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.
J Seifert
|i carried out a big researc project looking a achive material in order to create my own temperature rconstruction of CET. So the folowing notes relate t the area covered in CET-roughly a triangle from London to Bristol to Manchester.This cvers primarily winters. I gathered material from all seasons for my reconstrction of CET which commenced 1538.
1422/3 A severe winter in western Europe / implies parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) booty
1430’s Majority of winters, [ perhaps 7 or 8 ] contained several weeks of widespread severe weather (NB: ‘weeks’, not the paltry ‘days’ we get end 20th / early 21st centuries.) According to Lamb, an experience not repeated / matched until the 1690’s, in the depth of the Little Ice Age (and certainly not in modern times). Booty
Neither frost nor snow all the winter for more than six days in all.’
1431/2 A cold (possibly severe) winter in western Europe / implied parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) booty
Every winter from 1433/4to 1437/8 described as severe. Lamb-chmw
1434/35 (may be 1433/34) (Winter)A very severe winter: the Thames froze solid (from December to February) and was closed to shipping from Gravesend to below London Bridge, and wine had to be transported overland (or over the ice-covered Thames) from Gravesend to London. [ Some sources have this as 1433/34 ]
1442/3 A cold winter western Europe / implied parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) booty
1456 great frost and great snowe wof
1457/8 A cold winter in western Europe / implied parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) booty
1464/5 A cold winter over western Europe / implied parts of Britain. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb)
So there had been many cold winters in the decades around 1443 and much varability of weather after the more setlled periods of the 11th/12th/13th centuries.There doesn’t seem to have been anything out of the ordinaryin the British record although Dr Mann notes a severe downturn around 1450 for the NH whihc was not noted by Lamb in CET
Tonyb
Leif
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.
It is not because the essay in this post is bad science that you can afford doing bad science yourself too.
First Newton showed that point mass approximation in the center can be ONLY used for spherically symmetrical bodies.
Second he said nothing about hydrostatic equilibriums and he did well – if spherical symmetry implies hydrostatic equilibrium (for steady states) the converse is wrong.
So whether the Sun is or is not in hydrostatic equilibrium locally (this is a local law) is irrelevant to the existence or non existence of a global spherical symmetry. Specifically it says nothing about the validity of the point mass approximation.
I am not astrophysicist but fluid dynamist. So I look at the Sun’s outer layer as at a giant spherical Rayleigh Benard convection additionnaly complicated by electromagnetic forces.
As this must also exist in the Sun, clearly neither spherical symmetry of density nor the one of pressure can exist there, else there would be no convection cells.
I don’t know how large the size of the convective volume is but I’ll assume that it’s 1% of the total Sun’s mass.. This would lead to a big departure from spherical symmetry and one could certainly not approximate the Sun to a point in its center when considering gravity in Sun’s proximity.
Of course for planetary orbits when one is very far from the Sun the point mass approximation could be acceptable if one stays on short time scales because dF/F= -2 dr/r .
However even for short time scales to achieve a correct accuracy for the Earth Moon system, it has been a long time that the point mass approximation had to be abandonned.
But for short time scales epicycles will do too.
On larger time scales the point mass approximation leads to inacceptable errors for the planets’ positions on orbits.
TomVonk says:
October 18, 2012 at 4:12 am
First Newton showed that point mass approximation in the center can be ONLY used for spherically symmetrical bodies.
That is the point, observations show that the Sun is very nearly spherical. Any significant deviation from that would affect the perihelion advance of Mercury and destroy the observed agreement with that computed from General Relativity.
On larger time scales the point mass approximation leads to inacceptable errors for the planets’ positions on orbits.
Perhaps after tens of millions of years, so not of interest.
tallbloke says:
October 17, 2012 at 11:43 pm
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.
It is that ‘demonstration that is in error, because the conditions for instability are not met. Their appeal to Chandrasekhar’s authority doesn’t help when the misuse his equations in circumstances where it is not valid.
The vertical cases can raise the kinetic energy of a few well positioned convecting elements in the Sun’s envelope by a factor ≤ 7.
