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.
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.
Tallbloke: “Maybe you could give an example of why it is useful to know why there are more astronomers called Smith rather than Brewer. I’d also like to know why it is that in a science discussion you think it more pertinent to discuss the gap in someone’s publication history rather than the scientific content of their work relevant to the discussion.
From here it looks like casting aspersions on the person instead of discussing the basic physics or the strength of correlations.”
Well I would indeed prefer to discuss the science, however “Ian W” has vanished and declines to answer simple question about the validity of his methods. As for SCI, the only interesting fact, which I admit is not totally relevant, but which I found interesting, is that there is only one person called Ian Wilson who has ever published in astronomical journals – considering that it must be quite a common name, I thought that an intriguing fact. Not very important though.
I notice that in discussing Seifert’s contribution that you are in favour of order-of-magnitude calculations as suggested by Leif. Good, you should be. It is order-of-magnitude calculations that make me suspicious of barycentre and tidal coupling arguments. For example, tidal forces (on the Sun) are very small (and actually dismissed as a mechanism by Ian Wilson in one of his papers) yet you advocate considering the effect of Jupiter-Saturn on the tidal forces due to Mercury and Venus, basically a tiny perturbation on a tiny perturbation. Does not make sense. Order of magnitude estimate are really, really important in physics – you should pay more attention to them. You should also remember conservation of energy and angular momentum, and Newton’s Third Law. If there is a mechanism whereby Jupiter can have a significant effect on the Sun, the converse must also be true – the Sun must affect Jupiter eg by changing its orbit due to the transfer of angular momentum. And if this is to happen on the time scale of recent climate changes (i.e. decades) it should be possible to observe this. This in fact would be a much better test than trying to detect subtle changes in the Sun. So where is the observation?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:52 am
Tallbloke,
I linked to Motl’s piece on Charvatova’s work upstream.
I ran the interview on my own site around the same time
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/interview-with-ivanka-charvatova-is-climate-change-caused-by-solar-inertial-motion/
So obviously the missing element is the linking of the barycenter motions to the PDO.
It’s more complex than that. There is an interaction between the harmonics governing the PDO, the AMO, the AO and changes in LOD (which also matches the Sun-Barycentre motion closely in the z axis as well as in the x,y plane). Then there are 45 year oscillations corresponding to inner solar system dynamics, and ~75 year oscillations relating to Lunar cycles.
Simple it ain’t.
Why these all work together to produce a strong, global temperature effective signal exhibited most strongly in the AMO is the big question. The bi-annually averaged Pacific SST has been steady for 30 years. The extra energy absorbed there due to reduced cloud cover moves through the Atlantic and into the Arctic. The Earth loses heat as quickly and as efficiently as it can. That mostly happens in the mid north Atlantic where the water/air temp differential is greatest in winter, and heat is radiated to space most effectively. Which is why Bob Tisdale’s regional sst graphs show the biggest warming (and now fastest cooling) in the North Atlantic.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 17, 2012 at 4:07 am
basically a tiny perturbation on a tiny perturbation. Does not make sense.
If you want to understand how it is possible for small perturbations to be amplified, you need to read up on things like boundary conditions and Kelvin-Helmholz instabilities. Then view some footage from SDO and see how the activity on the solar surface flips from one state to another so easily and quickly. Coupled oscillators such as Jupiter-Saturn tidal forces acting on Venus-Earth-Mercury tidal resonances can cause ‘leveraged oscillations’ well beyond their apparent individual magnitudes if they are acting on a system close to boundary conditions, which the solar surface evidently is.
If you’ve ever studied fluid dynamics (I have a qualifiation in it), you’ll understand how apparently chaotic changes in flow can be caused by simple combinations of small but regular disturbances.
Re Charvatova . Since several people here are interested in solar cycles and activity, let’s see if we can get a simple prediction.
When is/was the next solar grand minimum.
If it has already started, then when
If it has not started then when will it?
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 17, 2012 at 5:27 am
Re Charvatova . Since several people here are interested in solar cycles and activity, let’s see if we can get a simple prediction.
When is/was the next solar grand minimum.
If it has already started, then when
If it has not started then when will it?
