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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:01 am
But Douglas Gough’s comment to me on W&P is:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Padrone.doc
I see that this was already referred to. In any case it is useful to do it again. If W&P “are honest, they would then withdraw the paper”.
From Geoff Sharp on October 14, 2012 at 4:46 am:
I am not sure why you bother to comment as you have offered nothing to this conversation. A half baked private email response is not a solid rebuttal to W&P.
You have a curious definition of “nothing”.
I have yet to see a good reason to view this as barycentric instead of heliocentric. Dreaming up new reference frames where you can claim the velocity of the Sun changes 100% over 10 years does not help. It would be quite impressive to see that happen to a star like our Sun, involving forces unimaginable, so wrenching they’ll likely tear the star apart.
Yet the Sun is doing just fine, so I know you’re just playing tricks, playing with frames of reference to imagine that which does not manifest itself physically.
When I search for “wolff patrone” what first shows up is Tallbloke’s site, first two results. I’ve noticed Tallbloke was removed from the “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory” blogroll section not that long ago. Given the sort of stuff that shows up at his site and is given serious consideration, I was not expecting much from W&P. And W&P was only in the first seven results, largely by references to the paper. Not good.
I have now read the W&P Abstract. Summary: Gravitational forces from planets can churn the material of a star, resulting in increased solar output and decreased lifespan compared to the same star without planets. That’s it. I see no advantage to using a barycentric viewpoint over heliocentric, the planets are exerting tidal forces, thus my view from long ago in this thread still stands.
If you continue to insist I must read the full paper, then provide a free link or the $39.95 for the paywall.
As it stands, you have yet to provide justification for a barycentric viewpoint that passes muster. Smoke and mirrors, misdirection, hand waving, assorted attempts at belittling, those you have provided. But even just one solid reason why it must be barycentric and not heliocentric, still not yet.
To Willis again: As you say: Putting numbers into cosmic impacts is of great
importance, because it has a very practical side: Asessment of the global cooling
process after a future impact on Earth. We cannot exclude that this will happen
within the next generations…
There is, as usual, a Hollywood film on “Impact” .on the market…..but this only shows
that there can be an impact scare and calculations would help to clarify the grave/not
grave character of such an event.
The relation of impact pattern (ensuing temp drop after the impact) to crater sizes
can be statistically studied and we would get the depth of the future temp drop, the
years required to reach the bottom temp floor and the average decadal temp drop.
This would calm the public and helps against scare-mongering, because, as the
GISP2 shows, the temp drop proceeds in multi-decadal time spans and not in
overnight or yearly leaps…..
To Leif: His mass calculations are one thing, he maintains he has the REAL figures….
His opinion….. Parameters for temp drops/crater sizes/flying cosmic mass sizes can
be taken from GISP2 and from geological crater studies….there also exist a scientific
crater and impact study community which should be able to present their details….
……The paper proves what IS a cosmic impact and what IS NOT a cosmic impact,
and we can distinguish this through use of the COMBINATION (1) Impact pattern (high
voltage symbol – in temperature drop/rebounce/stabilization) WITH (2) cosmic
TP-shifts. Both taken together prove the cause/provenience/occurence of a
cosmic impact strike and the necessarily ensuing temp drop….
The striking cosmic masses do NOT have to be large and fulfil Leifs calculation
pad…If Leif reckons all Holocene impacts do NOT FULFILL his quantity mass impact
calculations in order to produce our impact pattern….then his conclusion would be
that all 13 GISP2 temp drops after each “Leif-micro-mass”- impact are purely
coincidence and TP-shifting in the Earth orbit cycle would be…(he did not yet
comment on this one yet) …something…? Fine, he is the one who must falsify
our claim that impact masses can be SMALL TO CAUSE temp drop/
rebounce/stabilization cycles…..and he demands exaggerated cosmic masses.
The answer would lie in the fact that impact power increases with impact speed,
the higher, the stronger the impact…thus an impact mass can be rather smaller
then larger to produce enumerated impact features….
JS
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 13, 2012 at 11:05 pm
“People keep saying, the Sun moves with respect to the barycentre, it must have an effect. But what I am saying, as is Anna V, is why must it?”
