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, www.climateprediction.eu

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.

clip_image002

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
347 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 12, 2012 12:56 pm

Science Magazine has a book review that seems to be applicable here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Science-2012-Velikovsky.pdf
Comparison with the paper presented on WUWT may disqualify me as on of “All open-minded readers”.

J Martin
October 12, 2012 1:08 pm

And the projection is … ??

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 12, 2012 1:56 pm

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.

October 12, 2012 1:57 pm

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.

October 12, 2012 2:00 pm

To J. Martin: …. In the paper…JS

climatereason
Editor
October 12, 2012 2:03 pm

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
tonyb

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 12, 2012 2:21 pm

Question:

There’s a summary PDF here. – Anthony

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

October 12, 2012 2:45 pm

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]

October 12, 2012 2:49 pm

The scale of the graphs seems a little exaggerated.

Matthew R Marler
October 12, 2012 3:11 pm

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?

October 12, 2012 3:15 pm

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
October 12, 2012 3:17 pm

oops: substitute CIO for SIO in my remark.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 12, 2012 3:42 pm

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:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/06/interview-is-climate-change-caused-by.html

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.

NotSure
October 12, 2012 3:55 pm

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:

GlynnMhor
October 12, 2012 4:00 pm

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.
http://www.landscheidt.info/
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.

NotSure
October 12, 2012 4:11 pm

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.

October 12, 2012 4:23 pm

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.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

jimmi_the_dalek
October 12, 2012 4:42 pm

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….

October 12, 2012 4:58 pm

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]

October 12, 2012 6:19 pm

List%of%CI+events:
(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%
large%mass%of%coastline%rock%into%the%water.

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
October 12, 2012 6:45 pm

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.
http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/xpage/FermatsLastTheorem.html

davidmhoffer
October 12, 2012 6:49 pm

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
October 12, 2012 6:53 pm

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

October 12, 2012 6:55 pm

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.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/200
Interesting that this and Bailey’s contribution both have a profit based book in the background.

P. Solar
October 12, 2012 7:02 pm

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
October 12, 2012 7:56 pm

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

GlynnMhor
October 12, 2012 8:39 pm

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.

Ninderthana
October 12, 2012 8:42 pm

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
October 12, 2012 8:43 pm

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.

GlynnMhor
October 12, 2012 8:46 pm

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.
http://www.landscheidt.info/
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:
http://www.landscheidt.info/
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’ .

LazyTeenager
October 12, 2012 8:47 pm

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
October 12, 2012 9:04 pm

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.

jimmi_the_dalek
October 12, 2012 9:25 pm

“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)
October 12, 2012 9:30 pm

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?

GlynnMhor
October 12, 2012 9:36 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
October 12, 2012 10:23 pm

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.

October 12, 2012 11:12 pm

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?

Editor
October 12, 2012 11:22 pm

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.

alex
October 13, 2012 12:14 am

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

October 13, 2012 12:33 am

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
October 13, 2012 2:35 am

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.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/hadsst3-cosine-fit1.png from the article here
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/#comment-188237
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
October 13, 2012 2:48 am

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.

DirkH
October 13, 2012 4:01 am

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
October 13, 2012 4:11 am

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
October 13, 2012 4:17 am

Geoff. Presumably this is the link you omitted to give when you mentioned Wolff & Patrone.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/218

Vince Causey
October 13, 2012 4:49 am

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?

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 13, 2012 4:55 am

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:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
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.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
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
October 13, 2012 6:27 am

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.

October 13, 2012 6:57 am

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
October 13, 2012 7:25 am

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
after….JS

markx
October 13, 2012 7:20 am

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’?)

October 13, 2012 7:41 am

E.M.Smith says:
October 13, 2012 at 4:55 am
E.M. your comments (as well as your blog) are always interesting, well thought out and to my mind fun I would be hard pressed to say whom I have learned the most from, you, Willis, or Anthony. Since it was Anthony that ultimately by way of WUWT introduced me to both you and Willis I would say that the title goes to him..

October 13, 2012 7:51 am

Reply to Philipp Bradly: The problem always is that some people want to shoot first,
think they killed the brown dude but the ammunition was worthless. Go to Wikipedia
concerning Storegga: In order to produce a megatsunami, the impacts have to be
in the North Sea, clearly demonstrated WITH A MAP. Many impacts desintegrate due
to the immense heat during the ultimate miles of flight and produce a straighforward
line of impacts (all explained in the paper…..). The impacts can be veryfied by
mineralogical studies…please see the whole cosmic impact discussion…such as
Clovis event etc)…an impact on Earth produces micro-spherules, “Homogenites” and
glassy rock melting…..
Only AGW can invent stories such as an impact was nothing more then regular Greenland
ice melting…. Please read our detail, answers are given in the paper….

October 13, 2012 8:07 am

Nice climate model. have Bob Tisdale check how well it represents SST.
Have Willis check the response to volcanos. And then lets see a headline article on THAT.

markx
October 13, 2012 8:08 am

E.M.Smith says:
October 13, 2012 at 4:55 am
“…..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…”
Aaah! E M Smith makes a lot of sense here! Thank you!

October 13, 2012 8:26 am

Actually I think this paper is an excellent start, It may or not be correct but it is the way this science should be done. BEFORE you start ttrying to ascribe observed temperature fluctations to mankind, you need to know what the natural background temperature fluctuations are.
I think everyone can agree that there are cycles found in a multitude of places in nature. It would be natural to expect there are cycles as well in the earth’s tempearature. The current “best” knowledge about earth’s temperature history suggests that there are several cycles that are occurring. It would also not be unreasonable to expect that there may be occassional random events which MIGHT temporarily interrupt tthe effect that these cycles have on earths temperature (such as comets, huge volcanic eruptions, man’s large scale land use changes and GHG;s to name a few).
As a first pass, the authors have attempted to correlate the temperature changes in the past with the frequency of other natural cycles. Correlation does not prove causation, but it does suggest there MAY be a link to causation. For some prominent people here to suggest offhand that these correlations between temperature and other cycles are are just merely coincidence and that you are a crackpot if you even suggest there could be a connection is ridiculous. First you find correlations, which they have done, and then you try to determine if this correlation is mere coincidence or if they indeed are cause and effect related.
Not necesarrily relevant to this paper discussion or trying to pick on Bradley but I am curious about a statement made. He says . “We know how high the tsunami was on the coast of Scotland (21 meters) , which is consistent with the slide being the cause. ” Does the estimate of 21 meters take into account that the oceans are believed to have been 40 meters lower than they are “today” when the 21 estimate is made? I have not read the paper that makes the 21 meter esitimate so I have no idea if that was taken into account or not. If not, then the 21 meter estimate may be wildly innaccurate.

Reply to  alcheson
October 13, 2012 9:10 am

To alcheson: You must include one more point: The falsification! We detected, as
you write, ‘correlations”. Wonderful. Now these correlations are multiple x multiple and
if I say: “This is a valid, steadily occuring mechanism”…then get into the detail and falsify
it by pointing out that the mechanism DOES NOT WORK/APPLY in this x-time span of
the Holocene…. This is the method….. we checked on it many times whether a
falsification would be feasible….. if there were a real possibility of falsification, I would
have used the standard AGW terminology, we are all used today, such as the standard
phrasology: “” This indicates…, this may…we believe…we assume…etc.pp ” and
almost total use of conjunctives…. a master of the conjunctive phrasology, for example
is a guy called S. Rahmstorf, I can point to pages of him with 30 conjunctives on a
single page and labelled then as high class “AGW-science”…..JS

October 13, 2012 8:32 am

Second reply to Geoff Sharp:
Our paper is already 18 pages long and you run the SIM+Landscheidt page….
fine…. all peer bloggers are invited to read all blog comments until now and I
BET, they all will find your SIM/Landscheidt stuff most tedious/uninteresting/boring
(Bloggers you can correct me, if I were off this time).
If you now trying to hijack Anthony’s climate page to convert it into a Landscheidt-SIM
discussion would be against the interest of our peer climate bloggers.
I indicated (not forgot) the SIM-motion as a WEAK climate mechanism, visible in
GISP2 from 7,000 to 1,000 BC, producing a minimum concave temperature
effect. This should suffice for our 20,000 year Holocene paper. How it exactly
works, is SIM-motion material…..and we could dispute it among ourselves by Email,
you have mine for a long time…. If you insist, please take the SIM effect OUT if you
want, fine, “SIM produces NOTHING” for you, no problem…. this does not effect the
four remaining forcing cycles, they have a different mechanism…
…….Let me ask politely not disrupt the peer reviewing by exigencies in respect to you
private SIM website….JS

October 13, 2012 8:45 am

Reply to Steve Mosher: Good idea with Bob Tisdale and checking on SST…
and Willis, he did 3 outstanding quality posts on volcano eruption effects,
from which I, myself, drew a lot….I would like his opinion about the paper..
.he is the one to notice fine details….he would never produce an AGW linear
hockey stick and declare the rest of data as “noise”….We do not do this in
our skeptical climate science….. JS… Please someone forward the message
to Willis, good move, detail checking….

P. Solar
October 13, 2012 8:56 am

Geoff Sharp: 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 problem with considering Barycentres is that it is the centre of *mass*. Planetary movement is determined by gravitational forces that, while linearly related to mass obey an inverse square law with distance. So centre of mass is not the same thing as centre of gravity in a non-uniform field like the interplanetary scale. For an object on the table it is , to all intents, the same thing. This means the two terms are often used synonymously. At the planetary scale this is an error an probably the cause of this confusion.

Matthew R Marler
October 13, 2012 9:13 am

Why is it that the CIO is always down-up-down? If these are from impacts, are not the sources of the impacts randomly distributed, and wouldn’t the impacts from opposite directions have opposite effects?
The caption to Figure E Might be: “Examples of Cosmic Impact Oscillations: impact, rebound, and stabilization of Earths orbit flight and resulting temperature changes.”

Reply to  Matthew R Marler
October 13, 2012 10:05 am

Reply to Matthew: I like this great question! We gave it month’s of thought…..
It is a fact/correlation in GISP2. NO IMPACT without this impact pattern…see
also paper resume…. Why is it? Maybe a skeptical peer mechanical engineer
from space or aircraft science could explain why an impacted system tries to
stabilize itself in this described way. …..
Lets describe it for now this way: We take a system with (1) centrum attraction and
(2) centrifugal forces. Impacts enhance centrifugal forces (the orbit at both ends
of the minor axis) goes into the cold run, then rebounces into the warm and
stabilizes itself as the 3. phase….
If we had included calculations of this pattern, our peer climate blog community
would have been not amused…. because its too specific….lets an knowledgable
mechanical peer engineer do some explaining…..JS

October 13, 2012 9:24 am

We are dealing with a chaotic system of at least dozens of variables, with patchy data for any, and no real knowledbe of all. Let us admit that there are two other KNOWN variables that would have climate impact and have an astronomical driver, Earth’s internal fission rate and Earth’s magnetism. Since there is no agreed model for our varying magnetic filed, let us start with the model presented in “No Loophole for Your Soul” posted at Canada Free Press. We have a 900 mile diameter cubic cyrstal Iron core, which by it’s cubic nature would be a very large permanent magnet. A spinning magnet creates an electric field, which creates a magnetic field. The Iron core of the Earth makes one more rotation every 400 days than the crust. If this is due to internal particle impacts, or changes akin to a motor-generator set with the Sun, is speculation at present. There result is obvious, as the magnetic axis and magnetic field strength vary over time. Earth is partially protected by the magnetosphere, which means only partial protection for solar particles. Less magnetic protection means more particle impacts on high temperature, high pressure fissionaable material as well as the surface and atmosphere.
Give ME four parameters….and if those four parameters include GRAVITY, MAGNETISM, FISSION ENERGY and THERMODYNAMICS….then i too can make an elephant wag his tail.

Matthew R Marler
October 13, 2012 9:39 am

Last two questions:
1. Did you make a list of geologically identified impact events that produced no discernable signal in the temperature data? It would be interesting to compare other features (e.g. estimated energy of the impacting object) of these impacts to the impacts that produced discernable signals.
2. Does your theory depend on the orbit-changing effects of the impacts or do you consider other possible effects such as atmospheric dust kicked up by the impacts?

Reply to  Matthew R Marler
October 13, 2012 10:18 am

Reply to Matthew:
Please read the impact mechanism page before asking, its all there. The impact
dust question is new: Therefore answer: Dust belongs to the micro- and nano-drivers…
..there is no detectable signal as dust driving Holocene temperature evolution….
As micro-driver, it always peeters out after some years, there are many optical
transparency dust studies on the atmosphere… as volcanoes, hurling millions of
tons of ash into the air……
there always is clean breathing after a couple of years…The dust does not
drive the climate…….JS.

Matthew R Marler
October 13, 2012 9:43 am

J. Seifert: and
almost total use of conjunctives

What does that mean? Can you provide some examples?

JCrew
October 13, 2012 10:03 am

So far the skeptic blog peer review process shows no bias. Everything presented is openly scrutinized.
However it appears the correcting discourse should be friendlier. With the old peer review process corrupted the new still needs discourse maturity.

Ninderthana
October 13, 2012 10:30 am

Anna v said:,
“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:”
Th e question is – why does there appear to be a correlation between time scales associated with the SIM (Solar Inertial Motion) and aspects of the Earth’s climate?
You are correct in pointing out that motion of the Sun about the Barycentre is probably only a clock that is ticking at the same rate as another planetary effect upon the Sun.
The most promising of these other planetary effects is a process of tidal-torquing. This is where the periodic alignment of Venus and the Earth distorts the deep layers of the Sun’s convective zone (near the tachocline) so that they no longer have a spherical shape. This distorted region becomes susceptible to Jupiter’s gravitational force which is able to tug on the asymmetric bulges. This tugging force either slows down or speeds up the motion of material at the base of the Sun’s convective zone in such way as to effect the level of solar activity on the Sun.
If this tidal torquing model is correct then there is only an apparent connection between the SIM and the level of solar activity [that effects the Earth’s climate].
The real connection is as follows:
Motion of Jovian planets ——> determines stable orbits of inner terrestrial planets
So Motion of Jovian planets indirectly determine time scales associated with the tidal distortion of the deepest layers of the Sun’s convective zone.
Motion of Jupiter relative to the Inner terrestrial planets determined the timing and nature of the tidal torquing of the deepest layers of the Convective Zone. –> governing the level of solar activity.
SIM only APPEARS to correlate with the level of solar activity because SIM is being determined by the same factor which determines the level of tidal torquing on the Sun [which determine the level of solar activity on the Sun]. This common factor is the motion of the Jovian planets.

Kelvin Vaughan
October 13, 2012 11:15 am

LazyTeenager says:
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 is no reason why you can’t have a cycle of increasing or decreasing frequency! A cycle does not mean fixed frequency. A crystal oscillator slowly changes it’s frequency over time.

Matthew R Marler
October 13, 2012 11:24 am

J. Seifert: If we had included calculations of this pattern, our peer climate blog community
would have been not amused…. because its too specific

How about an appendix, or “supporting on line material”? Such computations will, I think, eventually be necessary to wash away the Velikovsky analogy.
I don’t understand why the effect is always “down => up => down” if the impacts are random. Wouldn’t you expect random impacts to produce random orbital deviations, hence random temperature effects?

Reply to  Matthew R Marler
October 13, 2012 12:04 pm

To Matthew: Theoretically …but I cannot do this without explaining a lot of
background…. the SIM motion is a special matter, and as descibed as over
a multi-millenial period, needs explication with graphs up to a million years
back…. After this paper, I will explain the decadal Sat-Jup cycle in 2013, in
autumn 2013 the anti-science infantilistic hockey stick, which is also important
to shred into pieces and then comes the SIM and the glacial sequence
analysis….. this is my schedule for 2013-14. Sorry if you have to wait, I believe,
the present paper provided sufficient conversation items, greetings…. JS

Matthew R Marler
October 13, 2012 11:27 am

Kelvin Vaughan: There is no reason why you can’t have a cycle of increasing or decreasing frequency! A cycle does not mean fixed frequency. A crystal oscillator slowly changes it’s frequency over time.
As does an automobile engine during acceleration and deceleration. I present this as a somewhat more common experience among non-electronics boffins.

October 13, 2012 11:28 am

J. Seifert claims a 790 year temperature cycle. .
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_seifert_790.gif
But the temperature reconstructions show a complex mostly threefold extrema with a frquency of 2/1827 years, which can be shown as a heliocentric synodic function of two planets with some difference in frequency and one has a great ellipticity (Pluto). This is especially indicated in the temperature reconstruction of E. Zorita (ECHO) between 100o AD and 1200 AD.
Seifert deals in his book also with a different distance for the times of cold resp. warm climate:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/aphel_1.gif
But is not.
V.

Ian W
October 13, 2012 12:10 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm
As seen in the Abstract, one mechanism is Solar Inertial Motion (SIM).
………..
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.

Kadaka
I presume that you will be passing your opinion onto those astronomers searching for ‘extrasolar planets’ who do so using just such a motion of the planet’s parent star to indicate their presence?
“Doppler spectroscopy is an indirect method for finding extrasolar planets from radial velocity measurements via observation of Doppler shifts in the spectrum of the star around which the planet orbits.
Over 90% of the extrasolar planets known as of September 15, 2011 were discovered using Doppler spectroscopy.
HISTORY
Otto Struve proposed in 1952 the use of powerful spectrographs to detect distant planets. He described how a very large planet, as large as Jupiter, for example, would cause its parent star to wobble slightly as the two objects orbit around their center of mass.[2] He predicted that the small Doppler shifts to the light emitted by the star, caused by its continuously varying radial velocity, would be detectable by the most sensitive spectrographs as tiny red shifts and blue shifts in the star’s emission. However, the technology of the time produced radial velocity measurements with errors of 1,000 m/s or more, making them useless for the detection of orbiting planets.[3] The expected changes in radial velocity are very small – Jupiter causes the Sun to change velocity by about 13 m/s over a period of 12 years, and the Earth’s effect is only 0.1 m/s over a period of 1 year – so long-term observations by instruments with a very high resolution are required”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy
AND
The following is a list of 456 extrasolar planets that were only detected by radial velocity method –– 31 confirmed and 323 candidates, sorted by orbital periods. Since none of these planets are transiting or directly observed, they do not have measured radii and generally their masses are only minimum. The true masses can be determined when astrometry calculates the inclination of the orbit.
There are 160 members of the multi-planet systems –– 21 confirmed and 139 candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extrasolar_planets_detected_by_radial_velocity
These astronomers are going to be extremely upset that you have identified the failing in their (and Newton’s) logic and their life’s work is wasted.
Alternatively, you could hypothesize why it is that only the Sun of all the stars in the universe with planets does not have any change in radial velocity due to the planets in orbit around it.

Ian W
October 13, 2012 12:21 pm

jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm
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….

We talk again on the same subject.
I suggest you read the works referenced here:
HISTORY
Otto Struve proposed in 1952 the use of powerful spectrographs to detect distant planets. He described how a very large planet, as large as Jupiter, for example, would cause its parent star to wobble slightly as the two objects orbit around their center of mass.[2] He predicted that the small Doppler shifts to the light emitted by the star, caused by its continuously varying radial velocity, would be detectable by the most sensitive spectrographs as tiny red shifts and blue shifts in the star’s emission. However, the technology of the time produced radial velocity measurements with errors of 1,000 m/s or more, making them useless for the detection of orbiting planets.[3] The expected changes in radial velocity are very small – Jupiter causes the Sun to change velocity by about 13 m/s over a period of 12 years, and the Earth’s effect is only 0.1 m/s over a period of 1 year – so long-term observations by instruments with a very high resolution are required”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy
You are at liberty to disagree – but astronomers have been using radial velocity changes causing Doppler shifts for some time.
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.
The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits. Have you never wondered why that is? What possible force could cause the change from a circular to an eccentric ellipse for a coupled system as large as Earth/moon or even Jupiter and its moons?

October 13, 2012 12:21 pm

Reply to Volker Doormann:
We are peers on this website and you are the good, star gazing, esoterical ASTROLOGICAL guy…I know, Pluto told you all, stars do not lie and because Saturn crossed the Venus line,
the discussion paper must have many flaws….. My climate peers, Doormann has spoken…JS

Ian W
October 13, 2012 1:09 pm

anna v says:
October 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm
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.

The path of the solar system through space is described by the barycenter not the Sun’s center of mass. The sun describes a path around that barycenter as the solar system orbits the galaxy. This variance in velocity (wobble) is seen in other stars. What force is required to make the sun leave a smooth velocity and ‘wobble’ in an epitrochoid pattern? It is not just a theoretical nicety a force affects the Sun’s path through space. A similar force affects the orbits of all the planets. Why do you think the Earth follows Milankovitch cycles?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit
In 1989, Jacques Laskar’s work showed that the Earth’s orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the initial position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years’ time. Modeling the solar system is subject to the n-body problem.
Surely if you are correct the planetary gravitational effects are so minimal that there is no ‘n body’ problem and you can forecast the positions of the planets perfectly? Why do these astronomers see things differently?

Reference
October 13, 2012 1:41 pm

Ivanka Charvátová and Pavel Hejda
A possible role of the solar inertial motion in climatic changes,
33rd International Geological Congress August 8-14, 2008, Oslo,
http://catriskglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/charvatova.pdf

Editor
October 13, 2012 1:56 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:45 am

Reply to Steve Mosher: Good idea with Bob Tisdale and checking on SST… and Willis, he did 3 outstanding quality posts on volcano eruption effects, from which I, myself, drew a lot….I would like his opinion about the paper… he is the one to notice fine details….he would never produce an AGW linear hockey stick and declare the rest of data as noise”….We do not do this in our skeptical climate science….. JS… Please someone forward the message to Willis, good move, detail checking….