Charvatova predicted in 2007 that SC24 would be 140 SSN and peak in 2010. She also predicted 65 for SC25 and 85 for SC26. She thought the 3 cycles mentioned would be identical to cycles 11,12,13. Pattern matching and not understanding the cause of the disordered orbit and how to quantify the disruption all eluded her.
Charvatova probably made the biggest contribution of the pioneers by recognizing the correlation between the discorded orbit and grand minima but did not take it any further. Today with Carl’s graph we can clearly see how each AM (angular momentum) disruption (which is unique to one alignment of the outer 4) that causes the inner loop change and quantify the strength of the particular downturn. We have also learned that the SIM motion is not connected to cycle length or timing. Also learned is the amount of AM generated via the solar path (outside of disrupted orbits) correlates with solar cycle strength. You will never see a high sunspot cycle when AM is low.
Carl’s graph shows that SC24 will be weak with SC25 most likely following but some recovery should be expected during SC26.
To Willis: The solution is our bag, we checked and will add the calculations
to the paper in the next weeks….. do not worry…..Our paper is 100% on course…..
The problem was that Leif did not include all calculation elements (on purpose) in
to torpedo our paper…. In a way ,I am content, that you and he did it, because
you previsioned the AGW response in the devil’s advocate position, for which I am
grateful that you and he did so, it saves me senseless quarrel with the Warmists…..
It was obvious, that there was something and a priori missing in Leif’s simple calculation
approach…..I never had the idea, after all the empirical work, that someone and AGW
would doubt the astronomical aspect of impacts…. I was so GLASS-CLEAR to us that
all impacts cause all empirical effects…..
That Warmists “could” come along and present simplistic pocket book calculations
and claim that impacts do not cause all empirical impact patterns ….. never crossed
my mind…..
Good thing you found out and advised us.
Today Anthony presented the new B. Christiansen, F.C. Ljungqvist paper….
with temp evolution for the N-hemisphere, not just for the one GISP2 borehole…..
and check from its hemispherical data whether you could identify two Z-shaped
impact patterns of 2 millenial impacts in 1178AD und 1443AD ( a Blitz-shape)
—- their data is given in FIGURE 5.
I am working hard, you see, to get you out of the tow of Leif, he whispered to much
to you and pulled you off-track. I will prove it to you and then I expect that you
distance yourself from those who want to discard the best climate paper of all with
a few “simplistic” note book scribblings….This is a great INSULT to me …..
If he had advised me that this is what AGW would do with certainty, it would have
been different…but he reckons his results claim truth…. this is what annoys me and
I do not have sympathy for someone going against our great paper with AGW-style
nonsense….JS
To Geoff, there are the dates for the Jup/Sat minimum distance in the
60-year Scafetta cycle…..Question: Are you able to extend those years for 10,000 years
to give us the dates so we can superpose them onto GISP2 (both onto the Allan
version) and the Kabashiri version [which the good Knoebel digged up for us, thanks)
This is important for reinforcing the Scafetta-cycle……with paleodata…..Cheers JS
Spurious correlations: Short term oscillations appearing to coincide with derived long term oscillations plus or minus a few years or decades. Reminds me of the hidden word codes found in the Bible. Trouble is, when someone used an equally developed “book” of books but not the Bible, and translated into the same Engish, one could find the same exact coded words. Numerology is all its cracked up to be. It finds correlations everywhere. Why? Elementary math. But causation? It stinks in that department.
To Willis: You talk a lot about hand waving examples, and let me make
up one: Someone builts, over 5 years, with lots of steel and concrete,
the great temple to the climate god . Now, its public opening time.
Everybody is invited. The first visitor, who comes along is Leif. He gets
the attention of all and says: Folks, this temple of steel and concrete is
all false….it is nothing but a house of cards, the next AGW-wind will blow
it over.! Be carefull everybody, it will fall right on your head….. And the public
will ask: How do you know this? And Leif will reply: Look, my notebook, I
made 4 lines of calculations, they prove, the temple will cave in anytime!
And there along comes another one, saying: Folks, the temple makes
me laugh, I do not have to go inside and read the writings on the wall…..
It is all false and soft plaster….the four lines of the notebook prove it!
