substituted by coupled micro- and nano-forcings and feedbacks. It is evaluated in the literature that all GCMs perform well for the first 500 years backwards from the present, but then lack skill for the previous 9,500 Holocene years. This is critical for climate models, as they have also to show their validity on time frames of more than 1,000 years.


Our study proceeds with the selection of 10,000 years of the entire Holocene interglacial and, for comparison, of another 10,000 years of a purely glacial time span (37,000-27,000 BP). For the purpose of identifying macro-forcing mechanisms, we use the GISP2 record due to its high time and temperature resolution and its visibility of macro- and micro-temperature swings.

The presented climate-forcing study considers the effects of Milankovitch cycles, atmospheric CO2-concentrations, Solar Inertial Motions (SIM), the retrograde tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle, and of two major mechanisms, the Earth Orbit Oscillation (EOO) and the Cosmic Impact Oscillation (CIO).

After detrending the GISP2 data according to SIM and Milankovitch cycles, the EOO and CIO remain as dominant climate drivers. Both the two EOO and CIO cycles act as solar amplifiers: They do not act by increasing overall solar output, but they vary Earth-Sun distances, thus increasing or decreasing energy input received on Earth.

Detailed mechanisms for both oscillations are provided; their calculation methods are pointed out. The Holocene proves to be highly CIO disturbed over 8,000 years, whereas the 37-27k years BP time period remains CIO-calm with just one CIO-event to be noted.

As shown in the picture presented (above), the climate of the 37-27k period is overwhelmingly governed by the Earth Orbit Oscillation. We permit remaining small to medium deviations of the EOO from the GISP2 curve to undergo GCM-analysis for identifying and attributing micro- and nano-drivers in coupled systems. The EOO oscillation cycle is a continuously occurring mechanism. By knowledge of its dynamics, we are able to reconstruct the EOO cycle line from 37-27 ka BP, as displayed in the graphics.  Comparison of the reconstruction line to GISP2 data yields an accurate curve match. Only one minor CIO impact event occurred at 31,000 BP. By knowing impact date and energy, we were able to reconstruct the missing EOO oscillation peak.

Concerning the most interesting time span of 10,000 years Holocene: We were able to identify 13 CIO events out of 24, which, according to impact mechanism dynamics, must send Holocene temperatures steeply down after each impact event. As the Earth orbital line oscillates, temperature recoveries follow after each cold temperature peak. The striking feature of this recovery pattern consists of a higher solar energy yield and higher GISP2 temperatures compared to the temperature level given for the date of any impact. We demonstrate this important feature in detail, because it remains left out in present GCMs, another modeling deficiency and obvious cause for GCM model-data mismatches.

The 37-27 ka BP period, as presented in the graphic, can easily be reconstructed based on the calculated EOO cycle combined with one minor CIO impact. The same applies to the Holocene, which can easily be reconstructed based on the course of the EOO cycle, and then enhanced with the superimposition of given 13 random CIO events.

Concluding the study, we zoom in onto EOO and CIO forcing of the past 3,000 years (1,000 BC to present) and provide an outlook onto forcing mechanisms, which are expected to act within the future 500 years. The GISP2 proxy temperature curve and macro-forcing mechanisms are compared to the Hockey Stick temperature evolution pattern.

Details of demonstrated astro-climatic relations are as of today, 2012, new and original climate change knowledge. The IPCC has not been able to provide supplementary data on cycle mechanics. The identification of 5 macro-climatic drivers, missing in current GCMs, unmistakably proves that climate science is not settled yet. One missing driver may be excused, but not five. The notion of “The science is settled”, upheld since the days of Galileo, is a spiritual relict of the past.

The paper is available here. Again, this is new knowledge, a new view on what drives climate in the long run. All open-minded readers are invited to discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of this theory or to falsify it. Productive criticism, in other words.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Science Magazine has a book review that seems to be applicable here:
Comparison with the paper presented on WUWT may disqualify me as on of “All open-minded readers”.

J Martin

And the projection is … ??

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

Wow, within ten minutes I learned of two things that will have equal importance in my life: this paper; and Win 8 will be released in about a month, just in time for Christmas.
BTW, save yourself now and Abandon the Dark Side.