Synchronicity. We notice that solar activity seems to be correlated with planetary orbits and that the earth’s climate seems to be affected by solar activity. But we know that with known physics the effects of solar activity are ‘too tiny to matter’ so apparently there can be no direct effect of planetary orbits on the earth’s climate. However, over the eons the tiny tidal forces raised by Jupiter and Saturn and the sun may have also had an effect on the earth-moon-sun system. Now gravity enters the picture and the planetary effects on earth’s climate are an illusion, and the real actor is gravity. This suggests we need to be looking at the relationship between tidal effects and gross ocean currents, especially as regards vertical mixing.
See Keeling and Whorf (2000) http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full.pdf
Also, I suspect that the cooling effect attributed by Seifert to orbital displacement may in fact be due to a sudden disturbance to the ocean temperature profile, either from vertical mixing or surface cooling that somehow persists for a long time.
Here one reply to Leif: Leif, your quote “simple calculations” demand high
impact masses to produce the impact mechanics pattern. …Whereas
we identified 13 cosmic impacts in the Holocene on Earth, based on the
(1) temperature impact pattern COMBINED with
(2) a TP-SHIFT at the following EOO-turning point line plus
(3) a size correlation of small-medium-large terrestrial impact sites with the
respective small-medium-large temperature
drop+rebounces+stabilization swing…..
According to your “simple calculations”, none of the 13 identified impacts fulfill your
size requirement and is LARGE enough to produce (1) plus (2) plus (3) which ALL
can be clearly identified in the Holocene temp evolution.
Our peers may judge now, whether Leifs calculation pad has the right numbers
or our analysis of Holocene impact events…Important in this is that the EOO-TP
shift of the orbit cannot be caused by events on the Earth’s surface and can only
result from orbital DEFORMATION by the impact strike…. The TP-shift is clearly
demonstrated in the various graphics …. most easy to recognize in the 27-37 ka
BP picture….this is why we added those 10,000 years as well…..
Leif tell us what does your notebook say about the two TP-shifts downwards
in our 27-37 ka BP picture?….Please present more of your cosmic mass numbers
to solve the 27-37 ka BP temperature evolution and the two observed TP-shifts
downwards… JS
I must admit that in the aspect raised by DirkH and Ian W that anna v has made a mistake. It is not a bad mistake, but she is taking the viewpoint that all bodies can be approximated by assuming that they act as if they are all point sources of gravitational attraction, which technically they are not. Her view does ignore internal and surface tidal accelerations toward mutual centers of attraction in all bodies, especially important here in the Earth and the Sun itself. So the question still remains whether the tidal flows within the sun’s matter do, in fact, cause enough variance to meaningfully affect Earths long term climate. It is a valid question when worded properly.
To me if you were to ever claim that this position of the center of attraction as felt by the Sun (the bc) were to cause multi-year variance you would first have to show that there is in fact some amount of a 27 day signature in the solar radiation as the sun revolves about its axis or the effect in the next paragraph. I don’t think I have ever seen such fast-action correlation. We all know the exact distance of the Earth from the sun does vary not only on ellipticity but also depends on where the center of attraction is from the sun’s center over many years, but I also agree that from first principles this does seem very tiny at best.
To even simulate such affect you would have to break the sun’s mass into some thousands of pieces and track the movement and trajectories of each of these pieces to see if there are some presently unknown flows within the sun itself, possibly tending to warm and cool the surface in cycles from the core over time. I also don’t remember seeing any such analysis along these lines. But I do agree, most of these aspects are just trivally ignored and they really should not be without some detailed analysis.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 8:15 am
Here one reply to Leif: Leif, your quote “simple calculations” demand high
impact masses to produce the impact mechanics pattern.
Your whole argument hangs on if an impact can change the orbit by 50,000-1,000,000 km. My calculation shows that it can, provided the impactor has a mass 5 times larger than the largest asteroid [Ceres]. Which is clearly impossible. The impact that wiped out the dinosaurs had an estimated diameter of only 10-15 km versus Ceres’s 950 km. So, on grounds of energy the changes in distance that you claim are physically impossible. That demolishes your paper, regardless of what else you claim.