……And then, the two guys start to huff and to puff…..
…. Willis, please put YOUR end to the handwaving story….I am interested
how it will end…..JS
Willis, you may have the last word, to close the blog….JS
J. Seifert says:
October 17, 2012 at 11:34 am
I expect that you distance yourself from those who want to discard the best climate paper of all with a few “simplistic” note book scribblings….[…] I do not have sympathy for someone going against our great paper
I thought Vuk or Scafetta or Archibald laid claims to having produced the ‘best climate paper of all’. But let that pass. Your uttering here is ludicrous, but typical of the worst kind of pseudo-scientist.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 17, 2012 at 1:03 pm
I thought Vuk or ……… laid claims to having produced the ‘best climate paper of all’.
Now you are confusing one or two only sensible people here, I would normally include good yourself there, but you spend an extraordinary amount of your valuable time ‘trashing empty straw’.
I thought …. Scafetta or Archibald laid claims to having produced the ‘best climate paper of all’.
Having a Dr. in front of a name isn’t guaranty that badly informed wouldn’t write baloney.
I thought Vuk …..laid claims to having produced the ‘best climate paper of all’.
Having a Dr. in front of a name isn’t guaranty that one would readily and without prejudice accept something even when based on the solid data (SIDC-Harvard scientist) clearly undermines firmly held view.
Time to move on.
J seifert said
‘Today Anthony presented the new B. Christiansen, F.C. Ljungqvist paper….
with temp evolution for the N-hemisphere, not just for the one GISP2 borehole…..
and check from its hemispherical data whether you could identify two Z-shaped
impact patterns of 2 millenial impacts in 1178AD und 1443AD ( a Blitz-shape)
—- their data is given in FIGURE 5.’
Would the people of the time have noted a collision big enough to ‘nudge’ te climate? If so what would have been the effect-a noticeable change in the weather?
i ask because I have compiled thousands of contemporary weather quotes related to Britain from the 10th to the 17th century and in there would surely be references to such events
tonyb.
To tony B: There are 2 people in the world who would note nothing at all:
One, is Mike Mann, he would straighten out the Z-effect from the hockey stick and
the other would be Leif, because impacts, leaving a 20 km diameter crater do
not leave climate changes from the impact date on for the ensuing 100 years,
according to his “simple calculations”…….JS
More to TonyB. Measurements of Christiansen und Ljungqvist were issued as blog
today….. propose to Anthony that Willis [as he did otstanding historical studies on
volcano action] do a check on my claim of the cosmic action of the 2 visible impacts
of 1178 and 1443. Convince yourself with the freshest data whether the Z-shape
after impacts over a 100 year period are there or not…. Leif claims that is impossible,
according to his notebook, temps do not go in Z-shape after impacts…..because
impacts are like a fly/midget hitting a car….
Mention that there is massive blogger’s interest to clarify the Z-claim after impacts and
say that Leif and Willis are not allowed to chicken out with a rejecting response…..JS
Tony B.: Please propose to Anthony that Willis investigates the Z-pattern as standard
temperature evolution after each sizable cosmic impact. Two of them were registed,
as example one in 1178AD and the second in 1443AD. Temperature evolution given
by Michael Mann and now Christiansen, Jjungqvist. Detail check is better than
a discarding after 3 line scribbelings…….as above….JS
vukcevic says:
October 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm
amount of your valuable time ‘trashing empty straw’.
It is easy to trash your empty straw. takes no time at all.
based on the solid data (SIDC-Harvard scientist) clearly undermines firmly held view.
Even good data can be used to draw unfounded ‘conclusions’ by ignorant [but self-serving] people. To with this and similar threads.
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……..
It would also explain a lot to me – someone who runs off to check the citations list to assess the authority level to argue from rather than answering simple questions should perhaps consider a career in climate science 😉
As it happens I have peer reviewed papers but in a totally different area (as Rog could check if he so wanted).