Thank you, Anthony for giving us and all your (and our peer -) blogger
community the possibility to participate in new knowledge. We, the
authors, hope, that all bloggers will download the paper and read it
slow and carefully over the weekend in their armchairs at home, having
made up their minds by Monday or Tuesday…..
We are interested in starting an ‘interactive open discussion’, which
is part of an ‘open review process’ and which we see as necessary
to better the climate discussion which, as everybody of us is aware,
decreased in quality over the years.
We evaluate our climate blogger community as the most concerned
about climate, and not the Alarmist institutes, who are after goverment
grants and million donations from the big insurers, pepping up ‘global
dangers’ and mongering in hype.
We are sure, here on Anthony’s blog, qualified people meet, who
are able to judge, what is new, into which direction research should
go. Yearlong bloggers accumulated a lot of own knowledge and are
not less capable of assessing a paper’s quality than certified professoral
“experts” who, knowing each other (therefore Warmist “peers”) bless each
others “work”. I even think, it is more difficult to stand up against peer
bloggers then against comrade Warmist peers…..
We present, for the first time, compact new knowledge on the astro-climatic
relation, shown in 5 forcing mechanisms, which are ALL visible
in paleo-temp proxy records. We know as well that many peer bloggers are
not familiar with the topic.
We are grateful that Anthony and his website provide the opportunity
to learn of new insights…… many things can still be improved, no doubt..
but don’t forget, the paper contains already 18 pages including details graphics,
worth for a detailed look, and expanding the paper with additional ‘missing
topics’ would turn it from a paper into a book, for this reason only we had
to set important aspects aside, such as the SIM motion and the 60-year
Scafetta-cycle, which was, and Anthony pointed in his introduction to it,
a bone of contention, back in February….we will resolve this astronomical
topic in our next paper, 2013. We agree that Anthony will completely stay on
the sideline and that we altogether, all we peers of Anthony, should make an
utmost effort to get to the bottom of climate truth. He fights in Television and
joins us all in a skeptical peer platform. Ourselves, the authors, can help with
humble research and years of work. Now, its time that our peer bloggers
get the microphone and do their peer part……
The authors, J Sei.

To J. Martin: …. In the paper…JS

interesting. I have read through your pdf
I am currently researching a fifty year period each side of 1250 because of the supposed decline towards the LIA that took place around that time, following a volcanic eruption, according to many eminent scholars,
You have 1260 marked as a climate turning point, yet its difficult to see why it deserves the name as according to you (and to my research) nothing much really happened either side of that date. What is your definition of a climate turning point and why does 1260 fit into that definition? Thank you

kadaka (KD Knoebel)


There’s a summary PDF here. – Anthony

How did they wind up with a 4.1MB summary of a 1.5MB paper?
“Summary” is a two-page glossy handout. Unless you’re a fan of sales brochures, might as well go straight to the paper.

This is one of the silliest papers I have read in a long time. How do the authors know that the Santorini eruption was the result of a cosmic impact (news to any geologist), and not just an ordinary, abet large, eruption? Because it coincides with a cooling in the GISP2 record, and the authors have declared that coolings in the GISP2 record can be caused by impacts but not volcanism. This is about a perfectly circular an argument as it is possible to have.
And how do cosmic impacts affect climate? By nudging the earth out of orbit. This new exciting idea should be supported by pages of detailed calculations of conservation of momentum and angular velocity. I am sure that the authors have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which their margin is too narrow to contain.
The authors have clearly not read, or at least not understood any paper using GCMs to reconstruct Holocene climates. The authors claim that GCMs ignore orbital cycles when hindcasting Holocene climate. This is plain wrong. Appropriate orbital parameters are used for models of say early Holocene or LGM climate.
The authors claim that they have a better reconstruction of Holocene climate than available from GCMs. They omit to include this reconstruction in the paper. All they present is a curve fitting exercise for one locality with an indeterminate number of parameters and arbitrary events portrayed as impact events as required.
There are numerous other problems. [snip – keep your hate on other issues to yourself – Anthony]

The scale of the graphs seems a little exaggerated.