Even if so, they do not show how that would impact the solar cycle, not to speak about creating Grand Minima. So, no real theory, and no connection with Geoff’s invalid arguments about angular momentum changing the rotation of the Sun [supposedly in turn affecting the solar cycle].
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 9:18 am
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…
All this is completely irrelevant. My issue is with the impacts only. 1) they require impossibly large masses to have any effect on the orbits, and 2) the orbits will not rebound after a perturbation, there is no force to make them do that. When we send spacecraft to other planets and make mid-course corrections by firing rockets [the ‘impacts’], the solar system is not trying to undo our correction and have the spacecraft ‘rebounce’ [and overshoot].
Leif….OK, let’s leave the question open for now…..
You will get our calculations and then we have a better
ground for our discussion…and resume it later
with new numbers… Cheers JS
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 10:10 am
Leif….OK, let’s leave the question open for now…..
the point is that this is not an ‘open question’. It is a shut case. Period.
And here we can see that the open mind is missing….you have good knowledge
about the Sun, but limited knowledge on the Earth’s orbit… And you reckon, that
you can close the case based on limited knowledge…. this is my complaint…..Period.
The prove for all readers You dont know, what the Earth Orbit Oscillation cycle is all about
(EOO with 556 years ++)….. clear limited knowledge….Period. Double period.
To Leif: More than half of our paper concerns the EOO oscillation cycles of
the Earth’s orbit. You have not read the paper, you can’t explain this cycle which
is confirmed by power spectra analysis……. exposing your restricted LIMITED
Knowledge on orbit OSCILLATIONS…….
……..At the same time, you claim that you dont know oscillations and that “there
are no orbital oscillations” according to your impact calculations……And that your
3 line minimized calculations answers the case enough to be closed…..This is the
typical AGW-attitude…. am I on the right blog? JS
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 11:03 am
And here we can see that the open mind is missing….you have good knowledge
about the Sun, but limited knowledge on the Earth’s orbit
The open mind has nothing to do with this [expect perhaps that the mind could be so open that the brain has fallen out]. As a professional astronomer I have very good knowledge about the Earth’s orbit. This is fundamental to my work. But what is your knowledge based on?
Furthermore, the result of an impact has nothing as such to do with the Earth’s orbit, but is basic freshman’s physics. Of course, none of this seems to have any impact on the author of ‘the best climate paper of them all’. As I said, this sort of overconfidence in own’s own genius is the surest sign of pseudo-science, displayed by several here on WUWT. You are near the top, though.
About E[OOPs], it seems nobody knows what it is. Fairbridge once babbled about an Earth-Moon connection provided by a 111.25-yr cycle (×5=556 yr), is that what you have in mind? Anyway, that still has nothing to do with the mass of an impactor needed to change the orbit. As I said: your paper is DOA.
We never refer to Fairbrige and what he might have said…. we refer to cycle
detection of different authors doing spectral power analysis…. its all in our the
not-read paper…. I wonder why would you quote a Mr. Fairbridge who had some
strange opinions and whom we never quoted? Also, what other people claim on
our blog, has nothing to do with me…. Each one can claim what he wants…
Further, to your argumentum ignorantum you add the argumentum of authority:
The one “is right”, who is the greater astronomer…..I bet, you cannot draw an Earth’s
orbit on a sheet of paper…..if yes, then tell me, it would be interesting…..JS
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:00 pm
am I on the right blog?
Stick to http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/joachim-seifert-and-frank-lemke-new-cosmo-climate-theory/ and join the other pseudo-scientists there.
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm
We never refer to Fairbridge and what he might have said…. we refer to cycle
detection of different authors doing spectral power analysis
You make it hard to re-check your paper by having it pay-walled. Perhaps your real purpose here is to try to increase sales of it. In any event, no matter what cycles you or others might claim, the fact remains that the mass of the impactor must be impossibly large to have any effect on the orbit of the Earth, and even it it had, there would not be a Z-rebounce. It does not take a great astronomer to see this, freshman physics is enough.
I bet, you cannot draw an Earth’s orbit on a sheet of paper
If you supply a sheet large enough [300 million km across] I’l give it a try.