So having got the fact that I am not in the same girl-scout troop out of the way…
The Journal Nature reports:
An Earth-mass planet orbiting α Centauri B
Exoplanets down to the size of Earth have been found, but not in the habitable zone—that is, at a distance from the parent star at which water, if present, would be liquid. There are planets in the habitable zone of stars cooler than our Sun, but for reasons such as tidal locking and strong stellar activity, they are unlikely to harbour water–carbon life as we know it. The detection of a habitable Earth-mass planet orbiting a star similar to our Sun is extremely difficult, because such a signal is overwhelmed by stellar perturbations……….
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11572.html
So the planet was found by seeing perturbations in the motion of the star.
Do these perturbations in stella velocity exist or not Jimmi?
Ian W says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm
So the planet was found by seeing perturbations in the motion of the star
As binary stars have been found by seeing perturbations in the components, e.g. Sirius B in 1844. This is beneath contempt really as there are no effects on the stars themselves by the free-fall dance around each other. To quote W&P: “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 [or other orbiting bodies] 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.”
Ian W:
“Do these perturbations in stella velocity exist or not Jimmi?”
Hello welcome back. I wondered if you would refer to that article. However you keep missing the point. It is not the motion I am questioning. It is the fact that you assume that the motion causes changes in the star. Now could you explain why you keep claiming that the Doppler effect is relevant. As I asked a longtime ago – when you hear the pitch of the siren from an ambulance change as it goes past, does the ambulance itself change? Simply going in an elliptical orbit constitutes a change in velocity.
“someone who runs off to check the citations list to assess the authority level to argue from rather than answering simple questions should perhaps consider a career in climate science ;-)”
I only looked as Tallbloke claimed that someone called Ian Wilson was an astrophysicist i.e because he was attempting an argument from authority – but he then said that you were not that person, so it becomes irrelevant. As far as I can see however, it is you who is not answering simple questions. So we will try again – why do you think that the techniques used to detect extrasolar planets tell you anything about the effect of planets on the internal structure of stars, given that being in motion does not by itself affect the properties.
J. Seifert says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:54 pm
the Z-pattern as standard temperature evolution after each sizable cosmic impact
At the impact the orbit might change [extremely little], but there is no force that makes it rebounce [sic].
Leif: TODAY came here at WUWT a new Jan Esper, Ulf Buentgen study on temps
during 2,000 years and you may check the record…whether there is a cooling, which
you finally agree that this has to be considered…..To the “impossible” rebounce : Lets
take the impact 1443 Mahuika (Snares Islands) ….here…temps should go down for
50 years, (please check) and then REBOUNCE TO A HEIGHT for the next 50 years
above the impact time temps…and the literature for this is:
O.Wetter, C. Pfister: “An underestimated record breaking event: WHy Summer 1540
was very likely warmer than 2003” Clim Past DIscuss, 8, 2695-2730, 2012… showing
the impact rebounce peak after 50 years EMPIRICALLY DOCUMENTED. Please check….
Further, for detection of the Z-shape impact pattern, I did NOT focus onto those two
rather minor 1178 and 1443 impacts, because the Allan GISP2, which we selected for
our study, is NOT detailed enough for the time period 1000-2000 AD, as blogger Knoebel,
some days ago, pointed out. Previous Holocene impacts are better, clearer, more
convincing than mini-impacts, which just move temps 50 years down and then 50 years
up as rebounce and might be corrupted by volcano eruptions, ENSO and all the lot of
short time events, TSI, etc which are noticed over short time spans….
The pattern is better documented in previous Holocene proxies…..
Nevertheless, since the impact pattern feature is precondition/standard effect…then it
must be valid as well in the last millenium’s time span after mini=impacts. I suggest you
approach Willis to scrutinize our Z-shape claim in detail… Whether I, not any other
study did this before…this would be an original scientific piece to for Willis, he may
claim to be the first on doing a impact pattern model-data comparison for the impact
claim. He did a similiar good study for the same time frame with the volcano climate
impact claim. After all, NEITHER Jan Esper, NOR M. Mann NOR Christiansen/Ljungqvist
provide answers of why there are temp dips in the hockey stick and a reverse rebounces
…. [temps, for example, could also hoover along or continue in a different multitude of
graphic shapes]…..