Matthew R Marler

The SIO responses do not seem to be well-defined, other than the dates of their starting points. I am reminded of looking for particle tracks in bubble chamber photos. Is there any other information that you can bring to bear on which of the identified responses ought to have had longer durations or larger amplitudes?
I am not willing to class this with Vellikovsky’s work. But the obvious question is: What events of the next 20 years might add credibility to the model (should they occur or not occur) or detract credibility? That is, can the model be tested?

We thank Anthony that he provided his platform to us and the peer
blogger community, which needs to know details of the cosmic-climatic relation.
A lot of us know little of this relation, due to the fact that the atmospherical side of
climate change was inflated over the years, at the same time downplaying
astronomical features.
Now it is time that Anthony’s large and sceptical community will download the paper,
reading it on Sunday with a cup of coffee and respond from Monday on.
Anthony will stay “skeptical” on the sideline, which is good, why should he do what
all peers are supposed to do?
Our paper includes years of analysis work and is consistent in itself. It has already
18 pages, to most of peers, new in details. We anticipate that this or the other peer
appreciate additional detail, but mind, the paper would then turn into a book.
We point out that our paper is superior in accuracy compared to all GCMs (global
circulation models) at present on the market. They all underperform shown in
model-data comparisons and we claim the highest accuracy in reconstructing the
Holocene with all five cosmic climate forcings All of us may check upon the accuracy
of competing institutional GCM climate models, to verify our claim.
We are convinced that we delivered a substantial contribution to climate science.
and all of us, we, Anthony’s peers, are allowed to judge the proposed new knowledge
in climate science
The authors JSei.

Matthew R Marler

oops: substitute CIO for SIO in my remark.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

As seen in the Abstract, one mechanism is Solar Inertial Motion (SIM).
Googling led to an explanation provided in a Q&A with “Ing. Ivanka Charvátová, CSc. from the Geophysical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences (Prague)” posted at Motl’s site, The Reference Frame:

Your field of study in the Geophysical Institute is solar inertial motion (SIM). Could you explain what it is?
It is a movement of the Sun around the barycentre (centre of gravity) of our solar system. This motion is due to the varying position of the planets, especially the giant planets.
Already Sir Isaac Newton in his PRINCIPIA (1687) intuitively came to the following conclusion: “… since that centre of gravity (centre of mass of the solar system) is continually at rest, the Sun, according to the various positions of the planets, must continually move every day, but will never recede far from that centre.” This effect is not insignificant. The Sun moves across an area the size of 4.3 solar radiuses, i.e. 0.02 AU or 3.106 km. As a coincidence, the average solar speed is around 50 km/hr. Just like the speed of a car driving downtown. The first study about SIM was written by P.D. Jose in year 1965.
You are the author of quite a breakthrough in this field of study. What is it?
First I studied the SIM periodicity and in 1987 I came to survey the geometry of this motion. I discovered the solar motion can be classified into two elementary types. Motion along a trefoil-like trajectory governed by the Jupiter-Saturn order. And another motion type which is chaotic. This gave us a precise homogeneous basis, upon which it became possible to study the solar-terrestrial and climatic variability. You may find it comforting that no matter how the Sun wiggles, every 179 years it comes back to a regular trefoil path. It is important to note, that the periods of chaotic motion coincide with the long-term minima in solar activity such as the Wolf Minimum (1270-1350), Spörer Minimum (~1430-1520), Maunder Minimum (~1620-1710) or Dalton Minimum (~1790-1840). During the trefoil periods the ST-phenomena are stable – the sunspot cycles are 10 years long, volcanic activity is muted and in the middle of the trefoil period there is a temperature maximum down here on Earth.

A. How does the barycenter of the solar system matter? Why would the Sun moving “across an area the size of 4.3 solar radiuses” have any meaning? This motion is not with regards to anything larger than the solar system which has an effect worth noting on either the Sun or the solar system. Thus the reference frame is wrong, consider the center of mass of the Sun as fixed with the rest going around it, the effects of the planets and the rest are treated as tidal forces. And stop the inane talk with the Sun and planets twirling together like skaters on ice.
B. As said above, SIM incorporates “Motion… governed by the Jupiter-Saturn order.” The paper has as one mechanism “the retrograde tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle”. Thus “Jupiter-Saturn” is incorporated twice. The SIM mechanism should be broken down, separating the chaotic and “Jupiter-Saturn” parts, with all “Jupiter-Saturn” bits unified.


