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.
TomVonk says:
October 19, 2012 at 3:40 am
That’s why nobody accepts (and uses) the point like argument without mentioning the distance and the time scale.
Read section 8.3.1 of http://vadimchazov.narod.ru/text_pdf/XSChap8.pdf
“8.3.1 Point-Mass Interactions
The principal gravitational force on the nine planets, the Sun, and the Moon is modeled by considering those bodies to be point masses in the isotropic, parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) n-body metric (Will, 1974).”
For long-term integrating of the Moon’s orbit, the shape of the Sun [quadrupole moment J2] has to be taken into account, but that is not needed for the other bodies. In any case, those corrections are very tiny.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 19, 2012 at 12:27 am
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.
The evolution of a principle can sometimes have set backs which make it easy for those in opposition to highlight, but the detractors (and others) can miss the underlying science. The authors mentioned as well as Fairbanks made fundamental errors, but they were heading in the general direction but lacked the key or Rosetta Stone to pull it together.
Jose mapped out a crude SIM diagram and a very crude AM chart that was incapable of seeing the big picture. He went back a few centuries and proclaimed the planets return to their original positions every 179 years which is now known to be incorrect. The closest cycle of the returning positions of the big 4 is around 4628 years.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/226
Landscheidt went down a different track and used torque extrema as a marker of grand minima. We now know that torque extrema is an extremely rough guide for predicting grand minima and he and Fairbanks both predicted a grand minimum around 1990. He also predicted another downturn at 2030 which may be a bit late. Of interest he had the right tool in his bag but used it for different purposes, he would be rolling in his grave right now.
Charvàtovà was the closest by discovering the disordered orbit correlation with grand minima, but then stalled in her research. She repeats the same mantra for 30 years without drilling down and finding the reason for the disordered orbit and how to quantify it. By continuing to work at a very high level she misses the detail and uses past SIM patterns to predict the future instead of looking at the detail of today. This lack of understanding leads her to predict a SSN of 140 for SC24 and a cycle max of 2010. For all purposes her initial discovery has not progressed at all.
So while on the right track most of the pioneers work needs to be mainly abandoned which makes it easy for the likes of you to criticize, but they set the scene and inspiration for others to follow which led to what will be considered the major discovery of Carl Smith’s AM graph.
The pioneers set the scene, but are in fact quite removed from the modern planetary AM theory that works in the same direction but working with a different data set does not suffer the errors and inconsistencies. The new AM planetary science is quite divorced from the old, so you can no longer place us in the same basket. Every day that passes since 2008 has strengthened AM theory with real data, the crap shoot Babcock theory is living on borrowed time.
J. Seifert says:
October 19, 2012 at 7:28 am
All quotes concerning 556+18 say they are ASTRONOMICAL cycles and
not TEMPERATURE cycles….
Your paper says: “the text provides a figure 7 with a GISP2 Holocene power spectrum…”
GISP2 is temperature. Enough said on that, I think.
You claimed you never quoted Fairbridge and that he has strange ideas, but your reference [15] is written by Fairbridge. How about some simple honesty?
EOO-CYCLE FOR 30,000 years DOES NOT exist
Whatever it is, is not caused by impacts altering the Earth’s orbit, that is what I claim.
how entrenched you are in the view that one never ever should read our paper
One should absolutely read it [but not pay $85 for the privilege, because it is not worth it] for the entertainment value and to get a good view of how low a level scientific literacy has sunk to. As pseudo-science your paper is superb, otherwise it is junk.
It is tiresome to talk about our paper, to someone, who refuses to read it,
gets everything confused and then takes arguments out of the air:
Proves: (1) This encyclopedic hint is described as just a hint, into which direction
to look for Holocene interpretation….this hint, twice reinforced in the text, quotes
Jan Esper (released a paper yesterday with Anthony) and Wanner (important
Warmist a la Stocker) …. and AFTER THE HINT…we proceeded to results of
astronomical cycle power spectra analysis …..and continue from there….and
do not only remain with Fairbridge (whether is is good or bad, is not the topic
of the paper…..)
and now I copied this from your reply:
””” by Fairbridge. How about some simple honesty?