Thank you for your kind words. Let me start by saying that I find your ideas thought-provoking.
I am concerned by the following claim:

Every cosmic object, impacting Earth with high
energy, leaving impact craters of more than 1 km in
diameter, will push the planet out of its steady
orbital run equilibrium. In order to regain a smooth,
stabilized orbital flight around the Sun, the planet
reacts with a Cosmic Impact Oscillation pattern
(CIO+pattern). This oscillation will compensate in its
duration the impact energy received. This energy is
substantial and, in cosmic impact analyses, counted
in units of megatons TNT or in multitudes of
Hiroshima bombs.

My main concern, for this paragraph as well as for the paper as a whole is, where are the numbers? Where is the data to back up your ideas?
My other concerns, in no particular order, are:
• When there is a collision between between a cosmic object and the earth, as far as I know there is no resulting “oscillation” in the orbit of the earth. It takes up a very slightly altered orbit, and that’s it.
• How much altered? Depends on a host of factors, but consider the masses. The Chicxlub asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs is estimated to have weighed on the order of 6e+14 kg. The mass of the earth is about 6e+24 kg … that’s ten full orders of magnitude larger. The earth has ten billion times the mass of even that huge asteroid.
• It is not clear what you mean by the term “orbital run equilibrium”.
• Estimates of “units of megatons” or “multitudes of Hiroshima bombs” do not tell me much. Your average thunderstorm releases about as much energy as a Hiroshima bomb …
You follow the previous quote by saying:

This orbital stabilization proceeds in 3 phases:
The first phase: Both end points of the minor axis
move further away from the Sun, thus a “cold run”+
displacement, which results in global cooling
(“temperature knock+down”).

While this may all be so, the devil is in the details.
• How do we know that the collision will elongate the minor axis of the elliptic orbit of the Earth?
• Why not the major axis?
• How much (as a percentage) can a collision with something one ten-billionth of the mass elongate elongate either asia?
• Where are the astronomical observations, or even theoretical calculations, that support this claim of minor axis elongation?
You continue:

The second phase: Starting from the furthest end
point positions away from the Sun, the orbit swings
into reverse toward the opposite orbit side, closer to
the Sun.

I fear I don’t understand that at all. What does “the orbit swings into reverse” mean? And how can it swing into reverse “toward the opposite orbit side”? Also, I don’t understand why anything should start “from the furthest end point positions”.
Finally, all of this assumes that the disturbance of the orbit from the collision will result in a damped oscillation on either side of the original orbit. You further assume that this oscillation will die out, and leave the planet in the original “orbital run equilibrium”.
I see no reason to assume that either of those is true. After the collision, the planet will immediately take up a new orbit. If it speeds the planet up, the orbit will be further from the sun, and vice versa.
But there’s no swinging on either side of the original orbit back to the previous “equilibrium”.
In closing, let me again recommend to you a consideration of the relative masses. The Chicxlub asteroid hitting the earth is the equivalent of a 75 kg man being hit by a mass on the order of one milligram [UPDATE: a friend points out I meant a microgram] … one millionth of a gram. A gram is four-hundredths of an ounce.
Do you think that being hit by a mass, not of one gram (4/100 of an ounce) but of one millionth of that mass, one microgram, will affect the orbit of a man?
All the best,
w.

October 13, 2012 2:09 pm

The cosmic connection in this paper is far overblown. Even mentioning the De-Campo impact as having any importance for climate (this impact produced about 5000 tons of metallic debris and hardly any crater), is suspect.
If the frequency of impacts were as high as this paper implies we would see it in many other proxies that simply aren’t there.

Reply to  Dennis Ray Wingo
October 13, 2012 5:42 pm

To Dennis Ray Wingo: Here another example of someone overblowing without
having read the paper at all…. airing wishfull AGW – Warmist nonsense….
Let me confirm again: (1) The IMPACT PATTERN &together with the (2) TP-EOO
SHIFT prove the occurence of an cosmic impact, which are 2 features for an impact…..
Both cosmic features together cannot be produced by any terrestrial catastrophic
event, since purely terrestrial events cannot cause orbital movements….
I get slowly tired to answer to trolls, who “air and overblow” themselves, in order to
feel important…my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer
blogging site….JS

DirkH
October 13, 2012 2:20 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
October 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm
“• When there is a collision between between a cosmic object and the earth, as far as I know there is no resulting “oscillation” in the orbit of the earth. It takes up a very slightly altered orbit, and that’s it.”
Due to orbital resonance, the slightly altered orbit of Earth would subsequently be nudged back into its old shape. As resonant systems usually take a while to reach equilibrium again, one would expect an overshoot in the other direction, and over many orbits, the shape of the orbit would oscillate with ever smaller amplitude of the deviation from the equilibrium orbit.

October 13, 2012 2:33 pm

J. Seifert says: October 13, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Reply to Volker Doormann:
We are peers on this website and you are the good, star gazing, esoterical ASTROLOGICAL guy…I know, Pluto told you all, stars do not lie and because Saturn crossed the Venus line,
the discussion paper must have many flaws….. My climate peers, Doormann has spoken…JS

The simple point is: I have shown that the global climate is a LOGIC conclusion from the synodic STAR motion, and YOU have not, and nobody else.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_remss_ghi_modi.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/svalbard_vs_ghi6.gif
V.

October 13, 2012 2:37 pm

The authors have achieved their objective by receiving more productive analysis in one day than in six months of ‘traditional peer review’. The article addresses ‘primary forcings’ as being the isolated, end-result forces, when in fact it is the secondary forces and associated amplifications and buffering that matter. The above mentioned magnetosphere changes, geo-fission changes and tacholine tidal-torquing are excellent examples. As a simple analogy, consider climate to be soundwaves in a room with a mechanical clock. The cyclic pendlum governor and spring, or weight driven gears do make a ‘primary’ periodic sound, but these sounds are occasionally over-ridden by a louder ‘secondary’ dong. Earth’s thermostat is connected to a similar astronomical clock, which sets the baseline fission rates and level of magnetosphere protection. It is the effects of these secondary changes that are the governing factor, with NO input from the micro-forcing of GHG.

Editor
October 13, 2012 3:09 pm

DirkH says:
October 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
October 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm

“• When there is a collision between between a cosmic object and the earth, as far as I know there is no resulting “oscillation” in the orbit of the earth. It takes up a very slightly altered orbit, and that’s it.”

Due to orbital resonance, the slightly altered orbit of Earth would subsequently be nudged back into its old shape.

Thank you for your thoughts, Dirk. I don’t see how that can be strictly true. The momentum of the earth would be different. So although it might end up in something similar to its original orbit, I see no reason to assume it will return to its “old shape”?
I take your reasoning regarding the effects of orbital resonance. However, if it oscillates it will oscillate about the new value, not the old value.
In any case, for me to be convinced, I’d have to see the full simulations with and without the impact. It’s easy to say that orbital resonance will return the orbit to the “old shape”. But for Mr. (Dr.?) Seifert to claim that it is happening in a particular time frame, he needs to calculate the size and direction of the initial change in the Earth’s orbit, as well as the subsequent orbital resonance.
Let me emphasize again. The Earth has ten billion times the mass of the Chicxlub asteroid. How much change in the Earth’s orbit are you expecting when they collide? Show me the numbers.
All the best,
w.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 13, 2012 3:18 pm

Ian W on October 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm
GlynnMhor on October 12, 2012 at 4:00 pm
That makes two who are claiming importance of the movement of our Sun’s barycenter, is given by such wiggling being used by astronomers to find planets around other suns.
This may be important to alien astronomers determining if Sol has planets, and admirals of alien space navies wondering if Sol is harboring potential threats that require destroying.
But not important to we who are part of the solar system, as we do not see this barycentric motion from our frame of reference.

jimmi_the_dalek
October 13, 2012 3:59 pm

P Solar says; “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.”
Er, no. If the tides were due to rotation about the earth-moon centre of gravity, then they would be a mo(o)nth apart. The tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon being greater on the side of the earth closest, at that time, to the moon than it is on the opposite side. i.e it is due to the gradient in the gravitational field which is why the tidal force is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance, not the inverse square. It happens twice a day because the earth rotates on its axis, not because it rotates around the earth-moon centre (though this latter point affect the mo(o)nthly variation in the magnitude)

jimmi_the_dalek
October 13, 2012 4:26 pm

Ian W says:
“In 1989, Jacques Laskar’s work showed that the Earth’s orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the initial position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years’ time. Modeling the solar system is subject to the n-body problem.
Surely if you are correct the planetary gravitational effects are so minimal that there is no ‘n body’ problem and you can forecast the positions of the planets perfectly? Why do these astronomers see things differently?”
Several points: Firstly I do not see anyone saying there is no n-body problem. Secondly,classical n-body problems are solvable to arbitrary precision given enough computer time. Thirdly, it is true that over a very long time period e.g the hundreds of millions of years mentioned the motions
resemble that of a classical chaotic system, but if you go down that path you are admitting that there are no cycles at all! But fourthly, and most importantly, you need to consider time scale. Over periods of a few hundred, or thousand, years the planets are completely predictable. Consider Captain Cook, sent in 1769 to the South Pacific to observe the Transit of Venus. Venus turned up exactly when and where it was predicted to be. As it did in 1874, 1882, 2004 and 2012. But this is the sort of time scale over which you claim “The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits” So please provide evidence for you statement.

Spector
October 13, 2012 4:37 pm

RE: J. Seifert: (October 13, 2012 at 10:18 am)
there always is clean breathing after a couple of years…The dust does not
drive the climate…….JS.

I wonder if the effect of orbital, non-atmospheric debris might be longer lived.
Good paper.l

October 13, 2012 4:38 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 7:51 am
Reply to Philipp Bradly: The problem always is that some people want to shoot first,
think they killed the brown dude but the ammunition was worthless. Go to Wikipedia
concerning Storegga: In order to produce a megatsunami, the impacts have to be
in the North Sea, clearly demonstrated WITH A MAP. Many impacts desintegrate due
to the immense heat during the ultimate miles of flight and produce a straighforward
line of impacts

No, the problem (yours that is) is you run into people who know more about these things than you do.
There is no evidence of North Sea Holocene impacts, and the North Sea is probably the best surveyed seabed in the world.
There is no evidence of a mega-tsunami. Just tsunamis consistent with the Storegga slides of glacial debris.
As I said, those slides were 100 kilometers and further from the coast, a coast that does not face the North Sea. It is physically impossible for a tsunami to cause the required amount of debris at those locations.
What map?

Reply to  Philip Bradley
October 13, 2012 5:56 pm

Map on Wikipedia showing 3 oval impact craters in line….

jimmi_the_dalek
October 13, 2012 4:49 pm

Various people keep mentioning the techniques used to detect planets around other stars as if this proves anything about how planets may or may not influence the properties of the star. For example Ian W mentions the uses of the Doppler effect and asks “why it is that only the Sun of all the stars in the universe with planets does not have any change in radial velocity due to the planets in orbit around it.”.
Well of course the change in the radial velocity of the Sun would be detectable when viewed from outside the Solar System, but the fact that you ask makes me suspect that you do not really know what “change in radial velocity” means and how the Doppler effect works. It is actually quite simple. Suppose an astronomer is observing a star whose orbit is affected by an unseen object. Suppose when first observed the star in its orbit is moving towards us. Half an orbital period later it will be moving away. This is the change in velocity. This is what causes the Doppler effect. There is a periodic change in the observed frequency of the light from the star, which allows the orbital period to be measured, which allows deductions about the distance and mass of the unseen object. But note this – it is only the observed frequency that changes, due to motion relative to the observer – the light emitted by the star has the same frequency all the time, so you cannot use the existence of this technique to argue that the motion affects the properties of the star – it may, but the Doppler effect is not proof that it does – do you think that when you hear the siren on an ambulance change pitch as it goes past, that the ambulance has been changed? So, sorry, but no. If you think there are effects then you cannot use the extra-solar-star-detection methods as proof – you need something more local. So what is it?

October 13, 2012 4:54 pm

Not necesarrily relevant to this paper discussion or trying to pick on Bradley but I am curious about a statement made. He says . “We know how high the tsunami was on the coast of Scotland (21 meters) , which is consistent with the slide being the cause. ” Does the estimate of 21 meters take into account that the oceans are believed to have been 40 meters lower than they are “today” when the 21 estimate is made? I have not read the paper that makes the 21 meter esitimate so I have no idea if that was taken into account or not. If not, then the 21 meter estimate may be wildly innaccurate.
There are multiple studies. This paper contains a summary. The tsunami heights are above the sea level at the time.
https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/729/Bondevik-al-03-EOS.pdf;jsessionid=51AA06481A1EE8E723E7650C8BD7AF22.bora-uib_worker?sequence=1
And no, sea levels weren’t 40 meters below current levels.

October 13, 2012 5:25 pm

Dear Willis, I am pleased you discovered this blog and the discussion in progress….
.and as I said, you are the one who goes after the fine details….. Your question
is good: How to quantify the impact forces with numbers…..
Let me say the following; 1. The paper is already 18 papers long and I believe,
that every peer, who got all through to the end, will take a deep breath and
hope that he grasped everything, due to the multitude of new info, which most
of our peers NEVER heard of….
2. Putting numbers into every paragraph would extend the paper into a book,
and you can see the paper is concise, compact, intertwined in their forcings.
Myself, I did not see a way of cutting out one single point of the presentation in
order to put desired calculations for sections to be omitted…The paper would
have suffered in its global astronomical context… and I already reduced the
paper substantially by taking the Scafetta-cycle and the SIM-motion out, which
have to wait/are planned for next year ….
To your observations: 1. The “high voltage pattern” must show/and shows after
each impact. If no detectable pattern, there was no impact…Here you can start
trying to falsify by FINDING an cosmic impact WITHOUT a GISP2 impact pattern.
We tried and could not, therefore we maintain the impact pattern is a STANDARD
IMPACT FEATURE AND CLIMATE FORCING…[I believe the AGW-team will try
to do this but its too hard and they will lose their teeth trying]
2. The cosmic impact on the Earth’s surface does not
have to be very strong…..please take one well documented event: Tuettensee,
Bavaria, BC 207, as documented….enlarge it from the NOAA GISP2 data base,
the most detailed version and check upon each decade…. go ahead…
the impact crater field is well measured out…. the impact strength was not
especially high, even a “mini”-force impact….. My explanation: An impact
pushes the planet maybe one inch/foot/yard to one side….not more, but as
the planet flies with 30 km/second,
this “small” off-course push accumulates tremendously after a few million of
orbital miles…and the planet needs its “astronomical time” to settle on the
middle path again…..
…When I was 16, driving 50 miles/h on my motorcycle, I got only slightly hit
onto the stirring bar from one side…. the bike was impossible to control, also
the end of the ride and the bike….a slight touch was enough, the Earth’s speed
produces the off-course effect
3. The periods with their TP (turning points) reveal the
astronomical causation of all impacts (impact shift) ..it is the COMBINATION OF
THE IMPACT PATTERN TOGETHER WITH THE TP-SHIFT showing the
clear impact…….and a terrestrial cause (volcanoes, earthquakes) is not capable
of shifting an orbital TP…do not forget this feature….
Take AD 1255 as example the impact knock down from a top, high temp TP
position into the GISP2 lower boundary cold position….What the desperate AGW
team does, is putting a volcano eruption onto the date of 1255 as cooling cause
…but too late….cooling took place AD 1178-1255 BEFORE the eruption, as you
yourself noted in your volcano analyses..
There is another wealth of Additional details, worth to read over again several
times
…..JS

October 13, 2012 6:05 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:42 pm
my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer blogging site….
It seems you are being hit by a healthy dose of wonderful skepticism…

Editor
October 13, 2012 6:09 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm

Dear Willis, I am pleased you discovered this blog and the discussion in progress….
.and as I said, you are the one who goes after the fine details….. Your question
is good: How to quantify the impact forces with numbers…..
Let me say the following; 1. The paper is already 18 papers long and I believe,
that every peer, who got all through to the end, will take a deep breath and
hope that he grasped everything, due to the multitude of new info, which most
of our peers NEVER heard of….
2. Putting numbers into every paragraph would extend the paper into a book,
and you can see the paper is concise, compact, intertwined in their forcings.
Myself, I did not see a way of cutting out one single point of the presentation in
order to put desired calculations for sections to be omitted…The paper would
have suffered in its global astronomical context… and I already reduced the
paper substantially by taking the Scafetta-cycle and the SIM-motion out, which
have to wait/are planned for next year ….

Regarding the length of the paper, goodness, dear friend, what do you think “Supplementary Online Material” is for? Fermat’s Last Theorem may have been too long for Fermat to write in the margin … but I’m sorry, saying you don’t have room to detail your claims simply doesn’t work in the electronic age.
Regarding the numbers, perhaps you could start with the following calculation, You are claiming that the collision of the Earth with another object one ten-billionth of the Earth’s mass makes a significant change in the Earth’s orbit. You say the orbital change is enough to change the average temperature of the earth.
I don’t believe that. I want to see the calculations for the disturbance of the orbit and the resulting change in TSI (total solar irradiance).
In addition, you are neglecting the angle at which the two objects strike each other, with respect to the Earth’s orbit. If they smash head-on, it will slow the Earth’s rotation around the sun. When the rotation slows, initially at least the Earth will drop nearer to the sun. But if the cosmic object strikes the Earth from behind, and speeds up the Earth, the resulting impact will move the Earth’s orbit further from the sun. And if it strikes the Earth from the side, things get even more complicated.
I see no acknowledgement of either of these two issues (relative masses, angles of collision) in your work. Perhaps you could speak directly to those two questions.
My regards to you,
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 13, 2012 8:52 pm

To Willis: All good considerations …..Numbers are requested…..First, lets say:
Our new tri-synodic Jup/Sat paper of next year will be filled with detailed calculations
on the subject, this because this paper is less of general public interest and can be
filled with calculations for the specialist ….but you cannot wait and want numbers now
and not next year…..Its not easy to do it with a minimum background desciption, though.
Let’s try:
1.Change of the Earth’s orbit: Important: the apside is an adiabatic constant (no length
variation between the distance aphelion-perihelion. The distance variation is observed
EXCLUSIVELY on both ends of the minor axis…. astronomical encyclopedias put the
value of 3% of the minor axis length, between glacials and interglacials (the orbit is
rounder and the minor axis longer in glacial times).
The distance variation between Sun and end of Minor axis presents our EOO_CURVE,
best to see in the 27-37 ka diagram….. here we talk about a glacial temp swing of 5 C
measured at the GISP2 Greenland site (vertical distance between top and botton
limit EOO-line). The temp can be converted into W/m2– see for example the
latest paper of Willi Soon on forcing in the 19/20th century, to make it easy in
conversion and is 4.57 W/m2 per 1 million km orbital distance change away/or
towards the Sun, measured on the Earth surface. This has to be augmented for the
radiation loss ( 4,47 W/m2 x 1,41 albedo loss ) to get the value at the top of the
atmosphere to be multiplied by 4, to reach the TSI-value of around 25 W/m2 in
TSI-terms. This can also be seen in the radiation value of 1,408 W/m2 occuring at
perihelion and 1316 W/m2 at aphelion, for a distance difference of 5 million km.
With this value we are able to convert the vertical amplitude distance of the EOO-wave
exactly into kilometers between Sun and Earth at both ends of the minor axis.
To give a distance change idea: radius 149 Mio km, the impact distance change
lies between 50,000 km and max.1 Mio km. I have the numbers all given in my booklet,
but as soon as I mention this, some know-it-alls immediately blast that I only wanr to
sell my booklet, although everybody can check with Amazon, that I wrote in “unsalable”
German….
We are therefore able to convert our GISP2 temp change (warm/cold) diagram into
a Sun-Earth-distance change diagram for both ends of minor axis to the Sun. A
stronger impact (with larger impact craters) will produce wilder orbital and temp swings….. Therefore, you have
another means of impact falsification at hand: Relate the crater sizes = impact force
to the amplitude and the size of the impact pattern…..
We identified 13 cosmic impacts….all 13, for which we found accountable dates, have
to fulfill 3 conditions 1. The Standard Impact Pattern, 2. a TP shift of the EOO-curve,
3. a large to small relation in temperature swing to acorresponding large to small impact
crater size.
These are 3 simultaneous conditions….we maintain, that ALL are fulfilled by ALL
given cosmic impacts…. FIND ONE sizable impact (the mini-impacts cannot shift
the ensuing TP if an TP is still some centuries away, because its forcing peetered
out before the TP line has been reached, this is trivial to say…) and you have the
storyline is falsified….if you could…but….good luck. A Joke: AGW is able to provide
a clue……
Willis, I sat over all this for 5 years and I can tell you one thing: This cosmic-climate
relation is completely consistent and water-tight. Lets do it this way, my proposal:
You continue disbelieving and try to falsify our 18 pages with the info in it provided ….meanwhile….
I get my additional calculations ready and put them into the annex of the new 2013
paper on the still missing fifth forcing cycle, on which you were at odds with Scafetta
6 months ago…..by the way, this discourse between you, Scafetta, me and Geoff
Sharp was highly productive in hindsight because I found the solution for calculating
the Jup/Sat cycle with full numbers….you will see this paper next spring….
.. its Saturday night, late… cheers for the moment….JS

davidmhoffer
October 13, 2012 6:17 pm

my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer blogging site….JS
>>>>>>>>>
You invited review and now you are insulting the people who have responded.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 13, 2012 9:01 pm

David, I expect that all peer bloggers have a coffee, lean back and enjoy 5 years
of work and insights…..All trolls, who just feel important and want to disturb are not
invited…..we need good insights and not just “overblown”-nonsense which does
not get us any further… read the text and opine…this is what blogging is all about
so we may advance forward and not fall backward with AGW….JS

October 13, 2012 6:56 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Map on Wikipedia showing 3 oval impact craters in line….

Link or Google Earth coordinates, please.

Tom in Florida
October 13, 2012 6:58 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
October 13, 2012 at 6:09 pm
“I don’t believe that. I want to see the calculations for the disturbance of the orbit and the resulting change in TSI (total solar irradiance). ”
I believe you meant to say “insolation” instead of TSI. You know that objects impacting Earth cannot change TSI ( unless it was the Sun itself).