Dr. Svalgaard, I read your book review, and I must agree that it does not make you look like an open-minded person:
“Gordin does, however, hint at a possi- ble strict line between those dubbed “pseudo- scientists” and those who are ‘denialists’— the latter of which he sees as essentially dis- honest about their work to cloud consensus on issues affecting monied interests, such as big tobacco or big coal.”
Maybe Anthony will take this opportunity to finally come clean about all those big checks “big coal” has been writing him. (That’s sarcasm, folks.)
Contrast this Gordin character with the late Carl Sagan, speaking on the very same subject of Velikovsky’s ideas:


kadaka asks: “How does the barycenter of the solar system matter?”
Mostly it matters because as the Sun orbits around it, the net solar angular momentum changes as the combination with the rotation of the Sun around its own axis.
One might note that this orbit around the barycentre is the exact method used to find extrasolar planets by measuring the doppler effect of the radial component of that motion for other stars.
Though no mechanism has yet (to my knowledge) been established, the smooth transition of the angular momentum curve is disrupted from time to time by the orbital effects of the largest planets, and each time a characteristic ripple occurs we see a Grand Solar Minimum such as the Wolf, Spoerer, Maunder or Dalton.
The analysis of net angular momentum predicted a Grand Minimum starting sometime in the early 2000s, and we’re now seeing the lowest levels of solar wind strength since measurements began some 50 years ago, and the longest solar cycle (23) since the early 1800s. We’re also seeing the warming of the 20th century stagnating, quite possibly because Svensmark and Kirkby might be correct in their hypothesis that the effects of cosmic ray flux changes cloud formation enough to affect the climate.


Argh, I tried to link to 3:53 into the Sagan video. Fast forward to that point for the key difference between Mr. Sagan and Mr. Gordin.

Being only a Simple Red Neck, I am not qualified to speak on the science. However, it is refreshing to see someone put their work up for review by skeptics instead of a self-serving cabal of un-indicted co-conspirators.
I would respectfully suggest to my fellow Gentle Readers that they show a little grace as they wield their hatchets (if indeed that’s what they choose to do). The author has asked for your considered opinion and that would suggest a courteous reply would be in order.
After watching the VP debate last night, I have developed a personal distaste for churlish buffoons.
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)


GlynnMhor says:”the net solar angular momentum changes as the combination with the rotation of the Sun around its own axis.”
Physics is quantitative, not just handwaving. Please give magnitudes for any effects that result.
“the smooth transition of the angular momentum curve is disrupted from time to time by the orbital effects of the largest planets, ”
Total angular momentum is conserved, so if this were true the angular momentum of the planets would have to change, so their orbits would change. Please give data showing that.
Anthony is correct to be skeptical of claims related to planetary motions….

FINALLY….a look without green goggles of our planet as a component in an astronomically varying solar system. I love the use of “micro-forcings” and the [7] “GHG forcing is either too small or free of long term trends.” Inviting public review of this data is a bold move that will make the GHE syncophants very nervous on a number of levels….the entire Carbon forcing and mitigation industry is in immediate danger. I am having a fruitless ‘dialogue’ with a proponent of ‘intervention’ and am ready to introduce a new lexicon….
The term “geo-engineering” is an insult to engineers….henceforth….this effort should be described for what it is….demigods playing omnipotent with grossly inadaquate knowledge….therefore all who support planet wide human intervention are practicing GEO-SORCERY.
[cue the singing fat lady]

(1) BC% 6460,% the% strongest% impact% of% the%
Holocene:% the% “Storegga % impact% slide”% in%
Norway.% Three %impact% craters%in% the%North% Sea%
produced% a %megatsunami,%which% struck%300%km%
of% Norwegian% coastline,%washing% and% sliding% a%

It’s generally accepted the slide caused the tsunami. Not the other way around. We know how high the tsunami was on the coast of Scotland (21 meters) , which is consistent with the slide being the cause. The tsunamis on the Norwegian coast were no more than 10 meters. Again consistent with the slide as the cause. An impact in the North Sea large enough to dislodge the amount of material in the Storrega slide would require a much larger tsunami.
And the slides are 100 Ks and further off the coast. A coastline that doesn’t face the North Sea.
Where are these North Sea impact craters?
If the rest of the paper is as ‘fictional’ as this, then Leif’s Velikovsky comparison is appropriate.

