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

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’?)

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….

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!

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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…

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 “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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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….

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

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

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.

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”.

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

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

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.

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

“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.

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

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.

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..

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.

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 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.

“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?