Now, there is an interesting 556 year orbit in the solar system: http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/kbos_dwarfplanets.php#eris
but that has, of course, nothing to do with anything, unless you assume some resonance with the Earth [don’t laugh, there are people who would readily do this, Volker comes to mind – or is that with Pluto – never mind]
Leif: We do not make science hard…. more that 1,000 WUWT readers
downloaded our paper for free…. Now you complain and cannot check what
the paper says on the orbital oscillation….. too bad. To orbit drawings: A DIN
A 4 pencil drawing would suffice for us…..The orbit oscillation EOO is explained
in detail in the paper, you can even spot it in the summary with its 27-37 ka BP
graph as back up….Volker and the outer planets do not impact our Earth’s
orbit….gravitation is the force controlling the Earth’s orbit…..JS
To climatereason tony B.
Somehow I overlooked your comments….. possibly my red light comes on when
Leif has his latest comment and he difficult to handle with an obstinate touch….
Please check and enlarge the 2 latest temp reconstructions, which came up on
Anthony’s yesterday and today (Christiansen….the other Jan Esper) Mayby you
could check whether both graphs produce a 50 year downswing followed by a 50
year upswing with a temp peak at year 1540 as peak of the temp rebounce of the
Z-shaped impact pattern….
To 1178….there even is a intenet page, something like “Was there an impact in 1178?
Which is the Canterbury event…the Moon shoock and parted..that was the impact,
on the Moon….I do not think that the Earth shook by the object hitting the Earth….
but the most important thing was that many hours/days afterwards the moon vision
stayed blurry….. there come some know-it-all and said that the Moon does not have
so much dust on it to blurry the Moon….and now: The explanation is that the impact
into the Indian ocean lifted so much ocean water wapour into the stratosphere to
blurry the sky for the observer….
Myself, I find this all very interesting, although both events produced only mini-drops
and temp rebounces….due to their small size… Impact events over the Holocene
before were much more pronounced and visible in the temp records…Cheers JS
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Leif: We do not make science hard…. more that 1,000 WUWT readers downloaded our paper for free…
First, it is not science, and second I deleted the paper after reading it as it was junk, not worth saving.
The orbit oscillation EOO is explained in detail in the paper
As I recall, it is not. Perhaps you could describe it right here in one paragraph or two.
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm
We never refer to Fairbridge and what he might have said…. we refer to cycle
detection of different authors doing spectral power analysis…. its all in our the
not-read paper…. I wonder why would you quote a Mr. Fairbridge who had some
strange opinions and whom we never quoted?
One of the strange ideas that Fairbridge had was to write your reference to the EOO: [15] Oliver, John E. (ed.) Encyclopedia of World Climatology,(2005) p.259.
Climate Variation: Historical by Rhodes W. Fairbridge pages 247-262.
http://tocs.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/21599194X.pdf
As far as I can see he and the other references you mention refer to cycles in climate and not in the Earth’s orbit, but you can correct me on that by showing where they refer to the orbit and not the climate.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 18, 2012 at 3:11 pm
The orbit oscillation EOO is explained in detail in the paper
————————————————
As I recall, it is not. Perhaps you could describe it right here in one paragraph or two.
The EOO is probably the main thrust of the paper, yet the EOO data and what produces it are nowhere to be seen.
As a sideshow I plotted the EMB to Sun centre distance from JPL from 1800-3000, the results show a gradual smooth diminishing of the aphelion and the perihelion growing on a similar scale, this would be expected with the Earth’s orbit heading away from an elliptical orbit to more round.
Even though the minor axis is on anther plane there would still be a pulse in the aphelion/perihelion distances if an EOO existed.There is no EOO pulse in the JPL record.