John F. Hultquist

richard telford says:
October 12, 2012 at 2:45 pm
“I am sure that the authors have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which their margin is too narrow to contain.

Hey! You didn’t write that – paraphrasing Pres. B. O.
The original was in Latin by Pierre de Fermat.


I have a lot of problems with this paper.
The biggest one though is that the authors begin by stating that historical TSI reconstructions produce variations of only 3 w/m2 which are insufficient to explain temperature variations over the same time period. Then they go on to explain it must be effects of the Milankovitch cycle, the Solar Inertial Motion, and the Earth Orbit Oscillation.
Well these are all things that could only cause a change in earth’s temperature by changing the TSI! Since the paper states that the TSI variation are too small, the only conclusion one can draw (provided that they are correct on this matter) is that these things do NOT affect the temperature of the earth enough to explain the earth’s temperature variation.
I think there are some interesting points made in the paper, I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but the central premise of the paper seems to contradict its own evidence.

Tim Clark

“Steamboat Jack says:
October 12, 2012 at 4:23 pm”
Well said.

There is one major fault with this paper, there is no short term EOO (earth orbit oscillation) that has any measurable impact on climate or sun/earth distances. This is similar to the debunked solar chord theory (Bailey) which wrongly suggests the Earth orbits the SSB instead of the Sun. JPL data shows the perihelion/aphelion distances only vary by a maximum of 15000 kilometers over many thousands of years. The full debunking and graphs available in a previous article.
Interesting that this and Bailey’s contribution both have a profit based book in the background.

P. Solar

As someone pointed out earlier the idea of Earth orbit being disrupted is pretty radical and needs to be backed up by at least some basic calculations before it can be given any credibility at all. I class it as being hair-brained until I see something much more convincing.
Accepting that these impacts are correctly identified (not certain) and that a major impact causes drastic cooling, which seems accepted in principal, a more credible explanation for the rebound over-shoot (as opposed to simple recovery to pre-impact temps) is the presence of a strong negative feedback in the climate system accompanied by the induced changes having some kind of “inertia”.
That kind of overshoot is typical of a damped oscillator’s response to a sudden change is state.
Temp change itself does not have inertia but whatever climatic changes are involved may well have a persistence that could cause that kind of effect.
Having promised J-S cycles and SIM , they get little more than passing comment. Disappointing.
I have long suspected that volcanoes are climate neutral due to such climatic rebound. Major volcanoes are usually followed about 6 years later by a warmer period. I suggested that this was visible in Bob Tisdale’s recent ENSO graphs if he omitted the unwarranted ‘detrending’.
Climatic rebound would be a more credible hypothesis than the wobbly orbit proposition.

P. Solar

repeatedly referring to this as “new knowledge” is a bit presumptuous. New ideas may be more accurate.


Davidmhoffer suggests: “… historical TSI reconstructions produce variations of only 3 w/m2 which are insufficient to explain temperature variations over the same time period…”
TSI, though, accounts only for the output of the Sun, and not for the effects that changing solar actity has on the atmosphere.