Ian W
October 13, 2012 7:13 pm

@
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 13, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Ian W on October 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm
GlynnMhor on October 12, 2012 at 4:00 pm

and

jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 13, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Various people keep mentioning the techniques used to detect planets around other stars as if this proves anything about how planets may or may not influence the properties of the star. For example Ian W mentions the uses of the Doppler effect and asks “why it is that only the Sun of all the stars in the universe with planets does not have any change in radial velocity due to the planets in orbit around it.”.

Take a binary star system where there are two stars of equal size orbiting the barycenter between them.
I presume both of you would accept that whatever frame of reference (kadaka) or doppler shift (Jimmi) you are using you would both accept that neither star is stationary with the other orbiting – they are _both_ orbiting the barycenter of their system.
If we slowly shrink one of the stars to the size of Jupiter …. at what stage does this dual orbiting of the barycenter stop and become a stationary star with a well behaved orbiting planet? And why does it stop?
It seems that both of you want to assert a heliocentric rather than barycentric view but I don’t see your logic.

jimmi_the_dalek
October 13, 2012 7:42 pm

Ian W “It seems that both of you want to assert a heliocentric rather than barycentric view but I don’t see your logic.”
No we are not – we are asking you, what effect does the motion about the barycentre, or any other centre, have on the properties of the star and/or planets?
The barycentre is an arbitrary point chosen for convenience in solving the equations of motion as it allows you to ignore the overall translational motion of the system. Any other choice for the origin of the coordinate system will give the same orbits, though with a little more work. It is a general principle that the choice of coordinate system does not affect any real physical property.
The point you still have not got about the Doppler shift method, is that it does not measure a change in the star, so it cannot be used to prove that there is a change – you are going to need something else.
And you have not come up with anything to indicate that there are significant changes in planetary orbits over a shortish time period.

October 13, 2012 8:38 pm

The orbit of the Sun around the SSB induced only by the planet positions changes the solar velocity by 100% every 10 years. This is indisputable and solid evidence of planetary influence on the Sun.

October 13, 2012 9:08 pm

Carl Smith plotted the angular momentum of the Sun which showed AM perturbations occurring on a roughly 172 year cycle. These perturbations I discovered happened at the same time as the solar orbit takes a disordered path about the SSB which also coincides with past solar and current slow downs as discovered by Charvàtovà, but now we have a tool that by quantifying the AM perturbation gives us the ability to predict the length and depth of any grand minimum type event. Landschei.t missed all of this but did notice the disordered orbit but DID NOT associate this occurrence with solar slowdown or grand minima.
Enough said on this topic which will hopefully end the barycentre talk, I am still waiting to see the numbers on the Earth Orbit Oscillation (the unaffected by comet values) which is one of the key drivers of the paper under so called revue.

October 13, 2012 9:12 pm

To Philipp Bradley: It seems that some bloggers are unable to type
….” Storegga slide.”… and click the Wikipedia page…. the 3 impacts, are
mistakenly reverse….. Phil: Why dont you ask me to bring you to bed and
make your morning coffee?

jimmi_the_dalek
October 13, 2012 9:23 pm

Geoff Sharp
“The orbit of the Sun around the SSB induced only by the planet positions changes the solar velocity by 100% every 10 years. This is indisputable and solid evidence of planetary influence on the Sun.”
And what is the change relative to a point half way between the Sun and Alpha Centauri? And what effect does this have on the physical properties of the sun?
The velocity of a point on the earth’s surface changes by 100% every 12 hours – what effect does that have?

george e smith
October 13, 2012 9:27 pm

“””””…..John F. Hultquist says:
October 12, 2012 at 6:45 pm
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.
http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/xpage/FermatsLastTheorem.html……”””””
Why do they say that Fermat likely did NOT have the “truly marvellous proof” that he claimed to have discovered ?
Before I would believe that assertion, I would want these naysayers to at least have discovered for themselves, what exactly the proof Fermat said he had was, and THEN point out the fallacy in his proof.
The plain fact of the matter is that mathematicians, have failed to discover Fermat’s “proof” of Fermat’s last theorem, and until they do, they should shut up. For one thing we do NOW know, that Fermat’s conjecture is correct; so what is their basis for saying that Fermat’s “proof” of the theorem is incorrect. It is far more likely to be correct since the theorem is, than incorrect.
And to call the current reigning “proof” a mathematical proof, is to be very generous.
My money would be on Fermat having discovered a proof, that he deemed so straight forward, as to not needing to be written down.
I believe the theorem is also true for negative integer values of (n)
There are solutions for 1/x +1/y =1/z and also 1/x^2 + 1/y^2 = 1/z^2 , but I believe not for
1/x^3 + 1/y^3 = 1/z^3 etc.
And no I don’t have a proof for that.

anna v
October 13, 2012 9:33 pm

Ian W (also DirkH ,P. Solar)
Ian W said : October 13, 2012 at 1:09 pm
It is not just a theoretical nicety a force affects the Sun’s path through space. A similar force affects the orbits of all the planets. Why do you think the Earth follows Milankovitch cycles?

Have you ever been in a train watching the buildings and trees running away backwards? Why are they running away? Is the train forcing them to run away? When the train turns are they turning?
It is called a coordinate system and one can devise an infinite number of them.
Coordinate systems have a physical meaning when the forces are mathematically behaving according to that system. The heliocentric and geocentric system are good examples. The geocentric was a successful parametrization of our planetary systems, and was used for centuries but it is the heliocentric that describes the geometry of the gravitational force positions ,simplifies the mathematical analysis, and validated the physical theory of gravity.
The barycenter is a convenient (0,0,0) point for the coordinates describing the total planetary system in its trip through the cosmos. The total system
from a large distance acts as a gravitational well with combined strength that falls as 1/r^2.
Our planetary system which has many gravitational bodies is a many body problem and can be solved numerically following Newton’s laws and the equations of motion. The calculations can be made in any coordinate system but the centers of force are at the gravitational bodies not the assumed center of coordinates which is a mathematical point and has no mass and thus no gravitational strength.
That a barycenter has no gravitational strength can be seen in the simpler earth moon system where the barycenter ploughs through the earth 1,710 km below the surface every second, every minute. The earth would have been turned into mayonnaise from the beginning of the formation of the earth moon system leaving no chance for continents to rise. Of course the tides are correlated with this motion. BUT correlation is not causation should be primary in any scientific observations and results sought.

davidmhoffer
October 13, 2012 10:11 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm
David, I expect that all peer bloggers have a coffee, lean back and enjoy 5 years
of work and insights…..All trolls, who just feel important and want to disturb are not
invited…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, now I see. You asked for critical peer review but all you really wanted was to provide us with the opportunity to basque in the benificent glow of your brilliance. The fact is that commenters have raised legitimate issues which you have either not responded to at all, or avoided with the excuse that the paper is too long already, or (hilariously) admitted that the math to support your conjecture actually hasn’t been done but you promise to do so a year hence.
My impression is that you did not set out to fool anyone, but that you’ve managed to fool yourself. Calling your detractors “trolls” won’t make them wrong or you right.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 14, 2012 12:55 am

To David Hoffer: David, everybody can download the paper. My principle
is that I have to read the paper and then air opinion. afterwards. An author
immediately recognizes, whether a paper has been read or not….Fine,
two possiblities: Either I read unfounded comments and do NOT react. or
I react and speak my mind. All critizism welcome….but NOT reading and blowing
smoke does not have my symphathy…..

October 13, 2012 10:16 pm

To Geoff Sharp: Finally….. we settle that the SIM is a macro-climate driver, but
only very long term (multi-millenial scale), which we can afford to put aside from
the present discussion without losing too much content….
To the EOO cycle and its numbers: There are graphs for this in our paper:
The cycle length identified in the literature is 556 years and growing in its periodicity
by rounded 18 years with each continuing successive cycle…. this can be taken
from the TP-point list provided….you just have to subtract the dates…. this is already
too much work or thought for some of the people…. the EOO amplitude measure is
given on the left hand side, which shows the temperature amplitude in the GISP2
borehole…..Some people are not so good at reading graphics..
…Going now slowly toward the right hand side, the EOO-wave ( distance to the Sun)
at both ends of the perpendicular minor axis GROWS IN AMPLITUDE AND PERIOD,
whereas the amplitude explains the distance to the Sun… see as well graphics on
the impact pattern with the orbit run closer (warm run) or further (colder run) from
the Sun — the same, the up and down in the EOO-wave, is a continuous process at
both ends of the minor axis.
This astronomical cycle has been identified in the literature ( presented in detail)
What is the point of repeating what is explained straightforward and multiple times
in the text? Dear bloggers…. first step: (1) Read the text…(2) Ask senseful questions
afterwards….
Cheers for the Saturday, relax everybody…….JS

October 13, 2012 10:27 pm

To David M Hoffer: THe TSI is the solar output, which changes little….. the changes
are produced by the Earth’s orbit, with a distance varying 5 Mio km between the
Aphelion and the Perihelion making the Sunlight received on Earth to vary daily with
a max of 1,408 W/m2 on Jan 4 and 1,318 W/m2 on July 4.and all other days of the year
are in between…..while the TSI output itself just varies 3 Watts/ms, see the Gavin Schmidt
2012 version 1.1 paper…..see yourself….

Editor
October 13, 2012 10:31 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:52 pm

Willis, I sat over all this for 5 years and I can tell you one thing: This cosmic-climate relation is completely consistent and water-tight. Lets do it this way, my proposal:
You continue disbelieving and try to falsify our 18 pages with the info in it provided

I am sorry, Joachim, but there is far too little information in your paper to falsify it. That is why I asked you to calculate the change in momentum when the earth is impacted by something with a mass one ten-billionth of the mass of the Earth. Until you do that, until you provide the numbers to support that one and the rest of your various claims, there is nothing to falsify.

….meanwhile….
I get my additional calculations ready and put them into the annex of the new 2013 paper on the still missing fifth forcing cycle, on which you were at odds with Scafetta 6 months ago…..by the way, this discourse between you, Scafetta, me and Geoff Sharp was highly productive in hindsight because I found the solution for calculating the Jup/Sat cycle with full numbers….you will see this paper next spring….
.. its Saturday night, late… cheers for the moment….JS

Umm …
I asked you two questions, Joachim. The first regarded the effect of something impacting a mass ten billion times larger than itself. How much change (as a percentage) in the orbit of the larger object should we expect from such an impact?
I hold that the effect on the orbit (and thus on the temperature by way of orbital alteration) would be far too small to measure. If you want to convince me otherwise, show me the numbers.
My second question asked about the angle of the cosmic impact. I had said:

In addition, you are neglecting the angle at which the two objects strike each other, with respect to the Earth’s orbit. If they smash head-on, it will slow the Earth’s rotation around the sun. When the rotation slows, initially at least the Earth will drop nearer to the sun. But if the cosmic object strikes the Earth from behind, and speeds up the Earth, the resulting impact will move the Earth’s orbit further from the sun. And if it strikes the Earth from the side, things get even more complicated.

In other words, why should the immediate effect always be one of cooling from a cosmic impact? The impact could push the Earth either closer to or further from the sun … why do you say it leads cooling in both cases?
I finished above by saying:

I see no acknowledgement of either of these two issues (relative masses, angles of collision) in your work. Perhaps you could speak directly to those two questions.

Unfortunately, I do not see any discussion of either of those issues in your response. Instead, you are repeating your claims. As I said, the claims may be true … but repeating the claims instead of answering questions about your work does not engender confidence.
So let me invite you again to answer the questions.
Best regards,
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 14, 2012 12:38 am

To Willis: Open remains the question how do impact angles and the impact push
from front, back, left or right of the Earth’s path influence the impact pattern?
From front or back is easy, the planet is capable of accelerating and decellerating
(velocity between 29 and 31 km/s) and will thus make up a setback or slow down
according to the orbital system. How is is with a sideward impact? The answer is
that the orbital system ALWAYS reacts with going into the cold side, away from the
SUN, then oscillates to the warm orbital run and settles as third phase back in its
run, previous to the impact. This is what the system does…..prove: GISP2 temps.
Why is that.?..I hope an aeronautical peer would come up with a dynamic flight explanation….myself I made following conclusion: The system has 2 major orbital
forces, solar attraction towards Sun and Earth’s centrifugal forces away from the
Sun. Now, solar attraction remains unchanged but the impact enhances centrifugal
forcing…. I can imagine, that a super impact would even knock a planet out of its
orbit. Therefore, the system tries to repair itself by adding all centrifugal forces first
and moves the planet out into the cold run, followed by the already explained warm
and stabilization swings…
..But shouldn’t be at least one difference noticable in the GISP2 temp record? Yes
there is… the difference lies in the size/dimension of the upswing/downswing
temperature peaks…because there are impact patterns going down relatively deep
and rebouncing less than the previous knock down and on the other hand, there
are impacts, which knock down temps little and produce an enormous temp rebounce…
.. To go into those details, would be material for follow-up papers, not urgently
required for this overview paper….
Good to hear that you judge that falsification would be difficult/impossible.
If Leif calculates large impact masses to be required to disturb a smooth orbital
run then I would not agree because we have various certified impact dates, with the
impact right on top of a upward spike, knocking temps down and they are NOT
high mass/force….because the impacting speed is important…I recently came
upon an impact page from some Californian guys, where you can simulate you own
cosmic impacts by varying mass, angles and velocity and they developed the
computer program for those calculations….If it were important we could look again
to find it…calculations/simulations is done nowadays with the most unbelievable
matters… I think we can settle this question by looking together onto our impact graph….
.That the planet gets pushed out somewhat from its regular path is logical to me..
.you can see it in football/soccer, as small push of a player with NO force makes the
other players fall over like the bowling pins….
Think it over, JS any other observations?

October 13, 2012 10:35 pm

As I suspected, there is no map, and the North Sea cosmic impact events are fictional.
BTW, it’s just after lunch here.

Ray
October 13, 2012 10:35 pm

Jimmi the Dalek, for you…
Reference says:
October 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Ivanka Charvátová and Pavel Hejda
A possible role of the solar inertial motion in climatic changes,
33rd International Geological Congress August 8-14, 2008, Oslo,
http://catriskglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/charvatova.pdf
I have been reading the external links given on this thread until my eyes are crossed. I believe that there are others links that suggest a similar relation between the sun’s orbit about the barycenter and climate change but I do not have the energy to go back and find them for you.
For Leif Svalgaard:
I applaud your efforts. I also believe that astronomical cycles affect the long term climate rather than the idea that short term events cause ‘runaway positive feedback’ to cause major long term climate change. My comments to follow are offered respectfully. Please take them as such.
I am skeptical about the hypothesis of Earth Orbital Oscillations. There seems to be a preponderance of astronomical studies and calculations that such a cycle does not exist and you offer no explanation or citations to support this idea. Astronomical proof is needed to support this. Without further proof, this is just an unsupported and questionable hypothesis. Perhaps there is another astronomical pattern that is causing the climate cycle that you are observing. It is yet to be decided.
I am also skeptical about the hypothesis of the deformation of the earth’s orbit caused by cosmic impacts. The energy of such an impact does not seem sufficient. That being said, you have succeeded in identifying a definite climate signature (the shape of the high voltage symbol) of known impacts and have predicted the presence of additional impact episodes that have not been identified. That is a good accomplishment. It would be definitely validated if the other impacts can be identified and properly dated. However, that finding still would not support the hypothesis of deformation of the earth;s orbit. Further mathematical and astronomical proof is needed.
Finally, in my opinion, your paper spends too much time deriding the efforts of those that propose theory of General Circulation Models. It would be sufficient to point out that they have been disproved and to provide citations. You take it to the extreme with repeated quotations such as “no status of truth”. You also include unnecessary negative comments. An example is; “Schmidt misses out on atmospheric laughing gas forcing”. Your negative attitude is also evidenced in your comments on this thread:
“Reply to Volker Doormann:
We are peers on this website and you are the good, star gazing, esoterical ASTROLOGICAL guy…I know, Pluto told you all, stars do not lie and because Saturn crossed the Venus line,
the discussion paper must have many flaws….. My climate peers, Doormann has spoken…JS”
This attitude is unprofessional and detracts from your efforts to put forth an unbiased scientific proof of your theories. The “trolls” on this blog that you criticize are seen by us all as being “trolls”. When you lower yourself to that level, you also appear to us as being a “troll”. Do not lower yourself to that level. Stay above the fray and remain calm, cool, and professional.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 13, 2012 10:42 pm

From Ian W on October 13, 2012 at 7:13 pm:
It seems that both of you want to assert a heliocentric rather than barycentric view but I don’t see your logic.
Because you have decided to not see the logic.
What effect is generated by the barycentric motion upon the Sun and solar system? Is there enough of a galactic magnetic field locally that the twirling generates an electric field that affects the Sun and subsequently affects Earth’s climate? Does the twirling within the gravitational fields between the Sun and bodies outside of the solar system perturb the depths of the Sun enough to alter its output?
The answers are, of course, no. There is nothing generated worth mentioning from the barycentric motion, except decorative curvy plots like I used to make with a Spirograph when I was a child.
Geoff Sharp said on October 13, 2012 at 8:38 pm:
The orbit of the Sun around the SSB induced only by the planet positions changes the solar velocity by 100% every 10 years. This is indisputable and solid evidence of planetary influence on the Sun.
Yes, just like the velocity of a valve stem on a wheel rim keeps changing. It’s amazing the wheel ever gets anywhere with all those changes.
From a January 2009 Time article:

It turns out that our solar system is moving nearly 100,000 m.p.h. faster than previously thought — revolving around the center of the Milky Way at 568,000 m.p.h., announced Mark Reid of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics on Monday at the American Astronomical Society’s conference in Long Beach, Calif. (…)

100% change in the solar velocity every 10 years, with the average speed of the Sun being 568,000 miles per hour around the center of the galaxy? Just from the influence of the planets that are also traveling at that speed on average with the same rotation?

October 13, 2012 10:47 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:52 pm
To give a distance change idea: radius 149 Mio km, the impact distance change
lies between 50,000 km and max.1 Mio km.

Let’s say 100,000 km, then a simple calculation gives that the kinetic energy of the Earth will change by 0.07% if you change its distance by 100,000 km. The impactor will have to have a kinetic energy of the same order of of magnitude of that of the Earth in order to change the Earth’s by that much. Assuming that the typical speed of the impactor is of the order of that of the Earth’s, the mass of the impactor will have to be 0.07% of the Earth which is impossibly large.

jimmi_the_dalek
October 13, 2012 11:05 pm

Ray, thank you for the Ivanka Charvátová reference, but I had seen it before and regrettably find it unconvincing. just as I find every argument which works in terms of the system barycentre.
People keep saying, the Sun moves with respect to the barycentre, it must have an effect. But what I am saying, as is Anna V, is why must it?
The barycentre is an imaginary point. A choice for the origin of the coordinate system. Instead of saying that the sun moves relative to the barycentre and imagining it jumping around all over the place, just think of it the other way around. The barycentre moves relative to the Sun. The barycentre is a massless, chargeless fictional point. It has no electric or magnetic field. It exerts no forces. Why in all the heavens should the Sun care where the barycentre is?

October 13, 2012 11:34 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:47 pm
the mass of the impactor will have to be 0.07% of the Earth which is impossibly large.
That is five times the mass of the largest asteroid, Ceres.

October 13, 2012 11:40 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm
We need some numbers and where you are measuring it from (without comet impacts). JPL tells us the perihelion distance of the Earth to the Sun varies by 15000km in a rough 60 year cycle. Are you disputing these figures, if so your paper is way out on a limb?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Can I suggest you attempt to bring yourself up to speed by looking at the Wolff & Patrone paper.

October 13, 2012 11:51 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:42 pm
100% change in the solar velocity every 10 years, with the average speed of the Sun being 568,000 miles per hour around the center of the galaxy? Just from the influence of the planets that are also traveling at that speed on average with the same rotation?
I was referring to the orbital velocity of the Sun around the SSB which is on a different plane. Think of it as a spinning bicycle wheel traveling axle first around the galaxy centre.

donald penman
October 13, 2012 11:55 pm

The idea that the Earths climate changes only by going through cycles is popular and there is evidence that supports these cycles which result from changes in cosmic alignment ; Moon ,planets and position in galaxy.I don’t think though that all change in Earths climate has to be cyclic and the Earths climate has the potential to become unstable over a long time period.I also find the impact theory a bit hard to believe given the size of the Earth and the size of the meteorites, it is possible that impacts could accumulate on one side of the Earth rather than hit randomly but I don’t believe that would be possible to measure.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 14, 2012 1:21 am

I would like to know where their GISP2 data came from.
The paper waves it off, saying it’s “…available for downloading from the internet.”
I have found NOAA’s clearinghouse for Greenland Ice Core data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html
Going by the spacing of “between 5 and 17 years” that would indicate the beginning of the Alley 2000 dataset, not the Kobashi 2011 dataset (names linked to relevant papers). Both sets available from the NOAA page. The Kobashi “GISP2 4000-Year Ar-N2 Isotope Temperature Reconstruction” has a resolution of only one year but is much shorter.
However the Alley GISP2 dataset has notable errors. Starting from the beginning at 119.205 years before present (before 1950), there are two temperatures given for the same time. I had stuffed the data in a spreadsheet and have a column for the difference in times to check the spacing. The zero time differences are many and glaring.
There are also oddities with those.
Years BP, Difference, Temperature in °C
3989.62_10.9_-31.0708
3989.62__0.0_-31.0932
4016.89_27.3_-30.9952
4016.89__0.0_-30.9140
4029.42_12.5_-30.9148

In a string of spacings between 11 and 14 years, there is what looks like a doubled interval. Something similar happens soon after, at 4294.27 there’s a doubled interval, 4294.27 again but with a different temperature, then the spacing resumes.
Thus I want to know if Alley 2000 is the dataset they used, where they downloaded it from, if it has these errors, and how did they fix or work around the errors (if present). If their version as downloaded doesn’t have these errors, then information about the differences needs be presented to check the veracity of their version as the one from NOAA is the “official” download.
They did check their GISP2 data for possible errors before using it, didn’t they? I’ve looked through their paper, I see no mention of errors in the GISP2 dataset, no corrections etc. The first error is in the first five times. I just checked the NOAA one again, errors are still there. How did they not notice them?
That’s why I want to know where they got their GISP2 data.