J Seifert
1540? Interesting. Here is my own reconstruction of CET commencing 1538.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/11.jpg
My notes from the earliest years are as follows-these are taken from contemporary observations of the time;
1538-1541 These four years apparently experienced drought, with 1540 & 1541 particularly dry – in both these latter years, the Thames was so low that sea water extended above London Bridge, even at ebb tide in 1541. Three successive fine / warm summers from 1538-1540: the weather in 1540 was so fine that picking of cherries commenced before the end of May and grapes were ripe in July. General warmth over Europe during the spring & summer of 1540. For England, there are several references to a hot summer, with great heat & drought; also many deaths due to the ‘Ague’. (The next warm summer of equal worth is possibly that of 2003!) (also noted in usw via Holland .. ” 1540 is described in contemporary chronicles as the ‘Big Sun Year’; the lower part of the Rhine from Cologne into the Netherlands is ‘dry’ – it didn’t rain over Italy, with Rome dry for something like 9 months. Forest/city fires, with many people dying of heat stroke, heart failure etc.”) 1541: as indicated above, another drought year with rivers drying up (must have been quite extreme given that the previous year was notably dry). Cattle / other livestock dying for lack of water: dysentery killed thousands. Booty
Good harvest according to Lamb chmw, citing Hoskins wheat harvest survey.”
There is another Historical reference as follows;
“Around 1560 the Rev Schaller, pastor of Strendal in the Prussian Alps wrote;
“There is no real constant sunshine neither a steady winter nor summer, the earth’s crops and produce do not ripen, are no longer as healthy as they were in bygone years. The fruitfulness of all creatures and of the world as a whole is receding, fields and grounds have tired from bearing fruits and even become impoverished, thereby giving rise to the increase of prices and famine, as is heard in towns and villages from the whining and lamenting among the farmers.”
So evidently the temperatures reached a peak some years before 1560 and then declined.
During my research at the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge a few weeks ago I came across a reference to the British making a first attempt at a journey to find the North East passage over the top of Russia to China in 1553. This was based on information that the Russians had managed to find a route a decade previously and the British wanted to ensure they could secure trading rights. so around this time it was so warm that journeys through the Arctic were contemplated.
As you can see from my chart the temperatures declined for some decades after around 1540, recovered, then declined again to the depths of the LIA.
I will search around for 1178 information
tonyb
Geoff Sharp says:
October 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm
The EOO is probably the main thrust of the paper, yet the EOO data and what produces it are nowhere to be seen. […]
There is no EOO pulse in the JPL record.
As I showed in my previous comment, the EOO is dreamed up by Seifert who said “In order to name this growing astronomical cycle, we propose: The Earth Orbit Oscillation cycle (EOO)”.
I also showed that he got the 556-yr period from Fairbridge [although he claims he never cited Fairbridge] and that those ‘cycles’ were of climate, not of any Earth orbit variables. I think we have demonstrated that Seifert is but a fraud, trying to sell his paper.
He also said: “In order to regain a smooth, stabilized orbital flight around the Sun, the planet reacts with a Cosmic Impact Oscillation paGern (CIO+paGern). 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”.
First, the planet does not ‘react’ to a blow, it takes it and that is it. And the energy is in ‘units of megatons TNT, which is paltry. We have exploded bombs of 100 megatons which altering the orbit. Hurricane Katrina expended 300 Megatons of energy. So Seifert’s sense of proportion is way off here, but what does that matter when the purpose is just to sell his paper. As the Goracle has demonstrated, the more you lie, the more you sell.
To Leif: This blog is at its end after the week and only we five are left
in our exchange….. plus tony b is still on, with highly interesting to read
historical observations to compare how they fit into the general picture
of our Holocen temp reconstruction…..
Leif: All quotes concerning 556+18 say they are ASTRONOMICAL cycles and
not TEMPERATURE cycles…. My very first graphic #1 shows the cycle period
lenghts …..as well as for 10,000 years in graphic 7…..All as you say: unimportant,
without any heuristic value….please explain your variant of the growing cycle
periods OVER 20,000 YEARS and I chip in the 116-127 kaBP Eemian as well,
making it 30,000 years….
…… Here along comes Leif, the Kopernikus of the 21 Century, and explains
to the world that an EOO-CYCLE FOR 30,000 years DOES NOT exist….because…
yes, because why? Because, as he calculates, with quote “simple calculations” and
“first grade physics”, that 30,000 year of continuing EOO-cycles, demonstrated all
in graphics were just an invention of this person S., who does not know what he is
talking about….
Every reader will notice how entrenched you are in the view that one never ever
should read our paper! One notices how you struggle, with head, with hands, with
your feet — soon kicking from the ground, when we get the numbers ready–
to defend your position that the paper must not to be read…!!