The whole problem with most of the arguments presented here is that boxes have been draw by so called “open-minded readers and presenters” and they define anyone who dares to think outside these self-constructed boxes as insane nuts who are not worthy of a moments consideration.
Yes, it is true that there are people who do not use rigorous scientific principles and logic to try explain the world around them and yes, they are annoying and it would make life much easier if they would shut up.
However, some of these so-called “close-minded readers” are actually using sound scientific principles and logic to point to a phenomenon that may [and I emphasis the word may] be worthy of further (reasoned) consideration and study.
Imagine that you were an alien who was observing Earth for the first time. After a period of observation, you noticed that many people who coughed also had brown stained fingers and yellow teeth. You might come to the (erroneous) conclusion that having brown stained fingers and yellow teeth might actually cause people to cough.
Imagine that when you presented your finding back on your alien home-world, you were laughed off the podium by fellow scientists who told you that there was no physical reason why brown finger and yellow teeth could cause coughing in humans. Not only that, you were told that if you even mentioned the topic of humans coughing and colored human anatomy again you would be driven from the hallowed halls of scientific discourse.
Now the question arises, who gains and who loose from this blanket ban on discussing this “sensitive” topic.
Those who gain are the people who are the self-appointed “gatekeepers of Science” who genuinely feel they have once again rescued the scared realm of scientific discussion from the vile stench of pseudo-science.
Those who loose are those who have a genuine interest in understanding why so many humans cough. It may be true that brown stained-fingers and yellow teeth does not cause humans to cough but there is the possibility that having brown fingers and yellow teeth may point to a third factor that is actually causing humans to cough excessively (e.g. the fact that many of the people who cough also smoke cigarettes).
The same is true of the topic of SIM (solar inertial motion) and the Earth’s climate. Couldn’t it be just possible that a third phenomenon (not necessarily directly related to SIM) that just happens to vary on time-scales that match is having an influence on our climate? Or should we do what our scientific gatekeepers ask and make this a taboo topic which must never see the light of day?
One of these two choices may lead to scientific progress while the other just makes the self-appointed gate-keepers feel good. I’ll let you guess which one does which.

anna v

I am with Leif on this and cannot be open minded in discussing this analysis. The only meaning that the motions relative to the barycenter can have is as a type of clock, a time measuring machine. The barycenter is just a very useful point to describe the whole planetary system with respect to the galaxy, in larger frameworks:
The barycenter has no mass and no meaning for the forces appearing within a planetary system; it is just a parametrization, as the geocentric system is just a parametrization of the planetary system. It makes no sense to discuss angular momenta etc in the barycenter system as in the geocentric system.
I will also agree with the criticism that any many parameter periodic system of functions can be used to analyze/parametrize , a la Fourier transform , any mathematical function, but will point out that using Fourier analysis is standard practice and nobody worries about the origins of the underlying function or the meaning of the sines and cosines if the fit is useful.
The value of this work will lie in predictions for the future where it will be validated as a useful parametrization or not.


dalek suggrsts: “Total angular momentum is conserved…”
The changes in angular momentum of the planets change the angular momentum of the Sun.
As seen in the link below.
I do not claim that the mechanism is well established, but the predictive ability of the hypothesis considerably exceeds that of the AGW alarmism.
More particularly the effects of angular momentum have observable consequences for overall solar activity. Not merely TSI, which is close to invariate, but for cosmic ray changes discernable in the Be10 record:
And changes in cloud cover, driven by cosmic ray variation, itself modulated by solar activity, are referred to in the various IPCC Reports as ‘poorly understood’ .


But, there is no reason that cycles have to be of a fixed constant and that they may not grow in their
Well they just contradicted the definition of a cycle. There is reason to claim cycles have a fixed period and amplitude and oscillate around a fixed point. It’s a definition.
After this it’s just gets worse by arbitrarily assigning random peaks to a supposed period. Somehow if there is a period marker and no corresponding peak, no problem.
Anthony is right to suspect this paper comes from crank land.

anna v

p.s. to my previous : as there are such a great number (13) cosmic impacts needed in the holocene I will also state that it is not a very good map either for future predictions. One would need to predict the impacts to get any predictivity.
Von Neuman is attributed with the saying : Give me four parameters and I will fit an elephant, give me five and it will wave its ears.


“The changes in angular momentum of the planets change the angular momentum of the Sun.”
Yes. But since angular momentum is conserved, the changes in the sun and changes in the planets’ angular momenta are equal and opposite. So where are the changes in the planet’s orbits?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

From LazyTeenager on October 12, 2012 at 8:47 pm:

Well they just contradicted the definition of a cycle. There is reason to claim cycles have a fixed period and amplitude and oscillate around a fixed point. It’s a definition.

There could be frequency modulation. You clearly have cycles but the period is not fixed.
That is something I wonder about when seeing the curve fitting attempts to the SSN. They’ll vary the amplitude modulation fit, but while the variation of longer and shorter cycles is visible they don’t try a frequency modulation fit. People trained in signal processing looking for a signal in the solar cycles, don’t think to try FM?


jimmi asks: “So where are the changes in the planet’s orbits?”
It’s not the orbits of the planets that make a difference to solar activity, but rather disruptions in the smooth flow of changes in the orbit of the Sun.