Leif: We both agree that an cosmic impact is capable to deform the orbit, which
in turn would the produce the impact pattern, ensuing temp decline and the
TP-shift. The only difference between us is that your calculations need higher
cosmic masses/energy to achieve that goal.
My side is supported by 13 impact observations as prove….on your side is your
calculation pad, which denies that the 13 impacts and their effects took place,
for the sole reason that your calculation requires higher impact forces to produce
observed effects.
Fine, whether your high mass requirement were correctly calculated, we may
resolve with the aid of other astronomical experts…. JS.
****
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 8:39 am
Your whole argument hangs on if an impact can change the orbit by 50,000-1,000,000 km. My calculation shows that it can, provided the impactor has a mass 5 times larger than the largest asteroid [Ceres]. Which is clearly impossible. The impact that wiped out the dinosaurs had an estimated diameter of only 10-15 km versus Ceres’s 950 km. So, on grounds of energy the changes in distance that you claim are physically impossible. That demolishes your paper, regardless of what else you claim.
****
Yup. Pretty basic….
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:38 am
Thank you for the response, Joachim. Sorry, but that is nonsensical reasoning. You say that cosmic impacts change the orbit, and that the orbital change results in a change in GISP2 temps, that it always changes in the same direction (cooling) and your proof is … that GISP2 temps change.
But that only makes sense if we have already established the underlying idea that the collision changes the orbit, AND we have established that said orbital change affects the temperature … and that’s not been established.
It should not be “good to hear”. If your claims are not falsified, you are in good shape.
But if they are not falsifiable, then they are not valid scientific claims. To be a scientific, a claim must be able to be falsified. You have not done your part of the job. You have not provided the numbers and calculations that are required to make your claims scientific.
Look, if I say “the Empire State Building is tall”, that statement cannot be falsified. It is tall compared to some objects, and not tall compared to others. But if I say “the Empire State Building is taller than 300 metres”, we can falsify that statement.
So no, it should not be “good to hear” that your claims cannot be falsified, it should be bad to hear, it means that your work is merely anecdote, not science. The fact that you seem oblivious to the difference between anecdote and science is worrisome …
That is one of the more ridiculous claims I’ve ever heard. First, moving a planet is not like football, where a small force can trip up a big player. You can’t use judo on a planet, or leverage, unless you are Archimedes. To change the orbit of a planet, only one thing works. You need brute force. Lots of brute force. And to move the Earth, you need lots and lots and lots of force.
More to the point, you can’t hand-wave away the need for calculations by saying that you have “certified impact dates”. I don’t give a hoot if you claim the GISP2 data moves in harmony with your impact dates. The question is, how much force can you get from the impact, and how far will it move the earth?
Now, I have not done the orbital calculations as Leif has, but the answer was obvious to me from the masses involved. The masses of any conceivable colliding cosmic objects are many, many, many orders of magnitude smaller than would be required for your theory to work.
So all of your handwaving about soccer players and the like is meaningless. As I said above, not once but a couple of times, if you want to convince me of your cockamamie theory that a collision with some fly-speck sized object will move the earth out of its orbit, SHOW ME THE NUMBERS.
Because frankly, Joachim, I’m growing quite bored with your vapid unsupported claims. I’m tired of asking you questions and getting the runaround. It’s time to put your numbers where your mouth is.
w.
PS—You are committing a fundamental logical error. Note that I (and Leif) are not saying that a cosmic impact has no effect on the climate. I am saying that a cosmic impact of the type you describe has very little effect on the orbit. As a result, saying that GISP2 shows a climate effect from an impact MEANS NOTHING ABOUT THE EARTH’S ORBIT. A cosmic impact might (or might not) have a climate effect from a host of other factors, so even if there is an observable climate effect, that doesn’t mean that the Earth’s orbit has been pushed out of shape as you claim.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:29 am
Yes, as I say, putting numbers into cosmic impacts is of great importance … so why have you not done so? Leif has done so. I have done so. You have not done so.