Secondly: You put up a skillful rhetorical trap, into which I fell twice by not knowing,
and Willis learned from you…. Now I will reply to Willis onto this same subject
because I do not want to write it twice….. JS
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 18, 2012 at 4:43 pm
We have exploded bombs of 100 megatons without altering the orbit
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 10:05 am
First, getting “convinced” by ice core data that there is some climate effect of cosmic impacts is one thing. I can see a reasonable case for that.
But assuming, without running the numbers, that the cause of the aforesaid climate effects was a change in the Earth’s orbit? That was a bridge too far. Even a big meteor like the Chicxlub meteor has only one ten-billionth of the mass of the earth. It is far, far, far, far too small to produce the effects that you claim.
I did not, however, do “what AGW would do trying to kill the paper”. I did what any scientist would do. I asked to see the numbers showing that the forces involved were large enough to materially affect the Earth’s orbit. In addition, I calculated them myself.
Well, we are kinda getting somewhere. You agree that my calculation (one ten-billionth the mass) is correct. Then you say I am missing some “input factors”. But then you get all coy, you don’t say what the “input factors” are, not even a hint. Instead, you say that you “will present it when everything is ready in the presentation.”
Color me totally unimpressed by this tease. If you have the answer to how an object one ten-billionth the mass of another can materially affect the orbit of the larger object, bring it out and present it, or go away.
Well, you could start by precisely defining whatever it is that you are calling the “Z-shaped impact pattern”, so that it can be recognized mathematically and programmatically. Then you could provide a link to the dataset you are using. Once you have done both of those, I’ll take a look and tell you what I think.
All the best,
w.
w.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm
J. Seifert says:
October 18, 2012 at 12:00 pm
am I on the right blog?
Stick to http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/joachim-seifert-and-frank-lemke-new-cosmo-climate-theory/ and join the other pseudo-scientists there.
Heh, if you read the comments you’d see Joachim hasn’t had an easy ride there either. But your jibe misses its mark in other ways too. We have several quantified solar-planetary models which are able to predict the evolution of solar activity levels many decades ahead and which are being well validated as time goes on. You have a heuristic using solar polar field data which gives you a rough idea of what the next cycle will do, but no more.
The other dynamologists, poor old Hathaway and Dikpati took a real beating over cycle 24.
So where is the well developed dynamo model giving predictions for the next century? Nowhere, there isn’t one. All that taxpayer money seems to have gone down a research hole.
I understand your chagrin and professional jealousy. 😉
tallbloke says:
October 18, 2012 at 11:36 pm
We have several quantified solar-planetary models which are able to predict the evolution of solar activity levels many decades ahead
that is, of course, an unfounded and wishful claim. I wish you were right, but most of us will not live to validate your claim many cycles ahead, so your claim is pretty safe and in practice unfalsifiable. I predict cycle 35 will have maximum sunspot number of 123, prove me wrong!
You have a heuristic using solar polar field data which gives you a rough idea of what the next cycle will do, but no more.
There is good physical theory [with numbers etc calculated from Maxwell’s and Newton’s equations] that predicts the cycle one cycle ahead given an observed polar field, so ‘heuristic’ is not the right word here. As for further ahead, one can use statistics [e.g. Kalman filtering for one more cycle], but those will only be educated guesses. Real, <b<actionable prediction that companies and governments can bet billions of dollars on does not yet seem to be in the cards longer term. You see, this kind of prediction is what we need, and you [and your several competitors] simply don’t have that. Hand waving and mere correlations don’t cut it. People that have tried planetary prediction [discounting the obvious fraudsters]: Jose, Landscheidt, Chartatova, etc have all failed and had to move the goalposts when the ‘predicted’ cycle rolled around. To make it in the real world you have to have your ideas written up, connected with other peoples’ work, forming a body of solid knowledge that is agreed upon by a sizable segment of the community, etc, and you don’t have that. You don’t issue safety regulations for building a bridge based upon contentious ideas, or should not try to mitigate global warming based on dubious alarmist propaganda.