Having discovered that LazyTeenager is disparaging the paper, I decided to give it another chance.
Sorry, but it gets no better with time. In brief, there’s a buncha stuff that sorta kinda correlates to a bunch of other stuff, but there is no physical process to connect them together. The one thing that could in theory tie them together is TSI, which the paper itself says is not of large enough magnitude to explain the temperature variations they are trying to correlate to. Even worse, the paper essentially begins by proposing the existance of 5 long term forcings, and then pretty much finds them by excluding anything that doesn’t match them so that all that is left is data that does match.
This is akin to standing on the side of a highway, certain that by analyzing the traffic patterns, one can discern the inner workings of a combustion engine. Sorry to be so negative, I think some of the criticisms of the models are fair, but the paper presents a theory that simply has no merit.

Until the authors can provide data to substantiate the Earth Orbit Oscillation and the SIM effect on the Holocene there is no point discussing this paper. The EOO data is only available if you buy their book?

So much information to process, and as usual so little time to do it in.
Colour me sceptical on the impacts. The analysis appears to use some circular logic, ie. saying wiggles show there must have been an impact, and then saying the impact explains the wiggles. Apologies to the authors if I have misinterpreted this, but it does seem to be lacking in rigour.
On the planetary cycles,however, we have something extraordinarily interesting, Leif’s dismissal notwithstanding. There appears to be no possible mechanism, yet the solar minima do seem to line up with the planetary cycle. It looks like the ‘next’ solar minimum (as in Maunder, Dalton, etc) was due to start a decade or more ago, with the low Earth temperatures starting within a very few years at most. So it appears that, unlike most climate science, Earth is about to provide us with the experiment that can disprove the theory. Thus far the theory seems to be on track, with a very long solar cycle #23, a weak #24, and the Ap index falling off a cliff in 2005. We shall see. Of course, it could all be caused by something else with the same ~170yr cycle length.


Give me four free parameters and I will fit an elephant. Give me the fifth parameter, and the elephant will be wading his tail.

Mike Jonas says:
October 12, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Thus far the theory seems to be on track, with a very long solar cycle #23, a weak #24, and the Ap index falling off a cliff in 2005. We shall see. Of course, it could all be caused by something else with the same ~170yr cycle length.
Yes, but the planet correlations in respect to angular momentum theory (which is quite different to the paper questioned in this post) go back at least 5000 years. Wolff and Patrone have provided one mechanism that has so far not been rebutted via any paper.

P. Solar

It is interesting to note in relation to suggested pseudo-cyclic variations of ~170y and ~60y that these are essentially the frequencies that characterise the met office Hadley processing and ‘bias corrections’.
Subtracting hadSST3 from it’s source data in ICOADS and fitting a two cosine model find 67 and 184y cycles both peaking around year 2000. from the article here
That does not mean that affecting cycles was their intended outcome but since the size and timing of the adjustments are largely hypothetical rather than observation based it may be a result of underlying assumptions that causes the processing to remove these longer cycles or some unexpected result of their data processing.
From the discussion that followed with John Kennedy, it seems they had never looked at what effects their processing was having on the frequency content of the data.
Part of the process involves projecting the “climatology” (mean seasonal variations) of 1960-1990 period onto the pre-war part of the record, any deviation is then considered to be a measurement “bias” and is removed.
There is no discussion of why the annual variations of that period should be of the same magnitude as those of the arbitrary reference period, it is apparently so ‘obvious’ it does not need proof or justification.
In any case the net effect is the removal of the long cycles from the SST record.