October 14, 2012 1:25 am

Comment to Ray: I principally agree with you that I have the tendency to overshoot.
With Doormann I got mad and I wished I had not reacted, because we all know who
we are. I do not agree concerning the paper: Only a few of us are aware that there
are dozens of GCMs out there, expensively done on computer systems and in the
end they ALL fail miserable in the entire Holocene temp reconstruction-model – data
comparison…….
Why should I hold this misery, which the climate institutes themselves, see quotes,
admit, under the table and not put it right in the middle?
Our cosmic cycle approach is the one and only, which performs, with best
results in temperature evolution. Unrivalled. Why should I rate the hockey stick
in the last figure as scientific work? Some people doubt but they should point out
a superiour GCM work, reproducing GISP2 better than we……
Read Mr. Schmidt, his two example papers on microdrivers, saying in the end that his
work would be ‘uncertain?” Imagine, I would say to Anthony and Willis: Here is my
paper but in the end it will be all uncertain? He would scratch his head…..
OK, next time a will put my tolerance bar higher…
JS

Ray
October 14, 2012 1:36 am

My earlier post was in error. I addressed my comments about the paper that is the subject of this thread to Leif Svalgaard. It should have been addressed to J. Seifert.

October 14, 2012 1:53 am

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:38 am
If Leif calculates large impact masses to be required to disturb a smooth orbital
run then I would not agree

It doesn’t matter that you disagree, the calculation is elementary and sound, so your basic tenet is dead. No need to discuss this paper any longer.

Ninderthana
October 14, 2012 2:12 am

J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:42 pm
my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer blogging site….
Leif says in response to J. Seifert said:
It seems you are being hit by a healthy dose of wonderful skepticism…
There is a big difference between gate-keeping and skepticism….

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 14, 2012 2:49 am

From Geoff Sharp on October 13, 2012 at 11:40 pm:

Can I suggest you attempt to bring yourself up to speed by looking at the Wolff & Patrone paper.

While trying to Google it up, I found this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Patrone.doc


The paper by Wolff and Patrone narrates one of those fairy tales that has not gripped me sufficiently to read beyond the first few pages. It appears to be an example of the product of certain undergraduate physics courses, against which I have (successfully) fought in my university, in which students are ‘taught’ – or at least have presented to them — a large number of ‘facts’ covering the whole of physics from which they are supposed to be considered well rounded and qualified to go out into the world with broad minds, ready to apply those formulaic ideas without having understood their derivation nor the conditions under which they are valid. That can get them into very hot water indeed, as it has the current authors. Much better, in my opinion, is to teach the students the fundamentals of the subject, leaving them with the ability to teach themselves the rest in later life.

I regret I do not have the time to bring myself up to speed on “fairy tales”.

DirkH
October 14, 2012 2:54 am

anna v says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:33 pm
“That a barycenter has no gravitational strength can be seen in the simpler earth moon system where the barycenter ploughs through the earth 1,710 km below the surface every second, every minute. The earth would have been turned into mayonnaise from the beginning of the formation of the earth moon system leaving no chance for continents to rise. Of course the tides are correlated with this motion. BUT correlation is not causation should be primary in any scientific observations and results sought.”
The barycenter corresponds to the point to which masses are attracted due to the superposition of all the gravitational fields that act on them together. The barycenter of the Earth “ploughing” through the mass center of the Earth has of course little meaning to a particle inside the Earth as that particle is close to the center anyway and a far lower gravity acts on it than for a particle on the surface of the Earth (It is attracted by the layers on top of it as well as by the layers below it; effective gravity right in the barycenter would be zero, ignoring the solar system gravitational fields for the moment).
For a particle on the surface of the Earth, the swinging of Earth’s barycenter means a slight deviation in the direction it is attracted to; explaining tides. You have just swept the tides from the table, dismissing them as correlating with lunar motion but maybe or maybe not being caused by them.
I hold that tides ARE caused by the influence of the moon; and I think the last 12,000 years of human civilization confirm that.
As for things being turned into mayonnaise, now that is an impossibility in the absence of raw egg but “Stresses caused by tidal forces also cause a regular monthly pattern of moonquakes on Earth’s Moon.” which is, I think, as close as the Moon can be in trying to turn into Mayonnaise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force

davidmhoffer
October 14, 2012 3:11 am

J Seifert;
An author immediately recognizes, whether a paper has been read or not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Authors can read minds? Wow. I’ll have to be more careful about whose stuff I read from now on.
J Seifert;
Either I read unfounded comments and do NOT react. or I react and speak my mind. All critizism welcome….but NOT reading and blowing smoke does not have my symphathy…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: So you welcome criticism except when you disagree with it. Got it.
J. Seifert;
Only a few of us are aware that there are dozens of GCMs out there, expensively done on computer systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: You must be very special, only one of a few people who are aware of this.
J Seifert:
Now, solar attraction remains unchanged but the impact enhances centrifugal
forcing…. I can imagine, that a super impact would even knock a planet out of its
orbit. Therefore, the system tries to repair itself by adding all centrifugal forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: The system tries to repair itself? The system is sentient? I refer you to the first comment in this thread by Leif Svalgaard. After you’ve read it I refer you to his comment at 12:38 AM. After you’ve read that, I refer you to the first comment in this thread by Leif Svalgaard. Repeat as required.

jimmi_the_dalek
October 14, 2012 4:16 am

DirkH “I hold that tides ARE caused by the influence of the moon; and I think the last 12,000 years of human civilization confirm that.”
Of course tides are caused by the moon’s gravity. But they are not caused by the motion about the earth-moon centre. See post at 3.59pm

October 14, 2012 4:46 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 14, 2012 at 2:49 am
I am not sure why you bother to comment as you have offered nothing to this conversation. A half baked private email response is not a solid rebuttal to W&P.

Ian W
October 14, 2012 6:53 am

jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 13, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Ian W “It seems that both of you want to assert a heliocentric rather than barycentric view but I don’t see your logic.”
No we are not – we are asking you, what effect does the motion about the barycentre, or any other centre, have on the properties of the star and/or planets?
The barycentre is an arbitrary point chosen for convenience in solving the equations of motion as it allows you to ignore the overall translational motion of the system. Any other choice for the origin of the coordinate system will give the same orbits, though with a little more work. It is a general principle that the choice of coordinate system does not affect any real physical property.
The point you still have not got about the Doppler shift method, is that it does not measure a change in the star, so it cannot be used to prove that there is a change – you are going to need something else.
And you have not come up with anything to indicate that there are significant changes in planetary orbits over a shortish time period.

And
The barycentre is an imaginary point. A choice for the origin of the coordinate system. Instead of saying that the sun moves relative to the barycentre and imagining it jumping around all over the place, just think of it the other way around. The barycentre moves relative to the Sun. The barycentre is a massless, chargeless fictional point. It has no electric or magnetic field. It exerts no forces. Why in all the heavens should the Sun care where the barycentre is?
And

anna v says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:33 pm

Jimmi you ask “Why in all the heavens should the Sun care where the barycentre is?” I will avoid the anthropomorphism … and try again
Let us assume that magically everything in the universe disappears apart from the Sun with it still retaining its current velocity (speed and direction) and rotation. In the absence of the other gravitational forces it will no longer be ‘continually accelerating toward the center of its orbit’ as a continual velocity change due to the centripetal force because that centripetal force that keeps it in an orbit has disappeared.
So when the planets and galaxy are there the centripetal force acts toward the barycenter of all the masses involved. That centripetal force is sufficient to accelerate the entire solar mass so it is not small. If the barycenter is moved the vector of the centripetal force is moved and the centripetal acceleration changes. Yes – I agree that the barycenter is a ‘virtual’ point but the centripetal forces acting on the bodies orbiting the barycenter are real – or there would be no orbits all bodies would travel in nice straight lines.
You are claiming that there is NO centripetal force on any of the stars or planets – as the barycenter is virtual – I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps you would explain.

October 14, 2012 7:01 am

Geoff Sharp says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:46 am
I am not sure why you bother to comment as you have offered nothing to this conversation.
Neither have you as it turns out.
A half baked private email response is not a solid rebuttal to W&P.
But Douglas Gough’s comment to me on W&P is:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Gough-Comment-on-Wolf-Padrone.doc
“Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar considered certain classes of fluid interchange under restricted circumstances under which the issue of moving boundary conditions does not arise. Therefore their analyses are meaningful. Wolff and Padrone consider more general situations, as stated in the last six lines of p.232. What they failed to point out, however, is that in consequence application of the perfectly valid arguments of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar, inadequately modified by the modified situation, is not correct. They have fallen into the trap of many a naive modern physics student of misapplying an initially valid formula to a situation in which it is not valid.
I have no advice to offer the authors that I believe they might take. What they should do is go back to the original publications of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar and try to understand them. If they succeed, and if they are honest, they would then withdraw the paper.”

October 14, 2012 7:17 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:01 am
But Douglas Gough’s comment to me on W&P is:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Padrone.doc

I see that this was already referred to. In any case it is useful to do it again. If W&P “are honest, they would then withdraw the paper”.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 14, 2012 7:18 am

From Geoff Sharp on October 14, 2012 at 4:46 am:
I am not sure why you bother to comment as you have offered nothing to this conversation. A half baked private email response is not a solid rebuttal to W&P.
You have a curious definition of “nothing”.
I have yet to see a good reason to view this as barycentric instead of heliocentric. Dreaming up new reference frames where you can claim the velocity of the Sun changes 100% over 10 years does not help. It would be quite impressive to see that happen to a star like our Sun, involving forces unimaginable, so wrenching they’ll likely tear the star apart.
Yet the Sun is doing just fine, so I know you’re just playing tricks, playing with frames of reference to imagine that which does not manifest itself physically.
When I search for “wolff patrone” what first shows up is Tallbloke’s site, first two results. I’ve noticed Tallbloke was removed from the “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory” blogroll section not that long ago. Given the sort of stuff that shows up at his site and is given serious consideration, I was not expecting much from W&P. And W&P was only in the first seven results, largely by references to the paper. Not good.
I have now read the W&P Abstract. Summary: Gravitational forces from planets can churn the material of a star, resulting in increased solar output and decreased lifespan compared to the same star without planets. That’s it. I see no advantage to using a barycentric viewpoint over heliocentric, the planets are exerting tidal forces, thus my view from long ago in this thread still stands.
If you continue to insist I must read the full paper, then provide a free link or the $39.95 for the paywall.
As it stands, you have yet to provide justification for a barycentric viewpoint that passes muster. Smoke and mirrors, misdirection, hand waving, assorted attempts at belittling, those you have provided. But even just one solid reason why it must be barycentric and not heliocentric, still not yet.

October 14, 2012 7:29 am

To Willis again: As you say: Putting numbers into cosmic impacts is of great
importance, because it has a very practical side: Asessment of the global cooling
process after a future impact on Earth. We cannot exclude that this will happen
within the next generations…
There is, as usual, a Hollywood film on “Impact” .on the market…..but this only shows
that there can be an impact scare and calculations would help to clarify the grave/not
grave character of such an event.
The relation of impact pattern (ensuing temp drop after the impact) to crater sizes
can be statistically studied and we would get the depth of the future temp drop, the
years required to reach the bottom temp floor and the average decadal temp drop.
This would calm the public and helps against scare-mongering, because, as the
GISP2 shows, the temp drop proceeds in multi-decadal time spans and not in
overnight or yearly leaps…..
To Leif: His mass calculations are one thing, he maintains he has the REAL figures….
His opinion….. Parameters for temp drops/crater sizes/flying cosmic mass sizes can
be taken from GISP2 and from geological crater studies….there also exist a scientific
crater and impact study community which should be able to present their details….
……The paper proves what IS a cosmic impact and what IS NOT a cosmic impact,
and we can distinguish this through use of the COMBINATION (1) Impact pattern (high
voltage symbol – in temperature drop/rebounce/stabilization) WITH (2) cosmic
TP-shifts. Both taken together prove the cause/provenience/occurence of a
cosmic impact strike and the necessarily ensuing temp drop….
The striking cosmic masses do NOT have to be large and fulfil Leifs calculation
pad…If Leif reckons all Holocene impacts do NOT FULFILL his quantity mass impact
calculations in order to produce our impact pattern….then his conclusion would be
that all 13 GISP2 temp drops after each “Leif-micro-mass”- impact are purely
coincidence and TP-shifting in the Earth orbit cycle would be…(he did not yet
comment on this one yet) …something…? Fine, he is the one who must falsify
our claim that impact masses can be SMALL TO CAUSE temp drop/
rebounce/stabilization cycles…..and he demands exaggerated cosmic masses.
The answer would lie in the fact that impact power increases with impact speed,
the higher, the stronger the impact…thus an impact mass can be rather smaller
then larger to produce enumerated impact features….
JS

pochas
October 14, 2012 8:11 am

jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 13, 2012 at 11:05 pm
“People keep saying, the Sun moves with respect to the barycentre, it must have an effect. But what I am saying, as is Anna V, is why must it?”
Synchronicity. We notice that solar activity seems to be correlated with planetary orbits and that the earth’s climate seems to be affected by solar activity. But we know that with known physics the effects of solar activity are ‘too tiny to matter’ so apparently there can be no direct effect of planetary orbits on the earth’s climate. However, over the eons the tiny tidal forces raised by Jupiter and Saturn and the sun may have also had an effect on the earth-moon-sun system. Now gravity enters the picture and the planetary effects on earth’s climate are an illusion, and the real actor is gravity. This suggests we need to be looking at the relationship between tidal effects and gross ocean currents, especially as regards vertical mixing.
See Keeling and Whorf (2000) http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full.pdf
Also, I suspect that the cooling effect attributed by Seifert to orbital displacement may in fact be due to a sudden disturbance to the ocean temperature profile, either from vertical mixing or surface cooling that somehow persists for a long time.

October 14, 2012 8:15 am

Here one reply to Leif: Leif, your quote “simple calculations” demand high
impact masses to produce the impact mechanics pattern. …Whereas
we identified 13 cosmic impacts in the Holocene on Earth, based on the
(1) temperature impact pattern COMBINED with
(2) a TP-SHIFT at the following EOO-turning point line plus
(3) a size correlation of small-medium-large terrestrial impact sites with the
respective small-medium-large temperature
drop+rebounces+stabilization swing…..
According to your “simple calculations”, none of the 13 identified impacts fulfill your
size requirement and is LARGE enough to produce (1) plus (2) plus (3) which ALL
can be clearly identified in the Holocene temp evolution.
Our peers may judge now, whether Leifs calculation pad has the right numbers
or our analysis of Holocene impact events…Important in this is that the EOO-TP
shift of the orbit cannot be caused by events on the Earth’s surface and can only
result from orbital DEFORMATION by the impact strike…. The TP-shift is clearly
demonstrated in the various graphics …. most easy to recognize in the 27-37 ka
BP picture….this is why we added those 10,000 years as well…..
Leif tell us what does your notebook say about the two TP-shifts downwards
in our 27-37 ka BP picture?….Please present more of your cosmic mass numbers
to solve the 27-37 ka BP temperature evolution and the two observed TP-shifts
downwards… JS

wayne
October 14, 2012 8:38 am

I must admit that in the aspect raised by DirkH and Ian W that anna v has made a mistake. It is not a bad mistake, but she is taking the viewpoint that all bodies can be approximated by assuming that they act as if they are all point sources of gravitational attraction, which technically they are not. Her view does ignore internal and surface tidal accelerations toward mutual centers of attraction in all bodies, especially important here in the Earth and the Sun itself. So the question still remains whether the tidal flows within the sun’s matter do, in fact, cause enough variance to meaningfully affect Earths long term climate. It is a valid question when worded properly.
To me if you were to ever claim that this position of the center of attraction as felt by the Sun (the bc) were to cause multi-year variance you would first have to show that there is in fact some amount of a 27 day signature in the solar radiation as the sun revolves about its axis or the effect in the next paragraph. I don’t think I have ever seen such fast-action correlation. We all know the exact distance of the Earth from the sun does vary not only on ellipticity but also depends on where the center of attraction is from the sun’s center over many years, but I also agree that from first principles this does seem very tiny at best.
To even simulate such affect you would have to break the sun’s mass into some thousands of pieces and track the movement and trajectories of each of these pieces to see if there are some presently unknown flows within the sun itself, possibly tending to warm and cool the surface in cycles from the core over time. I also don’t remember seeing any such analysis along these lines. But I do agree, most of these aspects are just trivally ignored and they really should not be without some detailed analysis.

October 14, 2012 8:39 am

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 8:15 am
Here one reply to Leif: Leif, your quote “simple calculations” demand high
impact masses to produce the impact mechanics pattern.

Your whole argument hangs on if an impact can change the orbit by 50,000-1,000,000 km. My calculation shows that it can, provided the impactor has a mass 5 times larger than the largest asteroid [Ceres]. Which is clearly impossible. The impact that wiped out the dinosaurs had an estimated diameter of only 10-15 km versus Ceres’s 950 km. So, on grounds of energy the changes in distance that you claim are physically impossible. That demolishes your paper, regardless of what else you claim.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
October 14, 2012 10:40 am

Leif: We both agree that an cosmic impact is capable to deform the orbit, which
in turn would the produce the impact pattern, ensuing temp decline and the
TP-shift. The only difference between us is that your calculations need higher
cosmic masses/energy to achieve that goal.
My side is supported by 13 impact observations as prove….on your side is your
calculation pad, which denies that the 13 impacts and their effects took place,
for the sole reason that your calculation requires higher impact forces to produce
observed effects.
Fine, whether your high mass requirement were correctly calculated, we may
resolve with the aid of other astronomical experts…. JS.

beng
October 14, 2012 9:29 am

****
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 8:39 am
Your whole argument hangs on if an impact can change the orbit by 50,000-1,000,000 km. My calculation shows that it can, provided the impactor has a mass 5 times larger than the largest asteroid [Ceres]. Which is clearly impossible. The impact that wiped out the dinosaurs had an estimated diameter of only 10-15 km versus Ceres’s 950 km. So, on grounds of energy the changes in distance that you claim are physically impossible. That demolishes your paper, regardless of what else you claim.
****
Yup. Pretty basic….

Editor
October 14, 2012 10:12 am

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:38 am

To Willis: Open remains the question how do impact angles and the impact push from front, back, left or right of the Earth’s path influence the impact pattern?
From front or back is easy, the planet is capable of accelerating and decellerating (velocity between 29 and 31 km/s) and will thus make up a setback or slow down according to the orbital system. How is is with a sideward impact? The answer is that the orbital system ALWAYS reacts with going into the cold side, away from the SUN, then oscillates to the warm orbital run and settles as third phase back in its run, previous to the impact. This is what the system does…..prove: GISP2 temps.

Thank you for the response, Joachim. Sorry, but that is nonsensical reasoning. You say that cosmic impacts change the orbit, and that the orbital change results in a change in GISP2 temps, that it always changes in the same direction (cooling) and your proof is … that GISP2 temps change.
But that only makes sense if we have already established the underlying idea that the collision changes the orbit, AND we have established that said orbital change affects the temperature … and that’s not been established.

… Good to hear that you judge that falsification would be difficult/impossible.

It should not be “good to hear”. If your claims are not falsified, you are in good shape.
But if they are not falsifiable, then they are not valid scientific claims. To be a scientific, a claim must be able to be falsified. You have not done your part of the job. You have not provided the numbers and calculations that are required to make your claims scientific.
Look, if I say “the Empire State Building is tall”, that statement cannot be falsified. It is tall compared to some objects, and not tall compared to others. But if I say “the Empire State Building is taller than 300 metres”, we can falsify that statement.
So no, it should not be “good to hear” that your claims cannot be falsified, it should be bad to hear, it means that your work is merely anecdote, not science. The fact that you seem oblivious to the difference between anecdote and science is worrisome …

If Leif calculates large impact masses to be required to disturb a smooth orbital run then I would not agree because we have various certified impact dates, with the impact right on top of a upward spike, knocking temps down and they are NOT high mass/force….because the impacting speed is important…I recently came upon an impact page from some Californian guys, where you can simulate you own cosmic impacts by varying mass, angles and velocity and they developed the computer program for those calculations….If it were important we could look again to find it…calculations/simulations is done nowadays with the most unbelievable matters… I think we can settle this question by looking together onto our impact graph…..That the planet gets pushed out somewhat from its regular path is logical to me…you can see it in football/soccer, as small push of a player with NO force makes the other players fall over like the bowling pins….

That is one of the more ridiculous claims I’ve ever heard. First, moving a planet is not like football, where a small force can trip up a big player. You can’t use judo on a planet, or leverage, unless you are Archimedes. To change the orbit of a planet, only one thing works. You need brute force. Lots of brute force. And to move the Earth, you need lots and lots and lots of force.
More to the point, you can’t hand-wave away the need for calculations by saying that you have “certified impact dates”. I don’t give a hoot if you claim the GISP2 data moves in harmony with your impact dates. The question is, how much force can you get from the impact, and how far will it move the earth?
Now, I have not done the orbital calculations as Leif has, but the answer was obvious to me from the masses involved. The masses of any conceivable colliding cosmic objects are many, many, many orders of magnitude smaller than would be required for your theory to work.
So all of your handwaving about soccer players and the like is meaningless. As I said above, not once but a couple of times, if you want to convince me of your cockamamie theory that a collision with some fly-speck sized object will move the earth out of its orbit, SHOW ME THE NUMBERS.
Because frankly, Joachim, I’m growing quite bored with your vapid unsupported claims. I’m tired of asking you questions and getting the runaround. It’s time to put your numbers where your mouth is.
w.
PS—You are committing a fundamental logical error. Note that I (and Leif) are not saying that a cosmic impact has no effect on the climate. I am saying that a cosmic impact of the type you describe has very little effect on the orbit. As a result, saying that GISP2 shows a climate effect from an impact MEANS NOTHING ABOUT THE EARTH’S ORBIT. A cosmic impact might (or might not) have a climate effect from a host of other factors, so even if there is an observable climate effect, that doesn’t mean that the Earth’s orbit has been pushed out of shape as you claim.