EOO-CYCLE FOR 30,000 years DOES NOT exist
Whatever it is, is not caused by impacts altering the Earth’s orbit, that is what I claim.””’
Prove (2) EOO-cycles “do not exist [to your knowledge]” and ‘WHATEVER
THIS IS, is not caused by impacts altering the …orbit.’
Why do you claim this? This is what WE prove in our paper!!
WE PROVE, that EOO-CYCLES ARE NOT CAUSED BY IMPACTS,
because : There are 5 different/independent/overlayed forcing mechanics,
OF WHICH, the EOO is just one, the FOURTH, distinct forcing cycle and
the FIFTH, is an completely other, an stochastically appearing, random
impact cycle….random, because a random impact cannot produce a
steady, continuosly on-going and periodicity increasing
EOO -oscillation….. both forcings, the forths and the fifths DO NOT
CAUSE each other….
Our result: You are confused by throwing all different forcings into
your pot and stir around…
It discourages me to justify our great paper to someone, who, AS A
MINIMUM requisite for a quality discourse, rejects reading it and dares
to opine as the strongest on the blog to debunk it because it does not
fulfil his 3 line, quote: “simplistic” countings….JS
Now to Willis: Where to start….lets go further up and see now:
1. The Z-shaped impact pattern (high voltage symbol)… Since it is a strongly
visible impact feature, I dedicated a whole graphic to it #5, explaining its
composition, effects and what happens with the temperature, when the
Z-symbol line crosses with vertical lines of EOO-period ends……Check there
please….and now we come to the rhetorical trap you copied from Leif: [and
btw, you applied this multiple times 6 months ago with N. Scafetta….. and I
took pity with him at this time and trying to back him up somewhat morally….)
The trap is the following:
2. In order NOT to read a paper [for whatever reason, overload, lack of time,
etc.pp) you ASK the author to EXPLAIN his XYZ-point….. This is a trick,
because you will get only a reduced, minimized version of the argument,
where you can pick on easily on individual words, which, in their short
“abstract’-version CANNOT fully resemble what the full text and full
paragraphs explain. I fell into this trap with Leif before and now I am on
guard. If you dont believe me, go to the springtime Scafetta dispute
and he over and over repeated: I explained XYZ already X-times, see paper,
there, and there…..but the TRAP is to ASK to EXPLAIN…saves you reading
and facilitates a negative answer because you try to take off weight from the
scales of the author.
Therefore, my answer, learnig from above (1) would be: See graphic #5 plus
the chapter of its explanation and please go ahead….
3. Our EOO-cycle can be (1.) detected over 30,000 years of temp evolution,
plus (now I have to mention my booklet, which I proposed to you 2 or 3 times
back into the past) plus, (2) the astronomical calculations are given in very
readable manner, explained in my book, and now I do not dare to add the
ISBN-number, because envidious guys are out there who instantly blame
I want to promote the book) .
4. Against our calculations and 30,000 years of CYCLE EVIDENCE in paleotemp
evolution stands the minimized, 3-line, “simple” and “first physics-grade”
[his quote] calculations of a would-be Kopernikus.
His, and also your calculations are CORRECTly done (no question ever from
my side), but do NOT fully resemble orbital conditions, which are more
complicated in space and cannot be fully described with a SIMPLISTIC
mechanical view. There is more in it…..
My reply, as usual, got long again and therefore I remain JS
J Seifert
Regarding 1178 and the link previously posted about a large impact on the moon.
This was interesting;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1313256/posts
Lots of theories and references that the earth was impacted by meteors/comets around 1178. This is a right wing blog with an agenda, but it seems the academic work they refer to was bona fide. Lots of conjecture, but there is no confirmation that there is a corresponding very large impact crater from that date yet found on Earth.