P. Solar

PS. It is possible that the Hadley processing has inadvertently _detected_ the nature of the long term variations by their implicit assumptions that there aren’t any.


anna v says:
October 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm
“The barycenter has no mass and no meaning for the forces appearing within a planetary system; it is just a parametrization, as the geocentric system is just a parametrization of the planetary system. It makes no sense to discuss angular momenta etc in the barycenter system as in the geocentric system.”
Tidal forces could influence the internal oscillations of the “solar dynamo”.

wayne Job

So far the alarmist side of science for climate change has been some what lacking in predictive skill. This would indicate that their models and ideas are not particularly cosher and new ideas are needed. That our little blue planet seems to respond to a repeating climate change with a sine wave type frequency would indicate that the cause is external and although you can not set your watch to it. The change happens with a regularity that can only be a cycle of either our solar system or our galaxy or both. This study one of many by people over a long period are trying to come to terms with some very complex interactions. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water.
That science has failed to explain the basic forces and their interactions makes the task very difficult, and looking at patterns and cycles, and, trying to make sense of them is all we do.

J Martin

Geoff. Presumably this is the link you omitted to give when you mentioned Wolff & Patrone.

Vince Causey

Not sure I understand what the difference is between Milankovich cycles and Earth Orbit Oscillations. I thought Milankovich was about the changes to the Earths orbit?

As I’ve pointed out before, for those folks distressed at “no mechanism” and at the barycenter orbit changes not mattering (and in keeping with the stained fingers model 😉 there is a lunar tidal cycle that explains the connection. As orbital resonance locks various things in fairly fixed relationships, the lunar tidal cycles match the planetary / SIM cycles (as the planetary movements determine orbital resonance timing). That’s enough to be the ‘mechanism’ and explain why solar variations can’t be causal, yet are coincident.
No, not proven… but peer reviewed:
The same orbital mechanics “issues” also moves the earth into / out of the center of the swarm of debris that make up the Taurids, so also could be modulating atmospheric dust and impact events directly as well.
Basically “the all go together when they go” so you will get all sorts of “correlations” that are not causal. Yet the lunar / tidal cycle has a clear mechanism and tie to shifting cold water / overturning currents in the oceans. Wiggle matching will not sort it out, and there is the potential for each effect to be “too small” yet in concert sufficient. Thus we risk serial elimination and the fallacy of ignoring the whole by dismissing all the parts individually.
OK, commenting without reading the paper, but it’s very late at night so likely Sunday before I’ll have time. From the summary here, I’m concerned about “double booking” SIM / Earth motion and ‘wiggle matching without mechanism’ along with the potential for “double booking” the planet cycles as well. (Triple booking?).

P. Solar

anna v says:
October 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm
“The barycenter has no mass and no meaning for the forces appearing within a planetary system; it is just a parametrization
As is the centre of the Earth-Moon system , yet the two rotate about their common centre of gravity. One of the two daily tides is a centrifugal effect with respect to rotation about this point.
So I guess tides have no meaning and are also just parametrisations.

Is there any independent evidence for this Cosmic Impact Oscillation? Something like craters dated to the times?
In the absence of that, it just looks like something thrown in to make the graphs turn at the right times.

Reply to James Cross: What you suggest, is the typical AGW-science, we stay
away from those methods….. Please read the cosmic impact chapter, all info is given,
There are historical accounts over the past 3,000 years….. the impact science
is still young, as I wrote, in public memory, impact consequences are (almost) forgotten,
who in Alexandria today remembers the AD 365 impact megatsunami, which wiped
the town from the map?
What we need is high accuracy impact field dating to identify the remaining impacts,
because, as I also pointed out, the are more then 10 impacts outstanding
Get into detail reading, check Wikipedia and other sources first and question me


Re Charvátová “….discovered the solar motion can be classified into two elementary types. Motion along a trefoil-like trajectory governed by the Jupiter-Saturn order…..”
She discovered the sun cycles between these two types of SIM at regular intervals. One type is very smooth trefoil type curves, the other is more chaotic.
It seems to me that ‘tugs’ away from a regular motion could perhaps have ‘internal effects’ on the sun (ie, “shaken, not stirred”).
Is it possible this affects the sun’s output (energy, cosmic rays)? Has any such cyclic change been detected?
It would seem likely if there is any significance in SIM that it is its effect on the sun itself that matters, as the earth will maintain its position in relation to an earth/sun barycenter which is very close to the center of the sun.
The only conceivable alternative might be that little ‘tugs’ on the earth’s orbit somehow affect airflows in the atmosphere, and tides in the oceans. (Oh yes, and IIRC, Charvátová also posited some relationship with volcanic eruptions… also plausible?…. small gravitational ‘tugs’?)