…
Scrutinizing this claim is new knowledge and someone should/must/will do it one
day…..Concerning your calculations: They are correct by using not all orbital
factors…you are right, for example for billiard-pool balls…. where a fly cannot
change the direction of the ball with its impact….. but the Earth orbit is a different
case, where you left out important orbital factors…. as we will demonstrate, once
we have it ready for presentation……meanwhile, check the empirical data……JS
J. Seifert says:
October 17, 2012 at 12:35 pm
My goodness. What is it with you and Leif? I know nothing about Leif, he has nothing to do with me. I wrote what I wrote before reading what Leif wrote. Quit trying to link me with him. I independently made different calculations than Leif’s. We separately came to the same conclusion—there’s not enough energy in the cosmic impacts to change the orbit by the amount you clan.
I asked you for a simple estimate. A simple order-of-magnitude estimate. An estimate of how much a tiny midge fly can affect the orbit of an automobile. We know that the automobile weighs about ten billion times as much as the midge. Even if the midge is going really, really fast, so what? That just makes it the equivalent of a swarm of midges … how much will even a swarm of midge flies affect the orbit of a car?
You have consistently chosen to ignore the question. I understand why you want to ignore the question. The forces are inadequate by orders of magnitude to do what you claim.
Next, my calculations are not “hand waving examples”. They are real numbers, best estimates for the mass of the Earth (6e+24 kg.) and the Chicxlub meteor (6e+14 kg.). Read’m and weep, the Earth is ten billion times more massive than even the huge meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. It’s the same mass ratio as a midge and an automobile. Even that huge meteor is far too small to change the orbit as you claim.
Finally, I judge claims in part by how the author answers my objections. I asked you about what I saw then (and see now) as a fatal flaw in your theory about the effect of cosmic impacts on the Earth’s orbit. The flaw was that compared to the Earth, the biggest meteors are not even flyspecks—they are midgespecks.
In answer to my question presenting the data and calculations, I had hoped to get reasoned discussion. I got nothing of the sort. I got ad hominem attacks, and discussions of the ToiletPaper Effect and whatever the EOOO is, or maybe it’s the EOO. I got references to EVIDENCE in the GISP2 data. I got expositions on what sounds line a Z-shaped pattern in temperature.
But what I’ve never gotten is an explanation of how a midge is going to disturb a car. Or how a meteor is going to disturb the Earth. You have not grasped the nettle of the huge disparity in the masses.
Your repeated unwillingness to grapple with this serious challenge to your ideas about the Earth’s orbit is a clear danger sign to the discerning reader. I use questions like this to see how smart the guy making the claim might be.
A smart guy in your place would do what we used to call “embrace the suck”. Acknowledge that your idea didn’t work, thank the reader for pointing it out, and move on. Run the numbers yourself, and satisfy yourself that what Leif and I and others are saying is true. Admit it, modify your theory, and keep on moving.
Hey, I’ve had to do it, more than once. Usually I learned a lot in the process. Sometimes my mistakes led to deeper insights. But the only way to get there was to admit when I was wrong.
All the best,
w.
To Willis: I wrote it somewhere previously before: The GISP2 empirical data, together
with the [EOO] Earth Orbital Oscillation cycles [556++growing by about 18 years each
over the Holocene] convinced me in such a way, that it never occurred to me, that
someone would ask for impact calculations…..As I wrote before, I am happy now that
you did because this is what AGW would do trying to kill the paper and you felt immediately
that this aspect had to be included for rounding the study off… Thanks again, we will
aggregate the necessary pages on this over the next weeks. We already found the
missing factors for impact calculations and will present it when everything is ready in
the presentation…..
You could have grasped a hint about something missing in your calculation: What about
this slow, over 556++ going orbital oscillation? Aren’t there factors not being accounted for,
since you have not familiar with those cosmic cycles, identified first, not from us, but
by spectral power analysis? [see paragraph 2, which you never reached….]
Your calculation, independent from Leif [excuse me, I assumed you all sit together
on one table…mea culpa….] is correct, I do not object….but input factors are missing,
as in computer GCMs, which, and I copied your great quote into my book: ”’….[that
they]… are no evidence of anything but the biases, beliefs and the mistakes of the
programmers…..” This quote is the mother of all climate quotes…
I wrote to Leif just minutes ago: If the Z-shaped impact pattern would grasp your
attention, there were, yesterday, 2 new studies with high-resolution data over the
past 2,000 years…… for checking on the empirical truth of the 1178 and 1443 impact
effects and whether the Z-shaped temp oscillation really materializes as described
as necessary result ensuing after each sizable impact [here both are mini-impacts].