The comments at the end of this article are interesting. This for example
“Astronomers Clube And Napier call this a ‘cosmic winter’ in their excellent book by the same title,Cosmic Winter
“Synopsis
“During five days in late June 1975, a swarm of boulders the size of motor cars struck the moon at a speed of 67,000 miles per hour. On 30 June 1908 an object crashed on Siberia with the force of a large hydrogen bomb. The moon was also struck on 25 June 1178 struck, this time by a missile whose energy was ten times that of the combined nuclear arsenals of the world. Why late June? What is the nature of such events? And what threat do they pose to mankind? The authors aim to reveal the answers in this book. They argue that rains of fire visit the earth from time to time, destroying civilizations and plunging mankind into Dark Ages. They uncover a lost tradition of celestial catastrophe, and underpin these claims with foundations based on the latest discoveries in space. They produce a risk assessment which reveals that civilization could well come to an abrupt end, destroyed by a rain of fire followed by an icy, cosmic winter.”
So again the reference seems to be to a collision with the moon rather than the Earth. I have no idea what effect (if any) that would have on the moons position relative to the earth or whether that would have a knock on effect to weather on earth/tides.
If the earth passed through a meteor shower that hit the moon its possible it hit the earth as well. Whether it did or not, where the crater is and what effect it would have I can’t say.
We risk straying into Erik Von Daniken territory here, but the climate seemed to have changed around 1200 and again around 1550. Mind you the climate oscillated frequently outside of the settled core time of the MWP.
tonyb
J. Seifert says:
October 19, 2012 at 9:27 am
It is tiresome to talk about our paper, to someone, who refuses to read it,
Oh, I have read it. Where do you think I got the quotes from.
I intend to use it a poster child for our students of what a bad pseudo-scientific paper looks like.
and do not only remain with Fairbridge
So you admit that you lied about Fairbridge!
WE PROVE, that EOO-CYCLES ARE NOT CAUSED BY IMPACTS
So you admit that impacts do not change the orbit with resulting climate changes.
We are making progress.
It discourages me to justify our great paper to someone
Your paper is junk, perhaps even great junque. Then we can agree it is GREAT.
Joachim, you wrote to me that:
I replied by saying:
In response, you say:
October 19, 2012 at 8:22 am
I’m sorry, but that’s not what I asked for. As I specified in my request, I need a mathematical description of your claimed pattern, not a bunch of words and pictures. I need a clear mathematical description that I can apply to a dataset to identify exactly what you are talking about. Written descriptions and pointing at some pictures doesn’t help.
You think I should pay you $85 to get a peek at graphic 5? Not gonna happen, but it doesn’t matter. I don’t need a graphic. I need a clear mathematical description of what you are talking about.
Look, Joachim, if you seriously want me to analyze your work, I need two things:
1. A link to your data, and
2. A clear mathematical description of your “Z-shaped impact pattern”.
Without those, I have nothing to analyze. I can look at your pictures and read your words, but when I show up with a pattern that doesn’t fit with your history, what’s to stop you from saying something like “oh, that’s not the kind of Z-shaped impact pattern I’m talking about”?
What you have written in response to my two simple requests is a joke. It is not science, it is not even imitation science. It is a pathetic rant, full of “poor me”, all about how Leif has figured out some trap and I’ve learned the trap from Leif … dude, you are seriously getting paranoid.
It is also ludicrous. You claim that someone having the infinite gall to, as you call it, “ASK [you] to EXPLAIN” your paper is some kind of sneaky trick … yeah, me asking you to explain your work is all just a subtle trap put together by Leif and me in our secret lair in a hollow volcano, you don’t want to get caught in our deadly snare of actually explaining your work …
Do you realize how pathetic and paranoid that sounds? You think that people asking you to explain your work is just some devious trap to discredit you … where in fact, refusing to explain your work is the fastest path to losing all credit, as you are in the act of proving here on WUWT with your post and your lack of explanations.