The other dynamologists, poor old Hathaway and Dikpati took a real beating over cycle 24.
At least Hathaway long ago admitted he was wrong: http://www.leif.org/EOS/20111212_NSO-Hathaway.pdf rather than just moving the goalposts. I still have to see that kind of integrity in your crowd.
tallbloke says:
October 18, 2012 at 11:36 pm
So where is the well developed planetary model giving predictions for the next century? Nowhere, there isn’t one.
Try this exercise: take all the planetary models you know about, plot their predictions on the same graph, and show us.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 19, 2012 at 2:33 am
tallbloke says:
October 18, 2012 at 11:36 pm
So where is the well developed dynamo model giving predictions for the next century? Nowhere, there isn’t one. All that taxpayer money seems to have gone down a research hole.
Try this exercise: take all the planetary models you know about, plot their predictions on the same graph, and show us.
Hah! So in response to my criticism, Leif tries to change the subject instead of addressing the issues. Where’s the dynomologist prediction for solar activity over the next century Leif? Theories must be tested against predictions. The reason the dynamologists haven’t provided a prediction is because they have no confidence in their theory.
I’ll make a spaghetti plot of our predictions when you show us a century scale one from your dynamology team.
Leif
That is the point, observations show that the Sun is very nearly spherical.
I did not say spherical. I said spehrically symmetrical. And here observations say something completely different. If there are convection cells with different size hierarchies (what I believe is the case) and differential rotation (what I believe is also the case) then it is trivial that there can’t be spherical symmetry (for density and pressure distribution purposes)
I am not familiar enough with the internal Sun’s dynamics but I guesstimated this non spherically symmetrical region of the Sun at 1% of its total mass. Even smaller differences force to abandon the point like approximation for the Sun-Moon system.
So clearly the Sun (or any other not perfectly symetrically symmetrical body) can’t be generally approximated by a point in the center of a sphere to compute the gravity potential (or curvature for general relativity) everywhere.
For a given measure accuracy and a given observation time, there will be a minimum distance beyond which the the effect will not be measurable but that’s all.
That’s why nobody accepts (and uses) the point like argument without mentionning the distance and the time scale. When used on wrong time and space scales it is clearly invalid (f.ex Earth-Moon).
Perhaps after tens of millions of years, so not of interest.
Not so. Probably of little interest with regard to mechanical energy conservation which is enough for the essay posted here. But certainly of interest when one bifurcates to discussions about planetary orbits.
tallbloke says:
October 19, 2012 at 3:08 am
The reason the dynamologists haven’t provided a prediction is because they have no confidence in their theory.
No, it is because we think that the solar cycle in general cannot be predicted with enough certainty to be actionable on, more than one cycle ahead. It is the same with weather prediction. There is a lot of confidence in weather prediction theory and it works well a few days ahead, but cannot predict with any certainty what the weather will be on a given day, say 25 days ahead [except in California in the summertime 🙂 ].
A wrong solar cycle prediction can have rather severe consequences, e.g. insurance premiums for satellites are sometimes set based on our predictions. If the prediction is wrong, the satellite owner will certainly sue to get his money back, not to speak about the eventual loss of the satellite because of insufficient shielding or hardening. You see, our predictions are not amusing games, but have real-life consequences.
I’ll make a spaghetti plot of our predictions when you show us a century scale one from your dynamology team
As you say: put up or shut up.
TomVonk says:
October 19, 2012 at 3:40 am
So clearly the Sun (or any other not perfectly symmetrically symmetrical body) can’t be generally approximated by a point in the center of a sphere to compute the gravity potential (or curvature for general relativity) everywhere.
It is always a matter of degree. One measure of departure from being spherically symmetric is the gravitational quadrupole moment of the Sun. For a perfectly spherically symmetric Sun that moment would be zero. It is, in fact, very close to zero: 0.0000002.
That’s why nobody accepts (and uses) the point like argument without mentioning the distance and the time scale.
JPL in their calculation of planetary emphemerides thousands of years in the future [and the past] does that with high precision assuming the Sun is a point mass. It is only in the few years that we have been able to determine the minute higher order gravitational moments accurately from helioseismology.