Editor
October 14, 2012 10:52 am

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:29 am

To Willis again: As you say: Putting numbers into cosmic impacts is of great importance, because it has a very practical side: Asessment of the global cooling process after a future impact on Earth. We cannot exclude that this will happen within the next generations…
There is, as usual, a Hollywood film on “Impact” .on the market…..but this only shows that there can be an impact scare and calculations would help to clarify the grave/not grave character of such an event.
The relation of impact pattern (ensuing temp drop after the impact) to crater sizes can be statistically studied and we would get the depth of the future temp drop, the years required to reach the bottom temp floor and the average decadal temp drop. This would calm the public and helps against scare-mongering, because, as the GISP2 shows, the temp drop proceeds in multi-decadal time spans and not in overnight or yearly leaps…..

Yes, as I say, putting numbers into cosmic impacts is of great importance … so why have you not done so? Leif has done so. I have done so. You have not done so.
When you do so, you will find that a “cosmic impact” with the types of objects we have encountered in the past only has the energy to make a tiny, imperceptible, minuscule, trivially small change in the earth’s orbit. This change is far, far too small to create the knock-on effects that you are claiming.
So yes … the calculations are important. Do them and report your findings back to the group.
w.

October 14, 2012 11:33 am

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 10:40 am
Fine, whether your high mass requirement were correctly calculated, we may resolve with the aid of other astronomical experts…. JS.
This you should have done beforehand.
But we do not need “other astronomical experts”. You can do the calculation yourself [and readers can follow along] without fancy mathematics. It goes like this:
A body in orbit has a certain kinetic energy [KE] in the framework of the solar system. The basic formula for KE is KE = 1/2 * mass * speed squared [we can omit the factor of 1/2 for order of magnitude calculations]. The Earth’s speed is about 30 km/sec. If you move the Earth to a different orbit its speed is different. How different? Here is a website that shows you the speed of different planets and their distances: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm
You can see that the speed goes [inversely] with the square root of the distance. So the KE is now mass * square (square root(distance)) or just mass * distance. If you change the distance by 100,000 km [=0.07% of the Earth’s distance (1 AU) from the Sun], the resulting distance is 1.0007 so the KE changes by 0.0007 or 0.07%. since the mass has not changed appreciably. Assuming that the impactor on average has a speed comparable to that of the Earth and that all the kinetic energy of the impactor goes into changing the orbit, the KE of the impactor would be 0.07% of that of the Earth and since the speeds were assumed to be the same, the mass of the impactor would have to be 0.07% that of the Earth. The mass of Ceres is 9×10^20 kg, that of the Earth is 6×10^24 kg, so Ceres has a mass 0.015% of the Earth, so the impactor would have a mass 0.5 times that of Ceres for a change in distance of 100,000 km, or 5 times that of Ceres for the upper range of the distance change you claim, 1,000,000 km.
Now, this calculation is what is called a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation and only gives a rough indication of reality. One thing that is certainly wrong with it is the assumption that ALL the KE of the impactor goes into changing the Earth’s orbit. Most of the KE goes into vaporizing the impactor and the ground at the impact site, so our estimate of the mass of the impactor is only a lower limit, the real mass must be considerably larger. We also ignore things like the angle of impact, all of which make little difference to the overall argument.

davidmhoffer
October 14, 2012 11:43 am

J Seifert;
I’m looking at Figure A of your paper. There are more peaks (both high and low) that do NOT match your cycles than do. Some of them stick out like sore thumbs, such as 5200BC, 4900BC, 3600BC, 1900BC, 1200BC, 0BC, 700AD and 1100AD. If there is an actual cycle, and an actual turning point within that cycle that is 50 years different from what you have calculated, do you realize that you would get almost the same number of “peaks” correlating to the vertical lines in your graph? If all I did was throw vertical lines at the GISP2 data with completely random intervals, I could wind up circling the same or more number of “turning points” and claim correlation to my random intervals! Further, some of what you have circled as “turning points” clearly aren’t. For example 6800BC and 6600BC are brief and very small variations from what is clearly an 800 year trend. Some turning point!
What you are dealing with here is a raging case of confirmation bias. You decided what the answers were, and went looking in the data for thiings that correlate to your pre-determined answers. You found what you are looking for by simply ignoring anything that doesn’t fit and also ignoring that even random intervals produce correlation to a certain number of peaks in the data.
BTW, Leif’s and Willis’ contention regarding the mass required to impact the earth and alter itz orbit by the amount you claim is bang on. That doesn’t mean that the 13 impacts you claim never happened (which is what you tried to suggest in rebuttal to Leif) but that they were of insufficient size to produce the orbital changes that you claim.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 14, 2012 1:26 pm

To David: Wonderful, I like your kind of responses, which shows you read
the paper and coming up with suggestions. Yesterday we had a few of
those who just opine without knowing the paper.
The EOO cycle is your concern: And here you found some spikes, “which
stick out like a sore thumb ” exactly…. these thumbs do NOT belong to the
EOO-cycle…..this “sticking out ” proves it, those points are NOT EOO-TPs
as you allege, but the end points of the IMPACT mechanism, the spikes
of the High -Voltage-Impact Symbol….. Those two mechanisms are completely
separate, and only show to interact overlayered in the GISP2 graph…. .
I should have included more graphs, for you, for example, to make it clear:
The first Figure A graph, as is, but then a second graph,
from which the Spikes of the Impact symbol as NOT pertaining to the EOO being
removed…. therefore: Overlay the impact “Blitz”es, as I call it, on top of figure A
and take the CIO impact spikes out…..and then the clean TPs of the EOO are
left to remain…..
The problem with the Holocene really is this high disturbance due to impacts
….this confuses many people and this is the cause why Holocene reconstruction
is in its infancy, in spite of million-subsidized institutional GCMs….see how
AGW is howling about the low quality of their model-Holocene data comparison
….(( and by the way, G. Lohmann of AWI just went back to ONLY 4,000 BC from
today on, and for the time before that he kept in gentleman’s silence….if Lohmann
read this he would …..not talk about it….we know why……the Met-guys Hamburg
(Jungclaus, Bothe) only dared to to model-data comparison for 1,500 years, with
the verdict: of “no status of truth”….some AGW-follower complained my remark.
…. and here we talk about a MEAGRE 1,500 years of Holocene time span…
You like to side with Leif and his impact mass calculations…
I can tell you the following (1) I like his wonderful white beard, a person, who
I would like to come at Chrismas… (2) he apologized to me being off in calculations
last year…. and now (3): See his notebook calculations: He calculates a 100,000 km
distance change ALL AROUND THE COMPLETE ORBIT…..see his figures….
whereas: I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move
outward…which is absolutely imposssible since the aphelion-perihelion distance
is an adiabatic constant and does NOT move…. what senseless energy
calculation assuming what we never have claimed…..JS

October 14, 2012 12:09 pm

To Willis: We reached a point now where we should take a break. Tiredness set in
and that is not helpful.
Since we both wrote lengthy replies, let me describe the concise state of our
discussion: 1. You want numbers on cosmic mass, cosmic energy, orbital
deformation in kilometers, impact angles and related astronomical
values…..
Until you have those, you, as you write, CANNOT [and will not]
falsify our paper because our numbers, as your Empire State
building example, appear to you as being sound and correct.
Well, I am happy with your statement and can live with it.
Imagine all the people who, until now, live with
underperforming GCMs with WRONG numbers of Holocene
reconstruction….this is what our climate work is all about…..
2. We proved, WITHOUT your wanted numbers, that 13 Holocene
impacts took place [you agree?] and they can be detected in GISP2
based on their GISP2-appearence, which is A. Impact pattern,
B.astronomical TP-shift, C. Correlation Impact size and temp
change effect.
Application of this cosmic analysis, as it stands, provides the best
Holocene and the best 27-37 ka BP temperature reconstruction…..IN
OPPOSITION to present day underperforming, low quality institutional
GCMs, which were tested and found you know how.
We realize that full astronomical calculations would agment your attention, this
was clear from the beginning. However, I feel that you are much too exigent and
do not proceed from the 2012 state in science: See our chapter 2: Identification
of cosmic cycles. The todays literature is only capable to identify cosmic
cycles [here the 556++ growing cycle]. They exist as fact, they are observed.
We do NOT OMIT data of those cycles, would have liked more info from the
literature, but…….
So good as our paper is, it is the BEST Holocene temp evolution analysis
near and far…..[there was not ONE word from you about this, unimportant?]
Our approach is writing about “what is visible as macro-driver – quantificable-
in GISP2 temp records. — and compare our results to those of Gavin Schmidt
and other Micro-forcing GCMs. On the battleground are GCM vs.
our Cosmic-climatic GISP2-temp analysis. The GCM side shoots with micro-
forcings [no comment of yours]….. and we, taken from the GISP2 proxy, with
macro-forcings…..
Since you cannot falsify [as you said], our data/facts/cycles/insights so as
it stands in the paper, we thank you to this point. We know from all your writings
that you take pride in not siding with anyone – idea of being
individual/independent – neither with us nor with GCMs [they escaped your
attention], but you ask for delivery of scientific impact knowledge not being on
the published market yet.
As I also said, the impact science is hardly 15 years in existence and is notoriously
underfunded, whereas GCM-models reap in million grants and are in model-data
comparisons [do one with our approach] way, way below our performance…
I am certain, that if an university would put a million or two into impact modelling,
they would provide you with your wanted numbers. And I am also certain that
they would put Leifs calculation notepad to where it belongs…..JS

jimmi_the_dalek
October 14, 2012 12:11 pm

Ian W
“You are claiming that there is NO centripetal force on any of the stars or planets – as the barycenter is virtual – I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps you would explain.”
No, that is not what I am claiming. What I am saying is that not only is the barycentre a virtual point, it is a completely unnecessary virtual point. The real forces in the solar system are gravitational forces acting between the planets. The barycentre is a mathematical convenience not a real object. If you cannot show that any effects are independent of the choice of origin, then you have not shown that they are real. The challenge therefore is : derive the results you claim are significant, without using the barycentre. Simply stating that the barycentre moves around proves nothing.

Lars P.
October 14, 2012 12:16 pm

“Holocene temperature evolution data shows unmistakably, that the planet Earth starts to oscillate in its orbit after each sizable cosmic impact. Due to resulting minor Earth orbit deformations Earth’s temperatures first fall for decades, then rebounce into excessive heat for the following decades and oscillate back by returning to their previous average value”
I must confess, I have difficulties with understanding the mechanism described in the paper. I had the feeling it tries to explain the oscillation temperature in my car through the vibrations created by the impact of the flies in the windshield.
Furthermore, when the Earth was knockdown from the warm orbit – to keep the terminology – how on earth does it rebounce and come back to the warmer orbit? I do not understand this phenomenon (CIO pattern – page 9). For the Earth to change its orbit there needs a bit more then a couple of flies on the windshield, but maybe I am wrong – let me see the numbers. Wonder how is the Moon then behaving to the Earth suddenly changing the orbit? That would be an interesting situation.
(I saw Leif putting a number already above with 5 times Ceres, which makes it easier to judge)
It looks like the whole CIO pattern was thought looking at the temperature graph and deriving Earth’s cosmic movements from it – as davidmhoffer says “is a raging case of confirmation bias.”
It is not clear what does “cool orbit” mean. How far is it from the sun and what TSI reduction is it?
Once the Earth got further away from the Sun why would it ever come back closer where it was before? What “drives” it there? Astronomy is a very precise science where the movement of the heavenly-bodies are calculated with years and decades and centuries in advance. We know that Aphopis will come to its rendez-vous 2029 the 13th of April and will fly at about 1/8th of the lunar orbit away of the Earth.
For the Earth to move to a “cool orbit” it would need to move at least a million of kilometres from the Sun away to influence TSI a bit of %, that is 3 times the Earth-Moon distance…
To me it looks like a collection of observations and some ideas, but am missing the logical deduction and calculations, and the basic astronomy check, however I might be wrong, it is late week-end. I am with Leif that the paper needs retraction and rethink with the calculation done.

October 14, 2012 12:17 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I am certain, that if an university would put a million or two into impact modelling,
they would provide you with your wanted numbers. And I am also certain that
they would put Leifs calculation notepad to where it belongs…

It takes no money to follow my calculation. Anybody can do that; even you, if you try.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
October 14, 2012 1:37 pm

Leif, you are off again as last year, when you apologized….
I never ever claimed that the Earth orbit fully around the Sun would go
outwards by 100,000 km [or distance XYZ] ….which is impossible,
because, now I repeat this a third time on this blog, the Aph-Perh-
distance is a constant and cannot vary, except, due to Geoff Sharp,
for 15,000 km in a 60 year cycle…..Our orbit change of EOO and CIO
concerns only the end point of the minor axis…
Reach for your “simple calculation” notebook again…JS.

gymnosperm
October 14, 2012 12:18 pm

It is great to see thinking outside of the box. We definitely need some new stuff for the box! One thing that ocurred to me is that impacts might be able to influence climate without perturbing the orbit. Even simply mixing out the ocean should cause dramatic cooling for a while.

davidmhoffer
October 14, 2012 12:43 pm

J Seifert;
you can see it in football/soccer, as small push of a player with NO force makes the other players fall over like the bowling pins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think you’ve confused the earth being “tippy” with Guam. Have a chat with Hank Johnson, I’m sure he can explain it to you.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/01/congressional-tipping-point-not-an-april-fools-joke/

October 14, 2012 1:13 pm

As one who is always alert to extra-terrestrial causes of change in planetary climates I recognise some of the known elements, but find other aspects of the paper hard to swallow, in particular their emphasis on the frequency and lasting effects of substantial cosmic cratering and the rather mysterious multi-centennial Earth Orbit Oscillation Cycle.
I do observe that, in considering basically the Holocene’s 10,000 years:
1. Their emphasis on Milanovitch is puzzling as even the shortest of M’s cycles is twice as long as the period under consideration.
2. Their use of SIM appears to ignore the work by Charvátová and several others, which goes back to Jose, half a century ago, and which contains a clear cyclicity of 179 years, tied to the LIA’s individual minima and which is absent from their consideration.
3. There is an absence of Svensmark’s Cosmic Ray influence in ionisation of aerosols on cloud cover and temperature and no mention of Shaviv who would have had something to say about cosmic ray impact frequency..
4. There is no mention of the AMO’s harmony with these solar variations, nor the ENSO’s influence. The oceanic oscillations’ ties to solar variation is becoming increasingly clear.

October 14, 2012 1:33 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 1:26 pm
He calculates a 100,000 km distance change ALL AROUND THE COMPLETE ORBIT…..see his figures….whereas: I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move outward…which is absolutely imposssible since the aphelion-perihelion distance is an adiabatic constant and does NOT move…. what senseless energy calculation assuming what we never have claimed…..
This complication does not matter much, only changes the mass by a factor of roughly two [which is within the bounds of a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation]. Your paper is still dead. You asked for review, you got it.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
October 14, 2012 2:56 pm

Leif: You are the astronomy man of Anthony…..but dont’ you realize that
we did NOT write an astronomical, astrophysical paper but a Holocene climate
forcing analysis evaluating the GISP2 temperature evolution.?… This in line with
competing Holocene temperature evolution GCMs – read the 2 given Gavin
Schmidts papers from 2011 and 2012 for comparison…..and their capability
of Holocene temp reconstruction…
We dissect the Holocene and identified cycles surging out of the Holocene
temp evolution, which were also recently detected by spectral ice core analysis
(the 556+ EOO-cycle) (see cycle detection chapter). You keep silent on
cycles because your notebook is empty on existing cycles…and….you continue
[Willis more on this] with demands for full astronomical numbers for exact impact
dynamics, energy releases, impact angles etc …. are you sure this does not go
too far? Please read quoted COMPETING Holocene reconstructions:
Do they prove their Laurentide ice melt forcing assumptions? Show me
calculations for their Dansgaard- Oeschger conveyor belt Gulfstream reversal
or for rapid temperature swings of the Younger Dryas period….
Those professoral ineptitude papers contain nothing but ifs, whens, coulds,
mights and do not show the calculation methods for Gulf stream and Laurentide
ice flow parameters ….. this is the real sad state of Holocene science….From this
view angle you have to assess our paper…go easy on astronomy…..
Well, lets say then, so what.?…. The ultimate astronomical figures are missing. But
nevertheless our Holocene reconstruction works and is superiour to all results of
GCMs on the market. We explain, as best of all, a total of 20,000 years of
climate change….. this is unrivaled [you keep silent on this….. why?],
whereas your own method does NOT produce a single Holocene reconstruction …JS

October 14, 2012 1:45 pm

To Albert Jacobs: The 60-year multidecadal cycle as also manifested in the
AMO was set aside until 2013….it is not missing but announced, you are
6 months ahead of your time, just wait, this AMO and all related Scafetta
aspects see quotes in the book warrants a separate full paper…I explained
it all, what is your point of mentioning decadal mechanisms…?
The same Svensmark: Micro-drivers (as cloud formation) are the ones, which
cannot be identified in the Holocene temp evolution…. Many times said all
over…..JS

October 14, 2012 1:48 pm

To Lars P: Focus on the impact mechanism graph, the center part with the
Sun and the cold, average and warm orbital run presented, the graph explains
better than words….JS

davidmhoffer
October 14, 2012 1:49 pm

J Seifert;
The first Figure A graph, as is, but then a second graph,
from which the Spikes of the Impact symbol as NOT pertaining to the EOO being
removed…. therefore: Overlay the impact “Blitz”es, as I call it, on top of figure A
and take the CIO impact spikes out…..and then the clean TPs of the EOO are
left to remain…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’ve entirely missed the point.
Add in the cyclical forces referred to by Albert Jacobs. Add in the orbital eccentricities of the moon. Add in sun spots. Add in variations in earth’s magnetic field. Add in AMO, PDO, ENSO and TSI and GCR and and and… I could come up with dozens of sub sets that in the absence of the others look as well correlated as what you have produced, and my results would be no more meaningful than yours.
Well, actually mine would be more meaningful than yours because I wouldn’t make the mistake of proposing a physical mechanism that is impossible. You go on to compound your glaring inability to understand physics in your response to Leif:
J. Seifert;
He calculates a 100,000 km distance change ALL AROUND THE COMPLETE ORBIT…..see his figures….whereas: I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move
outward…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ll not steal Leif’s thunder other than to say you really, Really, REALLY need to take a 1st year physics course. Your response to Willis shows that you also have no idea of what the scientific method is all about. Your orbit has been perturbed and you are lost in space….
This thread has been both amusing and educational. The educational part came entirely from the helio vs bary centric discussion however.

davidmhoffer
October 14, 2012 1:54 pm

I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move
outward…which is absolutely imposssible since the aphelion-perihelion distance
is an adiabatic constant and does NOT move….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Take that 1st year physics course twice.

October 14, 2012 2:03 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Our orbit change of EOO and CIO concerns only the end point of the minor axis…
Reach for your “simple calculation” notebook again…

And I repeat that this will only make a change of a factor of two, so no real difference.
It still takes a lot more energy to change the orbit than the impactors have, so your paper is still dead. The calculation is simple as I demonstrated. No notebook needed or used, so you can stop using that silly phrase..

October 14, 2012 2:08 pm

David: please check Leifs penultimate calculation and ask him about
your orbit extension/1 grade physics claim…He will certainly give you a
scientific answer….JS..

October 14, 2012 3:50 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Leif: You are the astronomy man of Anthony…..but don’t you realize that we did NOT write an astronomical, astrophysical paper
You obviously did NOT. However, an important ingredient of your ‘paper’ is the change in the minor axis of the Earth’s orbit by impacts. And my calculation shows that there is not enough kinetic energy in an impactor of reasonable size to affect the change you advocate. So the change of the orbit because of impacts cannot be the cause of whatever climate changes you postulate. That is all.

October 14, 2012 4:06 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Leif: You are the astronomy man of Anthony…..but don’t you realize that we did NOT write an astronomical, astrophysical paper
In your ‘paper’ you say:
“This minor axis has two variable end points, which allow distance variations to the Sun. A closer distance of those end points to the Sun will produce higher temperatures on Earth”
You also say [Figure D] that the result of the impact is first to increase the semi-minor axis [by 50,000-1000,000 km or should that be twice those values? I assume twice because you talk about distances]. Now you cannot increase the semi-minor axis by more than twice 10,630.5 km, as at that point the orbit becomes a circle with a radius equal to the unchangeable semi-major axis. So even your proposed changes don’t make sense. How you get the ‘rebounce’ is voodoo. What force would do that? So all impacts will add up over billions of years of time and produce what? Doesn’t make sense.

October 14, 2012 4:09 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm
by 50,000-1000,000 km or should that be twice those values?
If not twice, then the number 10,630.5 I calculated above should be doubled to 21,261 km.

Ian W
October 14, 2012 4:54 pm

jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Ian W
“You are claiming that there is NO centripetal force on any of the stars or planets – as the barycenter is virtual – I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps you would explain.”
No, that is not what I am claiming. What I am saying is that not only is the barycentre a virtual point, it is a completely unnecessary virtual point. The real forces in the solar system are gravitational forces acting between the planets. The barycentre is a mathematical convenience not a real object. If you cannot show that any effects are independent of the choice of origin, then you have not shown that they are real. The challenge therefore is : derive the results you claim are significant, without using the barycentre. Simply stating that the barycentre moves around proves nothing.

We are slowly getting there.
So do you accept that the Earth Moon system orbiting actually describes an epitrochoid path as they mutually orbit in the solar system?
If so do you also accept that the Sun has an epitrochoid ‘wobble’ in its orbit of the galaxy like other stars with large planets, or do you consider that it moves in a smooth orbit around the galaxy totally unaffected by the presence of the planets?