Finally, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I want you to EXPLAIN your work, as you put it. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am totally uninterested in your explanations of your work. I was responding to your request that I look at your claimed Z-shaped patterns.
In order to “just have a look” as you requested, all that I asked for was a mathematical description of your “Z-shaped impact pattern” so I’d know what I was looking for, and a link to the dataset where I was to be looking. I expected a mathematical description on the order of:
“A Z-shaped pattern is formed when the ∂O18 level rises a minimum of X parts per billion, then falls at least twice as far as it has risen, then returns to within X ppb of its original value. Each of the phases must take place over a span of more than X but less than Y thousand years. A five-point Gaussian smooth will be applied to the data.”
or something of that nature, plus a link to the data. Bozo simple, I’d have thought. But instead of giving me scientific information, I get a rant about Leif, and about how asking you to EXPLAIN your ideas is a fiendish plot, I get anything and everything but the two simple things I had asked for.
I’m happy to take join your hunt through the ice cores for the mark of Zorro, but I need a couple of answers first—what am I looking for exactly, and where am I looking? Answer my questions or go bother someone else. Hey, you asked me to take a look at your work with the putative Z-shaped impact pattern, and now you’re all up in arms because I asked a couple of innocuous questions that are necessary for me to do the investigation you requested?
WUWT?
w.
To Tony B.: Human History and Climate….a wonderful topic. We can see where
we came from, how it came about and, with the right approach, we can see,
where we are heading to…. The 1178 impact event also makes a good example:
Unusual events stirs the fantasy of the doom&gloom sayers: The 1178 event
was taken over by the esoterics, the space ship accident people, the end-of-the
world predicators….mostly connected to the Bible” Folks, the end is near….get
ready…!” God gave us a sign….[for this reason, you have to tolerate a lot of
nonsense internet pages]….. but, all those nutty people are easy to identify,
while, since the development of the computer, all Warmist doom and gloomers
are less clear to identify as the bad guys, because they claim “Scientific ” value
of their planet OVERHEAT and SAVE predictions and KNOW know that global
CO2 emissions cannot be reduced [China& India are going to built 900 new coal
fired power plants, the Third World achieve development without more carbon
derived energy…..]
The real bad guys of the world today are not the few esoterics dwelling on 1178,
but the AGW “brigade”, because they are worse than Nostradamus or the Maya
calendar followers, produce doom-and gloom, with an outside paint of “science”…..
The 1178 impact went into the Indian Ocean, there are various large craters
underwater with need to date. There is a large meteorite and cosmic impact
community….if they achieve to date just one crater each year, this will be
tremendous and we can by and by, complete the still outstanding visible impacts
detectable in GISP2…..its a matter of time and funding….If governments would
redirect just 1% of Warmism-funding into impact study-funding, we were so much
further….
Your studies are important, because the two, the1178 and the 1443 impact only
affect the climate each for not more than 100 years. Additionally, there is the
decadal Scafetta cycle, which we also have to compare to historical events,
additionally to Jan Esper and Christiansen data, and before, 1,300 AD, to GISP2….
Still lots to do, but I am convinced, we making progress, and we all have to join
forces to clean out the Warmism doom-and-gloomers….regardless of our
differences….JS
To Willis: (1) Impact dates are listed in the papers’s impact section….
(2) Duration of impact effects are given in the impact graphic
on GISP2
(3) The GISP2 Allan version of 2001 is given on the NOAA page
or easier to find further up in the, I believe, in a link of a
Knoebel comment.
I would suggest, after a full week, we can close the discussion, I, how do they
say, lost the “ganas”after a heavy dose of Leifs sour grape comments….which
were highly toxic and my offer, to leave the case open until I come up with
numbers was also turned down…no problem with me…..