When you do so, you will find that a “cosmic impact” with the types of objects we have encountered in the past only has the energy to make a tiny, imperceptible, minuscule, trivially small change in the earth’s orbit. This change is far, far too small to create the knock-on effects that you are claiming.
So yes … the calculations are important. Do them and report your findings back to the group.
w.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 10:40 am
Fine, whether your high mass requirement were correctly calculated, we may resolve with the aid of other astronomical experts…. JS.
This you should have done beforehand.
But we do not need “other astronomical experts”. You can do the calculation yourself [and readers can follow along] without fancy mathematics. It goes like this:
A body in orbit has a certain kinetic energy [KE] in the framework of the solar system. The basic formula for KE is KE = 1/2 * mass * speed squared [we can omit the factor of 1/2 for order of magnitude calculations]. The Earth’s speed is about 30 km/sec. If you move the Earth to a different orbit its speed is different. How different? Here is a website that shows you the speed of different planets and their distances: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm
You can see that the speed goes [inversely] with the square root of the distance. So the KE is now mass * square (square root(distance)) or just mass * distance. If you change the distance by 100,000 km [=0.07% of the Earth’s distance (1 AU) from the Sun], the resulting distance is 1.0007 so the KE changes by 0.0007 or 0.07%. since the mass has not changed appreciably. Assuming that the impactor on average has a speed comparable to that of the Earth and that all the kinetic energy of the impactor goes into changing the orbit, the KE of the impactor would be 0.07% of that of the Earth and since the speeds were assumed to be the same, the mass of the impactor would have to be 0.07% that of the Earth. The mass of Ceres is 9×10^20 kg, that of the Earth is 6×10^24 kg, so Ceres has a mass 0.015% of the Earth, so the impactor would have a mass 0.5 times that of Ceres for a change in distance of 100,000 km, or 5 times that of Ceres for the upper range of the distance change you claim, 1,000,000 km.
Now, this calculation is what is called a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation and only gives a rough indication of reality. One thing that is certainly wrong with it is the assumption that ALL the KE of the impactor goes into changing the Earth’s orbit. Most of the KE goes into vaporizing the impactor and the ground at the impact site, so our estimate of the mass of the impactor is only a lower limit, the real mass must be considerably larger. We also ignore things like the angle of impact, all of which make little difference to the overall argument.
J Seifert;
I’m looking at Figure A of your paper. There are more peaks (both high and low) that do NOT match your cycles than do. Some of them stick out like sore thumbs, such as 5200BC, 4900BC, 3600BC, 1900BC, 1200BC, 0BC, 700AD and 1100AD. If there is an actual cycle, and an actual turning point within that cycle that is 50 years different from what you have calculated, do you realize that you would get almost the same number of “peaks” correlating to the vertical lines in your graph? If all I did was throw vertical lines at the GISP2 data with completely random intervals, I could wind up circling the same or more number of “turning points” and claim correlation to my random intervals! Further, some of what you have circled as “turning points” clearly aren’t. For example 6800BC and 6600BC are brief and very small variations from what is clearly an 800 year trend. Some turning point!
What you are dealing with here is a raging case of confirmation bias. You decided what the answers were, and went looking in the data for thiings that correlate to your pre-determined answers. You found what you are looking for by simply ignoring anything that doesn’t fit and also ignoring that even random intervals produce correlation to a certain number of peaks in the data.
BTW, Leif’s and Willis’ contention regarding the mass required to impact the earth and alter itz orbit by the amount you claim is bang on. That doesn’t mean that the 13 impacts you claim never happened (which is what you tried to suggest in rebuttal to Leif) but that they were of insufficient size to produce the orbital changes that you claim.
To David: Wonderful, I like your kind of responses, which shows you read
the paper and coming up with suggestions. Yesterday we had a few of
those who just opine without knowing the paper.
The EOO cycle is your concern: And here you found some spikes, “which
stick out like a sore thumb ” exactly…. these thumbs do NOT belong to the
EOO-cycle…..this “sticking out ” proves it, those points are NOT EOO-TPs
as you allege, but the end points of the IMPACT mechanism, the spikes
of the High -Voltage-Impact Symbol….. Those two mechanisms are completely
separate, and only show to interact overlayered in the GISP2 graph…. .