October 14, 2012 5:11 pm

Ian W says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:54 pm
If so do you also accept that the Sun has an epitrochoid ‘wobble’ in its orbit of the galaxy like other stars with large planets, or do you consider that it moves in a smooth orbit around the galaxy totally unaffected by the presence of the planets?
Is a straw man argument. The stars, the Sun, and all their planets are in free fall and feel no forces due to their movements [other than tidal forces], so solar activity is indeed unaffected by the presence of planets.

October 14, 2012 5:15 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm
now I repeat this a third time on this blog, the Aph-Perh-
distance is a constant and cannot vary, except, due to Geoff Sharp,
for 15,000 km in a 60 year cycle…..Our orbit change of EOO and CIO
concerns only the end point of the minor axis…

I cannot imagine a change in minor axis dimension without affecting the major axis. Disregarding the CIO logic I still do not see any evidence for a EOO more than 15000km.

jimmi_the_dalek
October 14, 2012 5:17 pm

“We are slowly getting there.”
No we are not…. prove the “wobble” has an effect. Using the same definition of “wobble”, the Earth has a “wobble” 150 million km wide …. what effect does that have?

Reply to  jimmi_the_dalek
October 14, 2012 7:10 pm

The “wobble”-term sounds good to describe the impact effect!
For example: The Earth gets impacted by a [Holocene type small] flying object,
which CANNOT displace Earth with ONE STRIKE, lets say by 150,000 km to one
side, [as LEIF in his impact calculation, which are not applicable, DOES.] BUT the
strike only deviates slightly the angle of the flying direction by a few yards. This
happens, say in July. The planet continues with this deviated angle until Oct, 4,
which are about 200 Million km further along the road, when the minor axis is
reached…. and finds itself now sideward deviated by 150,000 km from the
undisturbed orbital path….This way, the temporary length of the semi-minor axis
increases by 150, 000 km. This amounts to 1,000th of the orbit radius,thus very
little and is absolutely feasible: An orbit wobble by a 1/1,000th (one thousands)
part off-road the regular orbit line….This is reasonable…..Now, the orbital flight
has a bulge or wobble on Oct 4, and Earth has to adjust direction toward the
fixed perihelion, because the perihelion is a fixed point, which does not permit
wobbles [this is the difference between the major and the minor axis…..because
of the flexible length of the minor axis. The astronomy counts with a maximum 3%
of minor axis lengthening during glacial times (so-called variability of eccentricity
a la Milankovitch). One 1,000ths due the impact is substantially less than 3% of
150 Mio km…..Now, the system is not yet repaired, because the wobble dynamics
will create another bulge in springtime, April 4. In order to get rid of the wobble
bulge, the solar system with its gravitational and centrifugal forces is trying to
eliminate the wobbles over the following decades of orbiting and re-establishing
its undisturbed orbital flight again…Too bad that Leif und Geoff have static,
outmoded astronomy perceptions, which do not help us…..JS…..

davidmhoffer
October 14, 2012 7:05 pm

J Seifert;
1. The GCM’s being wrong doesn’t make you right.
2. What you have done is not a reconstruction, nor is it a model. It is curve fitting using selective variables.
3. Writing a paper about Halocene forcing doesn’t mean you get to ignore the laws of physics.
4. You can’t claim what you have done has more skill (or any skill for that matter) than the GCM’s until you have predicted something and seen that prediction borne out.
5. I don’t need to ask Leif about anything. He’s presented his rough calcs, as has Willis. Their calcs are more than sufficient to show that the forces that you assume are orders of magnitude too large to have been caused by the impacts you have identified. I followed their math and the numbers are reasonable.
6. You seem to be under the impression that the orbit of the earth, after being perturbed in some manner, somehow returns to its original state. You seem to be of the belief that an impact only affects the minor axis. These things evoke that famous quip from Einstein “that’s not right, that’s not even wrong”. If you are correct, then all those satellites orbiting the earth according to the exact physics that Leif is trying to explain to you must have been faked along with the moon landings. (SARC!)
It seems to me that you have put a tremendous amount of effort into this paper, and you are very attached to it. I’ve done the same, but when objective evidence is put in front of me that I am wrong, I’ve had to eat crow. Seriously, stop rejecting the things people like Leif and Willis are trying to tell you. Instead, embrace them. Learn the physics, get to the point where you know what formulas to use, when, and why. Get to the point where you can follow the math and understand it instead of making excuses that your paper isn’t a physics paper. That’s just a ludicrous excuse. Learn the physics, then come back to your work and look at it with a fresh perspective.

October 14, 2012 7:29 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm
This way, the temporary length of the semi-minor axis increases by 150,000 km
It cannot increase by more that some 10,000 km because that increase makes the orbit circular. Any further increase would make the semi-major axis larger which is impossible.
outmoded astronomy
Has served well for hundreds of years and are still perfectly valid.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 14, 2012 7:52 pm

Meanwhile I still can’t attempt to replicate the finding of the cycles, as my questions about their GISP2 data remain unanswered. How can I proceed when the only version of the database available to me has such obvious errors, looks possibly corrupted?
Since replication of results is important, and Mr. Seifert has not addressed my concerns about that from which the entire paper is built, I cannot confirm this paper is even science, let alone good science. Who do the authors think they are anyway, Climate Scientists™?

October 14, 2012 8:02 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:29 pm
the semi-major axis larger which is impossible.
which was what Seifert said, probably lifted from Wikipedia. But, of course, it is not impossible. If a large enough body slams into the Earth, the orbit of the Earth can be altered in any which way, or even completely destroyed.

davidmhoffer
October 14, 2012 8:20 pm

J Seifert;
In order to get rid of the wobble
bulge, the solar system with its gravitational and centrifugal forces is trying to
eliminate the wobbles over the following decades of orbiting and re-establishing
its undisturbed orbital flight again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Seriously. That’s not right, that’s not even wrong.

October 14, 2012 8:25 pm

davidmhoffer says:
October 14, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Seriously. That’s not right, that’s not even wrong.
It seems to me that further discussion of Seifert’s missive is fruitless.

October 14, 2012 9:26 pm

To Geoff: Your quote:
“””I cannot imagine a change in minor axis dimension without affecting the major axis. Disregarding the CIO logic I still do not see any evidence for a EOO more than 15000km.”””
The shape of the ecliptic plane of the Earth’s orbit pulsates from ellipse to circle to ellipse
and so forth….The apside (perih-to aph) stays CONSTANT, but whereas the minor axis, within
ongoing Milankovitch cycles lengthens/shortens up to 3% (= several million km) in LENGTH .
This is the astronomical background of the flexibility and variability of the minor axis – called variability of the eccentricity….
…… I guess the evening got late. We left the qualified discourse and somehow fell into rudimentary astronomy, where all peers, please read the above 2 paragraphs, can
evaluate enormous discrepancies between the first (Geoff) and the second (mine)
paragraph.
The same applies to Leifs great calculations….. the pre-conditions/description of
impact dynamics based on kinetic energy are Leifs invention, and his calculation
results confirm his kinetic inventions….this has nothing to do with our analysis,
because the impact process is different and rather follows my explication given as
comment further up concerning the “wobble’ term.
To the remark: personal “outmoded astronomy”: Due to this type of
science, proudly hobbeling along “for centuries”, GCM Holocene reconstructions
underperform “without status of truth”, because the astronomical side and the 5
macro-drivers ( EOO, the CIO, the 60-year Scafetta, the 100,000 year eccentricity
Milankovitch and the SIM -cycle ) have successfully been kept out by Warmists in clima
calculations.
..Leif comments purely on astronomical matters and is carefull NOT to mention EOO
cycle analysis and TP-shifts….not a single word on this. Also not one word on the
temperature evolution over the Holocene. His approach obstructs the cosmic analysis
by disregarding “cosmic cycles visible in the Holocene temp evolution”.
I believe he has room for betterment and in late spring, our promised 60-year cycle
paper will follow and I will include an extra page for him with urgently desired astronomical
numbers. JS

October 14, 2012 9:32 pm

Leif, all has been said, no point to continue the low quality discourse,
let me keep the hope that you have room for betterment… Thats it. JS

October 14, 2012 9:35 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Leif comments purely on astronomical matters and is carefull NOT to mention EOO
Because you have not explained what EOO is. But as I said, “It seems to me that further discussion of Seifert’s missive is fruitless”, so don’t bother.

October 14, 2012 9:45 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:32 pm
let me keep the hope that you have room for betterment
We all have, even you.

donald penman
October 14, 2012 10:16 pm

The earths eccentricity is altered by impacts in theory.
http://www.jhu.edu/~lhinnov1/hinnovresearch/earthsorbitalparameters.htm
There does not seem to be a large effect over a long time period.

October 14, 2012 10:31 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Ok, so you are saying the EOO is part of the Milankovitch elliptical change process brought about mainly by the 4 larger planets, but the EOO (unhindered by CIO) is a step oscillation pattern following the general trend of the Milankovitch cycle. The Earths orbit is pulsing in and out measured at the minor axis but overall following the Milankovitch trend.
If so what evidence do you have for the separate EOO pulse?

TomVonk
October 15, 2012 2:45 am

This guest post is bad and reminds of some of the worst pieces in pseudo science.
It is possible that impacts, even very small, change the climate on large time scales.
What is impossible is that they do so by significantly changing the orbital parameters on short time scales (e.g 1000 – 10000 years)..
Using the observed asteroid masses and velocities, this would simply violate the mechanical energy conservation law (Kinetic energy + Potential energy = constant) which the Earth’s orbit respects with a very high accuracy.
So while the proposed correlation might be right (I am open minded), the proposed mechanism is wrong with an absolute certainty.
And will stay so as long as one accepts that Hamiltonian mechanics is an acceptable approximation of the general relativity to describe the Solar system’s orbits…

pedroS
October 15, 2012 2:47 am

This paper strikes me as unsupported, as no details are given regarding the computations. Mostly, it seems to be based on the extraction of Cyclical patterns, of the sort one might do using Fourier transforms, and explaining away the discrepancies as the results of impacts. It might be good, but the paper needs strong backing for its claims regarding the postulated impacts. Moreover, no references are provided regarding those impacts, and many of them are absent from the quoted Earth Impact Database.
For example, the Helike disappearance is most often attributed to an earthquake, and I could not find any mention of an impact.
The santorini event ALSO is most often described simply as a volcanic explosion. Why is this activity attributed to a collision? Similarly , Sirente is not listed as a proven/probable impact site.
The Mahuika crater is claimed by this paper to have caused the disappearance of a Chinese fleet near New Zealand at 1443. What is the documental evidence for the presence of that fleet in New Zealand and its disappearance?
Signals from some small impacts are claimed to be visible in the data (like Kaali, Estonia, claimed to be 2500 yrs old, whereas http://tsun.sscc.ru shows it to be 4000 yrs old). The Expert Database on Earth Impact Structures (EDEIS, http://tsun.sscc.ru) lists 28 impacts (proven or probable) in the last 10000 yrs with larger magnitude than Kaali. Shouldn’t they all be visible in the data?
PS: I first tried to post this comment last Friday on Tallbloke’s blog, but it did not go through. I post it now here so that Seifert and Lemke may address it.

Reply to  pedroS
October 15, 2012 12:57 pm

PedroS: See reply over at TB and I very much appreciate your help in
detecting additional impact events. They should, as you correctly point out,
due to their impact size, indeed be visible in the GISP2 data. This stands, of
course against Leif’s “SIMPEL” calculations, as he put it. He opposes that
your impacts will cause temp-drop-rebounce-patterns and the TP-shift, as
basic indicator for impact occurence. He studied our paper well to put forward
his qualified conclusion
The only problem is that Leif maintains that NOT ONE SINGLE IMPACT which
you will identify for us will show you our IDENTIFIED (1) impact pattern nor
(2) a TP-shift. nor (3) the relation of crater size to temp drop.
He did simple calculations discovering that you cannot discover (1)+(2)+(3) in the
GISP2 data set, because only half-star-size flying objects are capable to produce
identified 3 effects in our paper….JS

tallbloke
October 15, 2012 3:36 am

J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm
The “wobble”-term sounds good to describe the impact effect!
For example: The Earth gets impacted by a [Holocene type small] flying object,
which CANNOT displace Earth with ONE STRIKE, lets say by 150,000 km to one
side, [as LEIF in his impact calculation, which are not applicable, DOES.] BUT the
strike only deviates slightly the angle of the flying direction by a few yards. This
happens, say in July. The planet continues with this deviated angle until Oct, 4,
which are about 200 Million km further along the road, when the minor axis is
reached…. and finds itself now sideward deviated by 150,000 km from the
undisturbed orbital path….This way, the temporary length of the semi-minor axis
increases by 150, 000 km. This amounts to 1,000th of the orbit radius,thus very
little and is absolutely feasible:

We can test this claim quite simply, without going into orbital mechanics. Consider an Earth like object flying in a straight line through free space at Earth-like velocity. It is impacted from the side at right angles to its trajectory by a big meteor travelling at a similar speed. All of the impact energy is converted to KE for the purpose of the argument (in reality, much of the energy would be dissipated as heat). How big would the object need to be to produce the 150,000km deviation from the path that the undisturbed object would have taken that Joachim Siefert estimates?
200,000,000/150,000=1333.3
1/1333.3*8=0.006 degrees deviation from the undisturbed course
sin(0.006)=1*10^-4
The velocities of the objects are the same so the mass of the impactor therefore has to be 0.1% that of Earth.
That pretty much agrees with Leif’s calculation of an object half the size of Ceres producing a 100,000km deviation in the size of half the minor axis of Earth’s orbit.
As I told Joachim in email early last week, this hypothesis isn’t yet ready for prime time. It was given as friendly advice.
To me, the more interesting question is what the effect would be of an impactor punching a hole through the Earth’s crust sending shockwaves through the mantle. I would guess (and it’s only a guess), that there would be immediate planet wide cooling due to volcagenic albedo, followed by warming due to increased atmospheric mass due to the resulting widespread volcanic activity. That would (I guess) then be followed by cooling due to increased biomass-atmosphere chemical interaction and the resultant drawdown of excess atmospheric gases.

tallbloke
October 15, 2012 4:05 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:18 am
When I search for “wolff patrone” what first shows up is Tallbloke’s site, first two results. I’ve noticed Tallbloke was removed from the “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory” blogroll section not that long ago. Given the sort of stuff that shows up at his site and is given serious consideration, I was not expecting much from W&P.

I’m not too worried by your dragging up Anthony’s temporary re-classification of my website during a period when we had a disagreement over an issue irrelevant to the topic of this thread, you smearing troll. We do give serious consideration to interesting ideas dismissed out of hand by fools like yourself it’s true. The 2000 plus people who visit my site daily regard this as an asset rather than a demerit.
I have now read the W&P Abstract. Summary: Gravitational forces from planets can churn the material of a star, resulting in increased solar output and decreased lifespan compared to the same star without planets. That’s it. I see no advantage to using a barycentric viewpoint over heliocentric, the planets are exerting tidal forces,
The planets exerting the tidal forces are exerting them in such a way that there is a tendency, identified by Wolff and Patrone’s model, for more energy to be released from overturning convection cells beneath the Sun’s surface on the side of the Sun facing the barycentre of the system. The barycentre exerts no force of its own, as Anna V tirelessly reminds us, but it is a ‘shorthand’ single word ‘notation’ for the combined forces of several planets acting on the Sun used by those of us who are working on the details.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 5:11 pm
The stars, the Sun, and all their planets are in free fall and feel no forces due to their movements [other than tidal forces], so solar activity is indeed unaffected by the presence of planets.

If the Sun was a point-like perfectly-elastic billiard-ball-in-space you’d be right, but it isn’t, and you’re not. Your friend Gough’s appeal to the authority of Chandresekar and Rayleigh isn’t either. Which is why we aren’t seeing it elevated to being a submitted rebuttal that Wolff and Patrone can respond to. Referring to the year-old note sent to you in email by Gough is just a worthless smear. Repetition of wrong analysis doesn’t make it correct [Though some may come to believe the propaganda].

jimmi_the_dalek
October 15, 2012 11:34 am

Tallbloke :”The planets exerting the tidal forces are exerting them in such a way that there is a tendency, identified by Wolff and Patrone’s model, for more energy to be released from overturning convection cells beneath the Sun’s surface on the side of the Sun facing the barycentre of the system. The barycentre exerts no force of its own, as Anna V tirelessly reminds us, but it is a ‘shorthand’ single word ‘notation’ for the combined forces of several planets acting on the Sun used by those of us who are working on the details.”
Regrettably for this argument, the position of the barycentre relative to the Sun is determined largely by the positions of the heavy planets Jupiter and Saturn, but these do not produce the largest tidal forces. Qualitative handwaving style physics using the barycentre will therefore always produce a spurious correlation with J-S cycles, as the tidal forces due to Mercury and Venus (combined) are actually greater. This means that use of the barycentre leads to an unjustified answer

tallbloke
October 15, 2012 12:22 pm

jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:34 am
Regrettably for this argument, the position of the barycentre relative to the Sun is determined largely by the positions of the heavy planets Jupiter and Saturn, but these do not produce the largest tidal forces. Qualitative handwaving style physics using the barycentre will therefore always produce a spurious correlation with J-S cycles, as the tidal forces due to Mercury and Venus (combined) are actually greater. This means that use of the barycentre leads to an unjustified answer

The Mercury and Venus tides operate over shorter timescales and raise tidal bulges which are then acted upon by the larger planets. Ian Wilson, a qualified astrophysicist, has done a lot of work in this area, which the commenters dismissing the idea of planetary motion affecting solar variability haven’t read, and don’t (currently) understand. The Sun’s outer layers are highly mobile plasma, and do not act the same way as an incompressible fluid like Earth’s oceans. Gravitational forces from planets can act in a more localised way on such a fluid as the Sun’s envelope, and we do not yet have an accurate assessment of the fluid dynamics involved.
However, we have found correlations between the speeding up and slowing down of the latitudinal ‘belts’ at various latitudes on the Sun and the frequencies of planetary alignments. Jimmi has no idea of what is justified and what isn’t, because he has not studied the matter in sufficient depth.

Ian W
October 15, 2012 12:25 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Ian W says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:54 pm
If so do you also accept that the Sun has an epitrochoid ‘wobble’ in its orbit of the galaxy like other stars with large planets, or do you consider that it moves in a smooth orbit around the galaxy totally unaffected by the presence of the planets?
Is a straw man argument. The stars, the Sun, and all their planets are in free fall and feel no forces due to their movements [other than tidal forces], so solar activity is indeed unaffected by the presence of planets.

So you are saying when the direction of that ‘free fall’ is altered changing their velocity vector the Sun and planets do not have any inertia and no force is required to move them into different orbits? They act as massless objects?
Have you really considered what you are sayng?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 15, 2012 12:32 pm

From tallbloke on October 15, 2012 at 4:05 am:
…you smearing troll. We do give serious consideration to interesting ideas dismissed out of hand by fools like yourself it’s true. (…)
Yes, stuff shows up here, gets dismissed by fools like Leif Svalgaard, Willis Eschenbach, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, even Lord Monckton, then finds a home on your site. Excuse me for noticing.
Example of an “interesting idea” you recently posted on Oct 8: Ebisuzaki et al : Some volcanoes are triggered by cosmic rays.

My thanks to Gray Stevens, who has drawn my attention to this 2011 paper from journal Gondwana Research. If current estimates of volcanic effects on surface temperature are correct, this represents a strong terrestrial amplification of the influence of solar variability on Earth’s climate.

Caption of volcano drawing: Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber
From the Abstract: We note the possibility that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was triggered by the same mechanism: an increase in cosmic-ray flux triggered by Typhoon Yunya, as a decrease in atmospheric pressure results in an increase in cosmic-ray flux.
From USGS (bold added):

Were the eruption and the passage of tropical cyclone Yunya related? A remarkable but probably coincidental correlation exists between the time of Typhoon Yunya’s closest approach to Mount Pinatubo (fig. 7) and the pressure fluctuation maxima. Although the Yunya-induced mean atmospheric pressure fall is unremarkable in terms of tropical cyclone passage (approximately 6.3 mbar), there is, nonetheless, an association between the time of pressure minimum (about 1100 on June 15, on the Clark Air Base barograph), the closest approach of Yunya to Mount Pinatubo (within 75 km at approximately 1400, June 15, as tracked by weather satellites), and strong barometric pressure fluctuations associated with eruptions (strongest between 1038 and 2200 on June 15). Both the eruption and the tropical cyclone were well along in their development before they coincided and presumably could have occurred independently of each other. We know of no evidence for any causal relation between the two, but, clearly, the passage of Yunya greatly increased damage from the eruption.

(…) The barycentre exerts no force of its own, as Anna V tirelessly reminds us, but it is a ‘shorthand’ single word ‘notation’ for the combined forces of several planets acting on the Sun used by those of us who are working on the details.
And yet there are barycenter advocates finding meaning in how much area the Sun sweeps around it, and have discovered mysterious enormous forces changing the Sun’s velocity 100% every 10 years. Using a barycenter to simplify some calculations related to orbital mechanics, that is understandable. Ascribing powers to the solar system’s barycenter as has been done, is not understandable.

October 15, 2012 12:45 pm

Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Have you really considered what you are saying?
objects in free-fall follow geodesics of spacetime, and what we perceive as the force of gravity is instead a result of being unable to follow those geodesics of spacetime, because the mechanical resistance of matter prevents us from doing so, but since there is no such resistance in space within the solar system, there is no force acting on the bodies.

jimmi_the_dalek
October 15, 2012 12:47 pm

Tallbloke says “Ian Wilson, a qualified astrophysicist”, attempting an argument from authority, which always goes down badly of skeptic sites.
If he is, then he has some funny ideas. For example appears not to know how Doppler effects used to detect extrasolar planets actually work. And he says “The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits” yet when challenged to prove that this is correct (on the sort of timescale that is implicit in the discussion), he makes no reply. Perhaps you could try?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 15, 2012 1:57 pm

From Ian W on October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm:
So you are saying when the direction of that ‘free fall’ is altered changing their velocity vector…
You may stop there. A vector has two components, magnitude and direction. An object in orbit is undergoing a continuous change to its velocity vector as its direction continually changes due to the acceleration provided by the gravitational force, its instantaneous direction given by the tangent of its orbit. The magnitude of the velocity vector is the speed of the object in orbit. Please try to make your arguments sound more authoritative by proper use of the proper nomenclature.