One thing is glass clear: Not one single GCM is capable of reproducing a
Holocene temp evolution, based on their micro-input parameters….But our
reconstruction is capable. This is amazing climate news: Application of our study,
see how it works and compare it to Warmism GCMs.
Climate reconstruction GCMs today are fully in the hand of atmospherical physicists.
They base their work on micro-drivers such as air-CO2-mixtures, laughing gas
content, land use changes, ozone levels etc. pp. NONE of them includes numbers
that PROVE EMPIRICALLY AS WE the given/stated/presented 3.7 W/m2 warming
for CO2 doubling nor do they PROVE climate sensitivities from numbers between
way below to number sky high…..
You did your own calculations….some time before….
I repeat again: There is not a single GCM which proves anything of their
ASSUMED CAUSES. They assume, as the 3.7 W/m2-value only is asssumed.
The ACCURACY of our study has to be compared with the accuracy to those of
our competitors. There also exists the difference in opinion between the second
author and me. He regarded MORE astronomical details as indispensible, whereas
I, for my part [knowing public/professoral DESINTEREST in everything connected
to the Earth’s orbit], insisted on reducing the orbital side to the bone in order to
embark on a less dry, more lively, more readable, temp evolution road…
We are now a handfull bloggers left on this blog….the oldtimers…. more that 300
opinions were given, we provided more than 1,000 free downloads for all WUWT
visitors [and TB, we don’t like to exclude anyone interested, whether sceptical or
non-sceptical] Nobody can complain (except a few) that he did not get his fair
share…..meanwhile…..I prepare for the Scafetta cycle, which I will do next spring,
with PLENTY of numbers, not for the greater public, they would get bored….
Willis, your papers are always highly readable and papers must be readable,
OMITTING numbers and formulae to maintain readers interests and this is
difficult to maintain over 18 pages …..JS.
Joachim, I truly don’t know what to say. I asked for two simple things. A mathematical description of the “Z-shaped impact pattern. A link to your data.
In response, you gave me hundreds and hundreds of words … but no description, no link. So I asked again. You had requested that I investigate your theory. This is what an investigation looks like. I ask questions.
In reply to my second request for a mathematical description and a link, you have again given me hundreds of words. Words about micro-drives, words about DESINTEREST, words about climate reconstruction GCMs, and that’s just a small part of your subjects. Truly, you have covered an impressive range … and yet, there’s no mathematical description, and there’s no link.
I can only assume that your request that I investigate the Z-shaped mark of Zorro was not a serious one, and I’ll leave you to your theories. A couple of parting comments if I might:
1. Thank you for the random capitalized words. Very impressive.
2. Things work better if you actually answer people’s questions. Not answering questions gets your vote questioned.
All the best to you,
w.
To Willis….. thank you for your offer to run an analysis on statistical significance
for our findings…..Lets do it at a later date…. Today, the Christopher Bronk Ramsey
study was annonced at Anthony’s, presenting ultra- high resolution paleo values
for 11.2 to 52,8 kaBP, and the same author did the Holocene in a previous paper….
This might beat GISP2 in accuracy….this is what we need….and we all will move
closer in identifying the real 5 climate forcing mechanisms of the paper….
BTW, for the topic of “abrupt climate change in the past”, there even exist a
Congressional working group and they always conclude: “the driving mechanisms
are not fully understood…..”….[coined in clearer words: “professoral ineptitude”].
Imagine, if we had put this conclusion somewhere in our paper…..
We claim new, substantial knowledge for our paper, which does not rehearse,
remasticate what most other institutions do….
The year is almost at its end, and I am obliged to let the dust accumulate on my
laptop for 3 months, to make up for avoided social activities because of time
consuming work at our paper..
Next spring I will do the Scafetta cycle…I will start by taking the GISP2 Allan version
and overlay it with vertical 59.57-year lines….try to do it yourself…. this cycle is
clearly identificable in a complete sequence of mini-spikes for 10,000 years…..
.Cheers JS