Just have a look as you did on the climate changing volcano claims, filled with
professoral ineptitude and Warmist peer blessings…….JS
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 17, 2012 at 5:27 am
Re Charvatova . Since several people here are interested in solar cycles and activity, let’s see if we can get a simple prediction.
When is/was the next solar grand minimum.
If it has already started, then when
If it has not started then when will it?
“We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong. The outcome of this further long-range climate forecast solely based on solar activity may be considered to be a touchstone of the IPCC’s hypothesis of man-made global warming.”
Theodor Landscheidt 2003
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/solar-physicists-finally-get-the-message-landscheidt-was-right-after-all/
Dr’s. Ian Wilson, Bob Carter, and I.A. Waite.
From their paper: Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle? Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 25(2) 85-93 June 2008).
Dr. Wilson adds the following clarification:
“It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20-30 years.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/past-prophesies-of-future-solar-inactivity-and-cooler-climate/
By the way, you haven’t found all the papers Ian Wilson published in Russian journals not covered by the IMSI database. So much for assumptions.
Ian W says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm
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.”
As it happens I have peer reviewed papers but in a totally different area (as Rog could check if he so wanted).
Hi Ian, absolutely no offence intended, I was just wanting to disabuse the dalek of his misconception. Please tell us what area you have published in, and link a paper if you don’t mind losing anonymity.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:41 pm
To quote W&P: “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 [or other orbiting bodies] 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.”
And they also say:
“We demonstrate the energy with a very simple model in which two fluid elements
of equal mass exchange positions, calling to mind a turbulent field or natural convection.
The exchange releases potential energy that, with a minor exception, is available only in
the hemisphere facing the barycenter of the planetary system. We calculate its strength and
spatial distribution for the strongest case (“vertical”) and for weaker horizontal cases whose
motions are all perpendicular to gravity. The vertical cases can raise the kinetic energy of
a few well positioned convecting elements in the Sun’s envelope by a factor ≤ 7. This is
the first physical mechanism by which planets can have a nontrivial effect on internal solar
motions….The helioseismic sound speed
and the long record of sunspot activity offer several bits of evidence that the effect may have
been active in the Sun’s core, its envelope, and in some vertically stable layers.”
Tallbloke: “Hi Ian, absolutely no offence intended, I was just wanting to disabuse the dalek of his misconception. Please tell us what area you have published in, and link a paper if you don’t mind losing anonymity.”
There is no need for that – Tallbloke was the one who mentioned Ian Wilson in circumstances which were obviously confusing. As Tallbloke has explained that “Ian W” and “Ian Wilson” are different people then I can accept that. I am simply waiting for Ian W to explain why he thinks that the techniques used to detect extrasolar planets tell you anything about influences on the internal structure of the star itself. Note that I am not stating absolutely that there cannot be internal changes – just that you cannot detect them that way, and so the “detection of extrasolar objects” arguments tell us nothing regarding that subject.
J seifert
After several decades of cold there was an extended mild period that lasted for several decades and was brought to a halt somewhere around 1450. Its difficult to be precise as records tend to be sporadic that far back. I note this from my research in the archives of the Met office
1456 ‘greate frost and great snowe.’ The thames was not frozen again until 1506.
That is of no help of course to specfically see what was happenning in 1443 I will no doubt be in the archives again in the next month or so and will look more specifically for events arond 1178 and 1443
tonyb
J seifert
Further to my post a few mnutes ago.
You are no doubt aware of ths intriguing event in 1178
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno_(crater)
so somehing very large impacted on the moon. It is possible that something hit the earth as well at the same time. The Monks who noted ths observation would not have been aware of an impact on the earth.If there was one it is prsumably recorded in a variety of places and if it was significant would have impacted on the weather. Exeter (my local city) has historic scrolls coverng that period so I will have a look for contemporar observations from there and elsewhere and reread your paper
tonyb