Editor
October 15, 2012 3:07 pm

J. Seifert says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm

PedroS: See reply over at TB and I very much appreciate your help in detecting additional impact events. They should, as you correctly point out, due to their impact size, indeed be visible in the GISP2 data. This stands, of course against Leif’s “SIMPEL” calculations, as he put it. He opposes that your impacts will cause temp-drop-rebounce-patterns and the TP-shift, as basic indicator for impact occurence. He studied our paper well to put forward his qualified conclusion

As far as I can see, Leif has said nothing about “temp-drop-rebounce-patterns” or about the Toilet-Paper-Shift (or ‘Temporal-Persistence-Shift’, or whatever the “TP” actually stands for).
What he and I have both said is that there is not enough energy in the impacts you list to change the orbit of the earth. It’s less than the impact of a fly hitting a car, more like the impact of a midge hitting a car. Sure, there is an impact, the midge thinks it’s the end of the world.
But if you think a midge hitting a car significantly changes the car’s orbit, you’re not paying attention. Similarly, thinking that the impact of even something as large as the Chicxlub meteorite could significantly change the Earth’s orbit is just magical thinking. Run the numbers.

The only problem is that Leif maintains that NOT ONE SINGLE IMPACT which you will identify for us will show you our IDENTIFIED (1) impact pattern nor (2) a TP-shift. nor (3) the relation of crater size to temp drop. He did simple calculations discovering that you cannot discover (1)+(2)+(3) in the GISP2 data set, because only half-star-size flying objects are capable to produce identified 3 effects in our paper….JS

No, Leif is not claiming that. He said nothing about the “impact pattern” or the toilet-paper-shift.
He said that there is not enough energy in your cosmic impact to affect the earth’s orbit in the way you claimed. Which is what I said, and others have said.
There’s an old saying that goes “If one man calls you a horse, laugh it off. If two men call you a horse, check your footprints. But if three men call you a horse, buy a saddle.” A number of people here have pointed out a huge flaw in your claims. The cosmic impacts don’t have enough energy to do what you claim, by several orders of magnitude. The math is not hard, Leif went through it above, as did I. Tallbloke went through it as well, and his numbers agree with Leifs.
In response, you keep waving your hands, and saying well if it moves the Earth just a little off then over time it will be a larger effect, and the like. All that is doing is causing people to lose respect for you. Man up, do the calculations, admit you were wrong, buy a saddle, and move on.
Or you could just move the conversation over to Tallblokes … because you are rapidly losing credibility here.
Me, I’d stay here if I were you, because here on WUWT folks will tell you the truth. And I would give up on the bluster, and on the claims that Leif and tallbloke and I are just fools who are trying to do you wrong. We are the good guys who are trying to do you right, and you would do well to seriously consider our objections.
Because after all, you knew enough to ask for peer-review here on this site, which was a very wise move. Now, if you are truly wise, you will pay attention to the peer review you have received. I can tell you this. Without the calculations showing that the cosmic impact can have the effect on the Earth’s orbit that you claim, your paper will never get published in any reputable journal. Because the first question the peer-reviewers will likely have is the same question asked over and over here—where are the numbers for the effect on the orbit of the earth? Where’s the beef?
My best to you,
w.
PS—If you are truly allergic to the math, Joachim. then just consider the relative sizes of the Earth and say the Chicxlub meteor. The Earth is ten billion times as massive as the meteor. Next, consider the ratios of their kinetic energies, which are calculated as
KE = 1/2 m v2.
where v is the velocity and m is the mass.
If we assume that the two are moving at the same speed, the kinetic energies are in the same ratio as the masses, so the Earth has ten billion times the kinetic energy of the meteor. Heck, even if the meteor were improbably going a hundred times faster than the Earth, the Earth would still have a million times the kinetic energy of the meteor …
In other words, the Earth hitting the meteor is like a container ship hitting a sailboat … nobody even notices, there’s no palpable change in the orbit. The container ship’s crew don’t even know they hit something until they get back to port and find the sailboat’s mast and rigging hanging from the container ship’s anchor.
PPS—A friendly word of advice. Lose the capital letters, they just make you sound both eccentric and desperate …

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 15, 2012 9:16 pm

To Willis: Your quote:
……..”’ ……there is not enough energy in the impacts you list to change the orbit of the earth.
It’s less than the impact of a fly hitting a car, more like the impact of a midge hitting the car.
Sure, there is an impact, the midge thinks it’s the end of the world. But if you think a midge
hitting a car significantly changes the car’s orbit, you’re not paying attention. …….”’
….. NOW, LET ME SAY THE FOLLOWING TO WILLIS CLAIM:
(1) You have not read the paper, and in case you really went across pages and figures,
then, you did not understand what you saw. This can be proven that the few
coined abbreviations used in the text are unknown/inexplicable to you….. Sad.
(2) Your judgment is solely based on the fly/midge -car comparison. This comparison
rests on Leifs ‘simple” (HIS quote) calculation, that an impact mass must not be
a fly/midge but some huge sized object. Indeed, his simple calculation as such
is correctly done, there is no doubt about it… But, as always in life, his solution
is too simplistic and does not describe full cosmic impact conditions. Full cosmic
impact conditions are more complicated then Leifs simplistic presentation. There
are more dynamic impact forces, gravitation, centrifugal effects, the Earth orbital
motion as osculation [correct term] and many more to be included …..
(3) You ask for presentation of complicated astrophysical calculations on one hand ….
yet on the other hand you trust in Leifs simplistics showing only that flies do not move
a car…..
(4) Willis, you tried to give me your advice, and I will give you mine: You did outstanding
work until now, I enjoyed every article of you and be glad you will be around for many
more to come….but, here the but:
Do your things your own way and do not follow the misleading trail of Leif&Co.
I give Leif a 1,000 points in his proper field of solar science, I will accept every single
of his solar words…. but I give him +/- zero points in the field of the Earth’s orbit, which
is NOT his turf….. His word counts as much as the word of my veterinarian next door.
Do your own, get rid of the outmoded Leif-style and you will stay as the Best…….
(5) Reaching this point, I must not forget to mention our paper: We present EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE, which everybody should respect, that the EEO-cycle, the T”oilet”-P”aper”
-shifting, the CIO-impact – Z-type- pattern, the correlation of impact crater size-to Z
-type (“high voltage symbol”) temperature swing (cold-warm-middle level) EXIST and
are clearly VISIBLE and quantificable in the analyzed 20,000 years of temperature
evolution. We achieved this goal and claim sky-high performance compared to our
GCM-competition, the Warmist -style Microdriver GCMs, which cannot, as model-data
comparisons proved, ( see our paper introduction), quote: “claim any status of truth” .
We instead show the absolute best Holocene temperature reconstruction and will
therefore, in a few years time, sway high above the ashes of discarded GCMs.
We thank you that you concede that you CANNOT FALSIFY OUR PRESENTATION
AS IT STANDS. …point.
(6) Lets settle on the following: I heed your advice and you heed my advice and we both
will have made a great leap forward….JS

Ian W
October 15, 2012 4:14 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Have you really considered what you are saying?
objects in free-fall follow geodesics of spacetime, and what we perceive as the force of gravity is instead a result of being unable to follow those geodesics of spacetime, because the mechanical resistance of matter prevents us from doing so, but since there is no such resistance in space within the solar system, there is no force acting on the bodies.

Yes I am aware of your definition of ‘freefall’. However, that was NOT what I asked. If a body like the Sun is in freefall ‘following the geodesics of space time’ and the direction of that freefall changes – you are saying that there is no inertia, no effect whatsoever the Sun would merely change direction and follow the new geodesics of space time’ as if it was entirely massless.
No inertia, no momentum, massless change of vector,

Ian W
October 15, 2012 4:36 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 15, 2012 at 1:57 pm
From Ian W on October 15, 2012 at 12:25 pm:
So you are saying when the direction of that ‘free fall’ is altered changing their velocity vector…
You may stop there. A vector has two components, magnitude and direction. An object in orbit is undergoing a continuous change to its velocity vector as its direction continually changes due to the acceleration provided by the gravitational force, its instantaneous direction given by the tangent of its orbit. The magnitude of the velocity vector is the speed of the object in orbit. Please try to make your arguments sound more authoritative by proper use of the proper nomenclature.

There is no reason to be patronizing – I was using simple language to force you Leif and Jimmi to think about what you were saying instead of parroting well worn phrases. Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector. (However, Leif you will note, states this centripetal force does not exist as the body is in freefall following the geodesics of space time )
My entire point was that if that ‘gravitational force which for bodies in the solar system is actually the sum of several gravitational foces; changes its ‘instantaneous direction’ due to the change of position of the other bodies in the solar system, then the orbit of the Sun around the galaxy and the planets and their moons will also alter. In Leif’s parlance the geodesics of space time will change and the body will change the direction of its freefall.
I find it difficult to accept that changing the velocity (that is – just so you understand me – the direction and speed) of any body be it the Sun or the planets or their moons is without any inertia or momentum and these massive bodies just change direction as if they were a massless mathematical point. You Jimmi, Leif, and Anna are of the massless point persuasion (despite your polemic to me above on the centripetal action of gravitational force – obviously no force is needed as the Sun and planers are massless and change velocity (that is speed and direction) without any inertia or momentum.
The reason I was using simple language was to draw this rather strange concept out into the open so it could be bluntly stated.
What I wonder is the centripetal force required to keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun? What force is then required to alter that orbit from its current almost circular pattern to the extended ellipse? The answer from the cognoscenti is that no force is required at all.
I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.

October 15, 2012 5:04 pm

Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector.
Imagine a small body [a spacecraft perhaps] orbiting the Sun just skimming the surface. It will complete one orbit in 2 hours 47 minutes. Adjust the mass of the body such that the barycenter of the Sun and the body [remove all other bodies from the solar system if you must] is positioned one meter from the center of the Sun [on the line connecting the center and the body]. Now one way to treat the system is the classical Newtonian way [which is good enough for this]. In this paradigm the Sun and the body both orbit their common barycenter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit3.gif in particular the Sun orbiting in 2h 47m. During that short time the solar velocity vector with respect to the barycenter changes direction 360 degrees. The Sun so to speak rounds a very sharp corner. I maintain that this has no influence on the Sun.

jimmi_the_dalek
October 15, 2012 5:22 pm

“What force is then required to alter that orbit from its current almost circular pattern to the extended ellipse?”
Actually the real question is : When does this ever happen? Please provide proof that this has ever occurred during the last few thousand years, otherwise you are in the same category as Seifert and his EOO and CIOs.
“I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.” And now you are doing ‘argument from incredulity’, definitely a bad sign.

October 15, 2012 5:29 pm

Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector.
Now move the small body slowly away from the Sun. This moves the barycenter away from the Sun’s center. Continue to move the small body away from the Sun, the barycenter moves out as well. At some time [remove the rest of the universe if you must] the body will have reached such a distance that the solar orbit around the barycenter will take 12 years [as around the real solar system barycenter]. I still maintain that that small body does not influence the Sun in any measurable way.

Matthew R Marler
October 15, 2012 5:48 pm

Willis Eschenbach: How much altered? Depends on a host of factors, but consider the masses. The Chicxlub asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs is estimated to have weighed on the order of 6e+14 kg. The mass of the earth is about 6e+24 kg … that’s ten full orders of magnitude larger. The earth has ten billion times the mass of even that huge asteroid.
I am glad you wrote that. I was going to post the same thought today, and you have scooped me.
I think if I were a reviewer I would require some computations of the sizes of the orbital swings forced by these impacts, and a justification that they all produce the same down-up-down swing in the global climate (instead of random perturbations), as a condition of publication. Do all of the impacting bodies come from the same direction at the same season of the Earth year? Publication is always something of a calculated risk, and as presented this paper needs another calculation, in my opinion. Perhaps the other analogy, besides Velikovsky, is Wegener, who also had a semi-quantitative hypothesis with an inadequate quantitative substantiation. The paper as it is looks less substantial than Wegener, all things considered.

RACookPE1978
Editor
October 15, 2012 5:50 pm

Leif:
May I politely disagree with your summary, though please understand I’m not ready to accept a “physical collision” process to explain past repeated changes. Nor to accept physical changes in rotation or changes in the earth’s axis.
The barycenter of the solar system does NOT have to “change” the sun .. You are assuming an effect or change based on the simple Newton solid-body “particle” orbits and inertia.
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though. It is a roiling, flowing mass of plasma continuously compressed inwards by gravity on 10^30 some-odd independent charged particle each moving at incredible velocities and moved themselves by roiling twisting currents and loops at various speeds and various directions that themselves change rapidly over time. Outward force comes from the interior fusion r(randomly directly energy coming from collisions: and those loops and currents of charged particles create the (rapidly changing) magnetic fields and loops we see as the sunspot cycle.
Therefore, the ONLY thing a potential “change” from some periodic outside influence needs to do is “change” those charged loops that are already changing on an 22 year cycle. What seemly everybody misses is the fact that sunspots are only one (but highly visible!) indication or symptom of an underlying change in the magnetic fields and particle flow in the sun.
So, to temporaily change the loops of a flowing current water in a wide river near a whirlpool behind a rock, I do NOT need to build a dam and block all of the river. (This is your constant analogy of showing that the “sun” is not moved by 2-body point-mass calculations. And I agree, I don’t expect to see the sun change due to the barycenter changing from the interior of the sun out past its surface and back inside. But, like a single stick inserted into that whirlpool behind the rock, then withdrawn, I would NOT be surprised to see changes in the changing currents visible on the sun. After all, each current (because it sis looping up, stopping at an altitude, then falling back, is already weightless at the top of the parabola of the loop. And, each particle in that immense loop is only a single ion – with no mass at all to to be pulled or twisted from what would have been its path if the barycenter (or Saturn, or Jupiter, or whatever) were someplace else.

Ian W
October 15, 2012 6:05 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Believe it or not kadaka I am perfectly aware of the meaning of a velocity vector – and that the centripetal force accelerates the body in its continual change of vector.
Now move the small body slowly away from the Sun. This moves the barycenter away from the Sun’s center. Continue to move the small body away from the Sun, the barycenter moves out as well. At some time [remove the rest of the universe if you must] the body will have reached such a distance that the solar orbit around the barycenter will take 12 years [as around the real solar system barycenter]. I still maintain that that small body does not influence the Sun in any measurable way.

Leif – if you look at my earlier posts on this thread you will see that I started from the position of a binary star system with two stars orbiting each other. Perhaps you could rework your thought experiment using that example. The answer may be somewhat different to your straw man. 😉

Matthew R Marler
October 15, 2012 6:11 pm

davidmhoffer: 5. I don’t need to ask Leif about anything. He’s presented his rough calcs, as has Willis. Their calcs are more than sufficient to show that the forces that you assume are orders of magnitude too large to have been caused by the impacts you have identified. I followed their math and the numbers are reasonable.
I have read the whole thread, or almost the whole thread. I agree with the thoughts like that quoted that Dr. Seifert has not shown that his proposed mechanism can produce the results he wants from it. Someone mentioned Ceres, with which I am not familiar. Don’t the impacting objects have to be at least the size of Madagascar, including its underwater support down to the ocean bottom? Is there any evidence for impacts caused by objects that size, frequently in the last few thousands of years? The mechanism does not require an object large enough to destroy a fleet, it requires an object large enough to destroy Japan. Does it not?

Ian W
October 15, 2012 6:20 pm

jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:22 pm
“What force is then required to alter that orbit from its current almost circular pattern to the extended ellipse?”
Actually the real question is : When does this ever happen? Please provide proof that this has ever occurred during the last few thousand years, otherwise you are in the same category as Seifert and his EOO and CIOs.
“I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.” And now you are doing ‘argument from incredulity’, definitely a bad sign.

Now we are on interesting ground – you thought the Earth’s orbit was perfectly circular and never changing?
See

Orbital shape (eccentricity)
The Earth’s orbit is an ellipse. The eccentricity is a measure of the departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth’s orbit varies in time between nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.005) and mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.058) with the mean eccentricity of 0.028. The major component of these variations occurs on a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). A number of other terms vary between components 95,000 and 125,000 years (with a beat period 400,000 years), and loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of −0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
and:

The eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit is currently about 0.0167; the Earth’s orbit is nearly circular. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit varies from nearly 0.0034 to almost 0.058 as a result of gravitational attractions among the planets (see graph).[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity
There are lots of other references but those were the easiest to find. Perhaps you ought to go and correct them I am sure Wikipedia would be grateful.

October 15, 2012 6:26 pm

RACookPE1978 says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:50 pm
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though.
This is the usual ‘out’ from the dynamical calculations. Helioseismology shows that to a very high degree of precision the Sun’s interior is in hydrostatical equilibrium, that is: the density varies only with the radius. Already Newton showed that such a mass distribution can be treated as a point mass. But this is not really the issue. The point is that every assembly of particles in the Sun [apart from extremely tiny tidal effects] moves along the same geodetics [‘straight lines’] in spacetime. Because of internal motions [e.g. convection] one has to deal with time averages over a suitable interval. Now, all of this can be made complicated beyond belief, and it behooves proponents of the barycenter idea to show how the physics works. One attempt was made by Wolff and Padrone. Unfortunately their mechanism does not work. Even W&P explicitly state “A star in orbit about its barycenter is in a state of free fall (Shirley, 2006). At the center of the star, the attractive force from all the planets is exactly canceled by the orbital accelerations (centrifugal and angular). At other locations, the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid is the tidal force. It raises a tide 1 mm high at the solar surface.”

October 15, 2012 6:30 pm

Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 6:05 pm
if you look at my earlier posts on this thread you will see that I started from the position of a binary star system with two stars orbiting each other. Perhaps you could rework your thought experiment using that example. The answer may be somewhat different to your straw man
Your example is not different from mine. I’m also dealing with a binary star, except one of the two is teeny tiny. The physics stay the same, though.

October 15, 2012 6:48 pm

Ian W says:
October 15, 2012 at 6:05 pm
The answer may be somewhat different to your straw man
As always, the thread has been taken over by the barycenter cult-followers and the discussion degenerated to the same old, tired, and predictable tirades that we have gone over a zillion times. And as always, nothing will come of further ‘discussion’, except perhaps a certain disdain that a casual visitor to WUWT must feel by this unsavory display of science illiteracy.

October 15, 2012 6:59 pm

RACookPE1978 says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:50 pm
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though.
And yet, in calculation of the incredible accurate ephemerides by JPL http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/ that help guide our spacecraft with meter precision and predict transits and eclipse to fraction of a second accuracy it suffices to treat the Sun as a point mass.

jimmi_the_dalek
October 15, 2012 7:18 pm

“Now we are on interesting ground – you thought the Earth’s orbit was perfectly circular and never changing?”
No of course I did not.
But you keep talking of “extended” ellipsis and “unstable” orbits, which to have any effect in the way you imply, must be happening over a time scale of a few decades. We are NOT talking about the Milankovitch cycles during which the eccentricity may change from 0.005 to 0.05 over 400,000 years. If that is the sort of change you meant , then it is completely out of step with claims that the Jupiter-Saturn period can cause significant changes.
Now stop being evasive and answer the following:
1. are your theories provably independent of the choice of origin
2. why do you think that techniques for detecting extrasolar planets tell you anything about the effect of planets on the internal structures of stars
3. why do you not understand the Doppler effect
4. why do you keep referring to planetary orbits as “unstable” when they are not (over the time periods we are talking about)
5. which specific parts of Newtonian planetary dynamics do you disagree with.
I notice with interest that you are increasingly relying on sarcasm in your posts – this is backfiring as it actually is showing you know less than others participating in this discussion – please try to provide answers well founded in mathematical and physical principles and if you are going to disagree with Newton and/or Einstein try to find a better reason than “I am sorry I find that difficult to believe.”

Pamela Gray
October 15, 2012 7:27 pm

Good point Leif. If NASA were to use the funny money calculations of barycenter believers, we would be landing on a 10 meter square of…space. We would have missed the moon entirely and don’t even bother with objects further away. Mistakes like that multiply the further you get away from the mistake.
You don’t suppose barycenter proponents would like to put money on their calculations being accurate enough for a multi-billion attempt at landing on Mercury?

October 15, 2012 8:53 pm

Pamela Gray says:
October 15, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Good point Leif. If NASA were to use the funny money calculations of barycenter believers, we would be landing on a 10 meter square of…space
If you had a little knowledge on the subject you would not make such a ridiculous statement. The AM calculations that align so nicely with the Holocene are derived directly from the JPL vectors and coordinates that NASA use. Perhaps you could educate yourself, instead of playing team groupie.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 15, 2012 9:41 pm

From Geoff Sharp on October 15, 2012 at 8:53 pm to Pamela Gray:
Perhaps you could educate yourself, instead of playing team groupie.
Warning, imminent eruption of redheaded Irish volcano detected.
Geoff, your complete lack of survival instinct is noted. I suppose it was nice knowing you.

tallbloke
October 15, 2012 9:52 pm

jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Tallbloke says “Ian Wilson, a qualified astrophysicist”, attempting an argument from authority, which always goes down badly of skeptic sites.
If he is, then he has some funny ideas. For example appears not to know how Doppler effects used to detect extrasolar planets actually work. And he says “The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits” yet when challenged to prove that this is correct (on the sort of timescale that is implicit in the discussion), he makes no reply. Perhaps you could try?
Jimmi: You have confused Ian Wilson with commenter Ian W. They are two different people.
As to your question, you may note my calculation agreed with Leif’s. We both demonstrated that an impacting body would have to be around 0.1% of the Earth’s mass to cause a deviation of the magnitude Joachim considers necessary to cause the GISP2 temperature swings.

Of course, so far as the (usually) smaller deviations caused by the disposition of other masses in the solar system are concerned, this is the many body problem. The maintenance of stability of planetary orbits relies on these perturbations, which maintain the harmonic relationships which create the *near* stability of the system.

tallbloke
October 15, 2012 10:07 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 6:59 pm
RACookPE1978 says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:50 pm
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though.
And yet, in calculation of the incredible accurate ephemerides by JPL http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/ that help guide our spacecraft with meter precision and predict transits and eclipse to fraction of a second accuracy it suffices to treat the Sun as a point mass.

Which is true, and completely irrelevant to the phenomena under discussion by RACookPE1978.

tallbloke
October 15, 2012 11:02 pm

Joachim says:
Willis…
Do your own, get rid of the outmoded Leif-style and you will stay as the Best…….
(5) Reaching this point, I must not forget to mention our paper: We present EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE, which everybody should respect, that the EEO-cycle, the T”oilet”-P”aper”
-shifting, the CIO-impact – Z-type- pattern, the correlation of impact crater size-to Z
-type (“high voltage symbol”) temperature swing (cold-warm-middle level) EXIST and
are clearly VISIBLE and quantificable in the analyzed 20,000 years of temperature
evolution.

Cherry picking impacts (and making assumptions about their dating) which fit the turning points in the GISP2 ice core record doesn’t validate your impact hypothesis of shifts in Earth’s orbit, which is disproven by the simple calculations presented by Leif and myself.

Reply to  tallbloke
October 15, 2012 11:55 pm

The cherry-pick argument was missing until now…picking time has come folks….
Go ahead and pick just one single impact which counters our claim….this
is part of real science…. find one and we lost the universal claim of empirical
truth….. get a stout Warmist to do this work, do not do it yourself…..is too tedious,
whereas the Warmist will be delighted to clean out global overheating deniers…..JS

October 15, 2012 11:12 pm

tallbloke says:
October 15, 2012 at 10:07 pm
…”it suffices to treat the Sun as a point mass.”
Which is true, and completely irrelevant to the phenomena under discussion by RACookPE1978.

On the contrary, it shows that for dealing with gravitational forces the ‘roiling plasma’picture is irrelevant and we can treat the sun as a point mass.

October 15, 2012 11:51 pm

I am still waiting for the EOO data which does not look to be forthcoming. We can only assume it is dodgy like other aspects of this paper.

Reply to  Geoff Sharp
October 16, 2012 12:29 am

Geoff, I know you are very keen…. but I had other things to do, now its 2 am in the
morning and I just sent you an reply to make you happy….JS

October 16, 2012 12:23 am

To Geoff Sharp: Geoff, the EOO pulsation at both end of the minor axis is the
wave line of our 27-37 ka BP graphic. On it, the vertical temp change is at the same
time the Km- distance change Sun—>End points of the Minor axis., which as I said are
not stiff points, but flexible points.
For my 2013 paper I must provide a lot of astronomics of the Earth’s orbit to explain
the 60-year Scafetta cycle, and this is basic for the understanding of this cycle. I cannot
do it in WUWT comments, it would take to long. My booklet on the subject EOO-cycle
explains it in full and transparently with calculations (108 pages)but its in
German. There are those automatic machine translation of papers nowadays, but
I do not know how the readability afterwards is……
The EOO-cycle is the 556++ growing cosmic orbit cycle (do not listen to Leif, because
he has never heard of it and therefore, it cannot exist, would be his answer) Monckton
classifies this as the ‘argumentum ignorantum” : I never saw an elephant, thats why
elephants do not exist…..Ask him maybe he can explain to you this cycle for bridging
the time to 2013….
He will probably do some “simple” calculations showing that the 556+ orbit cycle is just
an invention of J+L to confuse the public….Thats Life… JS

jimmi_the_dalek
October 16, 2012 12:27 am

Tallbloke says : “You have confused Ian Wilson with commenter Ian W. They are two different people.”
Oh, so Ian W is not Dr Ian Wilson who published a few papers in the early 1980’s while a graduate student at ANU, then nothing for 25 years except one paper called “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?” Glad to hear it, as that stops me from insulting Dr Wilson by telling him that he has forgotten all his physics in that 25 years. So we can assume that Ian W is not the same person then, and is not a qualified astrophysicist, which would explain a lot……..

tallbloke
October 16, 2012 12:27 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:12 pm
On the contrary, it shows that for dealing with gravitational forces the ‘roiling plasma’picture is irrelevant and we can treat the sun as a point mass.

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly your technique of misdirection away from the point at issue.
The roiling plasma near the Sun’s surface makes up only a small part of it’s mass. So of course we can navigate spacecraft with sufficient precision using calculations which treat the Sun-as-a-whole as a point mass. This in no way precludes the possibility that all the solar system masses and fields are interlocked in a system of feedbacks which affect boundary-conditions near the solar surface to the extent of producing changes of up to around ~0.3% in its power output and much bigger percentage changes in its output of UV and solar wind speed and density. This is because as well as considering the Sun’s mass, you need to consider its modes of energy production and delivery, and the effect they have on the system as a whole.
I don’t expect you to take just my word for it though. As well as the numerous well written articles on the net amongst the misunderstandings, there is a growing body of published literature explaining various plausible hypotheses which can account for a number of physical mechanisms underlying empirical observations which correlate solar activity levels with planetary mass disposition. There is more on the way, to add to the existing empirical evidence and theory which is already strong enough to refute your misleading objections. There is a growing number of scientists and interested amateur researchers who are not so easily fooled by your false arguments and misdirections. The days of the inviolate lonely Sun unaffected by the system of which it is a part are numbered.
Even blind watchmakers can hear the ticking.

tallbloke
October 16, 2012 1:03 am

J. Seifert says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:55 pm
The cherry-pick argument was missing until now…picking time has come folks….
Go ahead and pick just one single impact which counters our claim

Impacts up to 20,000 years old, from the Earth impact database (none of them big enough to knock Earth off orbit):
http://www.passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase/Agesort.html
Impact Structures Sorted by Age
Structure Name
Age (Ma)*
Kamil
?
Carancas
0.000004
Sikhote Alin
0.000063
Wabar
0.00014
Haviland
< 0.001
Sobolev
< 0.001
Whitecourt
<0.0011
Campo Del Cielo
< 0.004
Kaalijärv
0.004 ± 0.001
Henbury
0.0042 ± 0.0019
Boxhole
0.0054± 0.0015
Ilumetsä
~ 0.0066
Macha
< 0.007
Morasko
< 0.01
Tenoumer
0.0214 ± 0.0097
Not content with re-writing orbital mechanics, Joachim wants to introduce other 'impacts' that didn't leave craters, and may have been earthquakes, volcanoes or landslips. I don't know enough about geology to know whether the Santorini caldera is the site of an impact which then formed a volcano, and I suspect Joachim doesn't either. But the available evidence seems to indicate that the caldera refilled more than once. Wiki says:
"Volcanism on Santorini is due to the Hellenic Trench subduction zone southwest of Crete. The oceanic crust of the northern margin of the African Plate is being subducted under Greece and the Aegean Sea. which comprises thinned continental crust. The subduction compels the formation of the Hellenic arc, which includes Santorini and other volcanic centres, such as Methana, Milos, and Kos.
Around the time of the radiocarbon-indicated date of the eruption, there is evidence for a significant climatic event in the Northern Hemisphere. The evidence includes failure of crops in China, as well as evidence from tree rings. The tree rings date the climatic event to 1628 BC
The violent eruption was centred on a small island just north of the existing island of Nea Kameni in the centre of the caldera; the caldera itself was formed several hundred thousand years ago by the collapse of the centre of a circular island, caused by the emptying of the magma chamber during an eruption. It has been filled several times by ignimbrite since then, and the process repeated itself, most recently 21,000 years ago. The northern part of the caldera was refilled by the volcano, then collapsing once more during the Minoan eruption.”
So even if the caldera was originally created by an impact, the date does not fit Joachim’s scheme.

pedroS
October 16, 2012 2:04 am

“Go ahead and pick just one single impact which counters our claim…”
Joachim,
I already told you there are 28 impacts since 10ky ago that are larger than Kaali. If your theory was any good, you would have been able to detect them all from the data without any further information. The fact is that you only “detected” a few, and several of those “impacts” are not even real (Sirente, Santorino, Helike). You are arguing that:
A) there are atypical temperature changes in a “Z” pattern
B) only orbital changes can cause that change
C) impacts cause orbital changes, therefore
“atypical temperature changes” prove that Helike/Santorino/Sirente/whatever were impacts.
You have nowhere proven assertion B). People here have shown you simple computations showing how that cannot be true, and instead of providing any computations to support your assertion you claim that “simple” calculations cannot be right. The burden of proof rests on whoever is writing a paper. Without that, it is just an unsupported idea.
BTW: you seem to be labouring under the impression that your idea is a climate model. It isn’t: it is simply a set of correlations in a temperature time series. The attribution of the components of the fit to real physical processes is the beginning of a theory. But every process in the attribution must be supported, reasoned, and argued. However, you take offense at most attempts to ask for reasoning and explanation…
PS: You could also find similar correlations in IBM stock prices, but you would have to do more than that to prove to any investor that you knew how to explain the changes in share prices with time.
PPS: You have argued Storegga, before. There are several theories for that, and impact is not at all prominent among them. See Marine and Petroleum Geology 22 (2005) 11–19
PPPS: One last argument that has so far not been pointed out: a 1/1000 change in orbital distance would change the energy reaching Earth by only 2 parts in one-thousand, that is less than 3 W/m2

Editor
October 16, 2012 2:48 am

J. Seifert says:
October 15, 2012 at 9:16 pm

To Willis: Your quote:

……..”’ ……there is not enough energy in the impacts you list to change the orbit of the earth. It’s less than the impact of a fly hitting a car, more like the impact of a midge hitting the car. Sure, there is an impact, the midge thinks it’s the end of the world. But if you think a midge hitting a car significantly changes the car’s orbit, you’re not paying attention. …….”’

….. NOW, LET ME SAY THE FOLLOWING TO WILLIS CLAIM:
(1) You have not read the paper, and in case you really went across pages and figures, then, you did not understand what you saw. This can be proven that the few coined abbreviations used in the text are unknown/inexplicable to you….. Sad.
(2) Your judgment is solely based on the fly/midge -car comparison. This comparison rests on Leifs ‘simple” (HIS quote) calculation, that an impact mass must not be a fly/midge but some huge sized object.

Thanks, Joachim. My comparison does not rest in the slightest on Leif’s calculations. It rests only on my own calculations. I did not use Leif’s calcs at all. My calcs are based on the relative masses. The Earth (6e+24 kg) is ten billion times more massive than even the huge Chicxlub meteor (~ 6e+14 kg), the impact that bopped the dinosaurs on the head.
It’s hard to consider relative masses that huge. So I took a more everyday example. I considered a car. It might have a mass of about a tonne (1,000 kg). One ten-billionth of the mass of the car is a tenth of a milligram (0.0001 grams).
The weight of a midge is on the order of half a milligram. So my example is actually quite accurate. In terms of mass, a car is to a midge as the Earth is to the Chicxlub meteor. In neither case will the impact of the two significantly change the orbit of the larger.
So I’m not making up some imaginary comparison. That’s the actual scale of the masses, ten billion to one. In essence, you are claiming that when a midge hits a car, it changes the course of the car. Well, yes, if you can look on the microscopic level it does, … but only one midge-worth, and that’s laughably small. Not even a measurable amount. Lost in the noise.
To your other points. Have I read the paper? Heck, no. I got as far as your claims about the orbit alterations from cosmic impacts, and only the minor semi-diameter changing as a result. At that point, I found myself unable to read further, because my eyes were rolling and I was shaking my head and laughing all at once … and I fear I never went any further.
You also say:

We thank you that you concede that you CANNOT FALSIFY OUR PRESENTATION AS IT STANDS. …point.

Ah, my friend, you totally and completely misunderstand me. I thought I had made it clear the second time I explained it, but let me try again, my writing is never as limpid and transparent as my own reading of the words would have it..
What I said was that in their present form, your claims are not falsifiable. I did not say that I could not falsify them. I said that your claims are not capable of being falsified. Why can’t they be falsified? Because they are far too vague and scattered and lacking in numerical specificity. Here’s the example I gave up-thread:

Look, if I say “the Empire State Building is tall”, that statement cannot be falsified. It is tall compared to some objects, and not tall compared to others. But if I add numbers, if I say “the Empire State Building is taller than 300 metres”, we can falsify that statement.

Because of the lack of numerical specificity, your statements are not falsifiable. In other words, in scientific terms they are worthless. Meaningless. Valueless. Purely anecdotal. You need to back up your ideas with the actual calculations that show that your ideas are valid.
Best regards,
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 16, 2012 9:30 am

To Willis….I always tend to long explications…some people I know always complain.
Now, lets try to be short and concise, 3 points only:
(1) You disrespect empirical knowledge drawn from the Holocene temperature evolution.
You read to end of our paper introduction, clearly recognizing that
competing institutional Warmist -GCMs for the Holocene (read Gavin Schmidt’s work,
we dissected it in detail) are completely below any scientific standards and draw next
to nothing from the Holocene temp evolution. Take our detailed 27-37 ka BP time
span ….. (read, just for comparison the S. Rahmstorf, 2003 and 2002 works on
D-O events:- see refs: he produces a helpless mumbeling that 27-37 kaBP were just
a “mystery”
(2) In your previous works, you showed a sharp sense in dissecting a paper from top
to bottom. This time you opine after you reached the first paragraphs on the
state of-the-art description of the sad Holocene GCM science. This is a 180 degrees
turn, and quality loss….. At this point, I am truely convinced that Leif was stuck under
your bed and released whisperings…
…The inspiration to try to struggle against our great celestial analysis paper came
not by lifting your eyes toward the sky but clearly originates from the opposite
direction somewhere down……..
(3) Each of us took his position now ..we can leave it, like it is….. It WILL BE DECIDED BY
HISTORY, who was on the right camino … whether we were in advance of history and
you are trying to throw sand into its wheel with simpel pocket book calculations, or, the
other way around, you are in advance of history by greasing history’s wheel at the
WUWT blog at Anthony’s and we are the ones who try to throw the spanner into the
gears…
….Time will tell….. let me add the obligatory “but”: The cosmic impact community,
will grow, as does the EOO-cycle. They will identify, measure and assess
more and more impact details over the years, the forcing mechanisms additionally
clearer and history’s wheel momentum will get stronger for us as the time goes by……JS

October 16, 2012 4:27 am

J. Seifert says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:23 am
To Geoff Sharp: Geoff, the EOO pulsation at both end of the minor axis is the
wave line of our 27-37 ka BP graphic. On it, the vertical temp change is at the same
time the Km- distance change Sun—>End points of the Minor axis., which as I said are
not stiff points, but flexible points.

I do not know how you expect rational criticism of your work when you are not providing the data asked for. I leave the door open that someday you may provide a clear explanation that is open to falsification, you cannot write a paper that has the data missing. Until then your work can not be taken seriously.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 16, 2012 5:37 am

I have determined the GISP2 data used in this paper is wrong.
I have graphed the Alley 2000 GISP2 data as available from NOAA. I have confirmed it matches the graphs presented in the paper.
But it has the errors I noted before. I have also graphed the Kobashi 2011 “GISP2 4000-Year Ar-N2 Isotope Temperature Reconstruction” dataset. They do not match.
Since Kobashi is in Years AD I subtracted 1950 per Alley to get Years Before Present (BP).
Kobashi shows a major low at 1100BP, Alley as downloaded shows this about 1200BP. Kobashi has a major peak at 1250BP, and it’s a very steep drop from 1250 to 1100BP. Alley doesn’t show that, with only a gentle sloping down from 1500BP. Kobashi’s highest peak is about 2975BP. The highest of Alley is at 3300BP. Etc.
Also Kobashi has a greater range, about -33.4 to -27.2°C. Over that period, Alley only goes from about -32.2 to -28.7.
I have found confirmation of Kobashi for the time of the Little Ice Age. The dip is easily seen in Kobashi. Alley shows what eyeballs as a gentle curve from a 950BP peak which flattens until a sudden rise starting about 175BP (1775AD).
But as discussed in this January 2012 AGU press release about an (at the time) in-press paper, they examined dead plant samples from under the Baffin Island ice cap and other proxies to get the timing of the LIA onset.
There was a large cluster of “kill dates” between 1275 and 1300 A.D., indicating the plants had been frozen and engulfed by ice during a relatively sudden event.
Kobashi shows significant drops around then.
The team saw a second spike in plant kill dates at about 1450 A.D., indicating the quick onset of a second major cooling event.
The Kobashi data shows a high point at 1448AD (504BP) then suddenly dropping about 1.7°C by 1469AD (481BP).
Link to paper’s paywall. Abstract says: “Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD.” Between this paper and Kobashi there’s roughly only a 10-20 year difference.
I noted before how the Alley download had many instances where a time is repeated with a different temperature. If those are where the time should have increased, given the spacing it could explain how the timing is different from Kobashi, with the differences growing further back in time (further down in the Alley download file).
But Alley is also lacking in features that Kobashi has, such as the LIA and assorted peaks and lows.
Thus I have determined that Alley 2000, by the version available for download, which matches the graphs in the Seifert and Lemke paper, is wrong.
With Alley being flawed in timing compared to Kobashi, and this paper relying on the timing of cycles and cosmic impacts with regards to Alley, this paper must also be flawed, as it argues it is in good agreement with a flawed temperature record.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 16, 2012 5:46 am

Quick Addendum to previous post:
Alley 2000 was only compared to Kobashi 2011 over the period covered by Kobashi. Thus when I said of the peaks “The highest of Alley is at 3300BP” that refers to that period, not the entire record. Etc.

October 16, 2012 5:48 am

tallbloke says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:27 am
you need to consider its modes of energy production and delivery, and the effect they have on the system as a whole.
Is just hand waving. And the energy is produced in the core from which it takes 250,000 years to diffuse out of the radiative interior
The days of the inviolate lonely Sun unaffected by the system of which it is a part are numbered.
They have been numbered for at least 150 years with no end in sight.

October 16, 2012 5:50 am

jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:27 am
Tallbloke says : “You have confused Ian Wilson with commenter Ian W. They are two different people.”
Oh, so Ian W is not Dr Ian Wilson who published a few papers in the early 1980′s while a graduate student at ANU, then nothing for 25 years except one paper called “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?” Glad to hear it, as that stops me from insulting Dr Wilson by telling him that he has forgotten all his physics in that 25 years. So we can assume that Ian W is not the same person then, and is not a qualified astrophysicist, which would explain a lot……..

You really should have more respect. Ian is doing a lot of good work. In comparison you are yet to rise above troll status.
Ian’s website below.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/

October 16, 2012 6:37 am

Ray says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm
I also believe that astronomical cycles affect the long term climate rather than the idea that short term events cause ‘runaway positive feedback’ to cause major long term climate change.
My comments to follow are offered respectfully.
I am skeptical about the hypothesis of Earth Orbital Oscillations. There seems to be a preponderance of astronomical studies and calculations that such a cycle does not exist and you offer no explanation or citations to support this idea. Astronomical proof is needed to support this. Without further proof, this is just an unsupported and questionable hypothesis. Perhaps there is another astronomical pattern that is causing the climate cycle that you are observing.

I have done the <b<astronomical proof. There is no correlation between an Earth orbital oscillation frequency and climate frequencies, but there is indeed a strong correlation between the astronomical function of the solar tide function of Earth, Mercury and Jupiter, and the global sea level oscillations as measured by the known satellites:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_me_er_ju.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_solar_tides_me.gif
It can be seen that the main effect is phase coherent with the astronomical heliocentric synodic Mercury/Earth tide function.
.“Reply to Volker Doormann:
We are peers on this website and you are the good, star gazing, esoterical ASTROLOGICAL guy…I know, Pluto told you all, stars do not lie and because Saturn crossed the Venus line, the discussion paper must have many flaws….. My climate peers, Doormann has spoken…JS”
This attitude is unprofessional and detracts from your efforts to put forth an unbiased scientific proof of your theories. The “trolls” on this blog that you criticize are seen by us all as being “trolls”. When you lower yourself to that level, you also appear to us as being a “troll”. Do not lower yourself to that level. Stay above the fray and remain calm, cool, and professional.

As all students of philosophy learn in the first semester is the fallacy of the McCarthy judge, who has argued that the physical work of a Russian scientist cannot be have any worth, because he is a communist. To be professional it is necessary to look on the argument *) and not on that what people talk bad about the speaker of the argument. You lower yourself, if you take such comments for true in that way, that you see for the criticised person bad talk, but not for the arguments.
*) The argument was given (above) in a graph that shows that the temperature reconstructions over millennia like (A. Moberg or E. Zorita) have fundamental periods of about 913 years and not 790 years as J. Seifert claims in his book.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_seifert_790.gif
V.

Pamela Gray
October 16, 2012 8:06 am

Derived?? DERIVED??? Now that is a weasel word used by CO2 proponents! So let’s take this to its logical conclusion. You “derive” (coughcough) that some magical emminance from the barycenter (hackhack) is somehow more powerful than puny CO2, more powerful than mighty clouds capable of mitigating shortwave IR, more powerful than vast oceans in the capacity to absorb and move heat energy from one place to the next on our planet, more powerful than overwhelming ocean moving winds, and more powerful than tall buildings and short BBQ’s in their sensor changing abilities to affect Earth’s temperatures around floating and stationary temperature sensors. If your barycenter derived “number” is that powerful, it must, it MUST be calculated into landing trajectories of space craft on distant planets and space travels. That your “number” is not, proves you…WRONG! You have falsified your own theory.
That IRISH enough for you? Hm?