I should have included more graphs, for you, for example, to make it clear:
The first Figure A graph, as is, but then a second graph,
from which the Spikes of the Impact symbol as NOT pertaining to the EOO being
removed…. therefore: Overlay the impact “Blitz”es, as I call it, on top of figure A
and take the CIO impact spikes out…..and then the clean TPs of the EOO are
left to remain…..
The problem with the Holocene really is this high disturbance due to impacts
….this confuses many people and this is the cause why Holocene reconstruction
is in its infancy, in spite of million-subsidized institutional GCMs….see how
AGW is howling about the low quality of their model-Holocene data comparison
….(( and by the way, G. Lohmann of AWI just went back to ONLY 4,000 BC from
today on, and for the time before that he kept in gentleman’s silence….if Lohmann
read this he would …..not talk about it….we know why……the Met-guys Hamburg
(Jungclaus, Bothe) only dared to to model-data comparison for 1,500 years, with
the verdict: of “no status of truth”….some AGW-follower complained my remark.
…. and here we talk about a MEAGRE 1,500 years of Holocene time span…
You like to side with Leif and his impact mass calculations…
I can tell you the following (1) I like his wonderful white beard, a person, who
I would like to come at Chrismas… (2) he apologized to me being off in calculations
last year…. and now (3): See his notebook calculations: He calculates a 100,000 km
distance change ALL AROUND THE COMPLETE ORBIT…..see his figures….
whereas: I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move
outward…which is absolutely imposssible since the aphelion-perihelion distance
is an adiabatic constant and does NOT move…. what senseless energy
calculation assuming what we never have claimed…..JS
To Willis: We reached a point now where we should take a break. Tiredness set in
and that is not helpful.
Since we both wrote lengthy replies, let me describe the concise state of our
discussion: 1. You want numbers on cosmic mass, cosmic energy, orbital
deformation in kilometers, impact angles and related astronomical
values…..
Until you have those, you, as you write, CANNOT [and will not]
falsify our paper because our numbers, as your Empire State
building example, appear to you as being sound and correct.
Well, I am happy with your statement and can live with it.
Imagine all the people who, until now, live with
underperforming GCMs with WRONG numbers of Holocene
reconstruction….this is what our climate work is all about…..
2. We proved, WITHOUT your wanted numbers, that 13 Holocene
impacts took place [you agree?] and they can be detected in GISP2
based on their GISP2-appearence, which is A. Impact pattern,
B.astronomical TP-shift, C. Correlation Impact size and temp
change effect.
Application of this cosmic analysis, as it stands, provides the best
Holocene and the best 27-37 ka BP temperature reconstruction…..IN
OPPOSITION to present day underperforming, low quality institutional
GCMs, which were tested and found you know how.
We realize that full astronomical calculations would agment your attention, this
was clear from the beginning. However, I feel that you are much too exigent and
do not proceed from the 2012 state in science: See our chapter 2: Identification
of cosmic cycles. The todays literature is only capable to identify cosmic
cycles [here the 556++ growing cycle]. They exist as fact, they are observed.
We do NOT OMIT data of those cycles, would have liked more info from the
literature, but…….
So good as our paper is, it is the BEST Holocene temp evolution analysis
near and far…..[there was not ONE word from you about this, unimportant?]
Our approach is writing about “what is visible as macro-driver – quantificable-
in GISP2 temp records. — and compare our results to those of Gavin Schmidt
and other Micro-forcing GCMs. On the battleground are GCM vs.
our Cosmic-climatic GISP2-temp analysis. The GCM side shoots with micro-
forcings [no comment of yours]….. and we, taken from the GISP2 proxy, with
macro-forcings…..
Since you cannot falsify [as you said], our data/facts/cycles/insights so as
it stands in the paper, we thank you to this point. We know from all your writings
that you take pride in not siding with anyone – idea of being
individual/independent – neither with us nor with GCMs [they escaped your
attention], but you ask for delivery of scientific impact knowledge not being on
the published market yet.
As I also said, the impact science is hardly 15 years in existence and is notoriously
underfunded, whereas GCM-models reap in million grants and are in model-data
comparisons [do one with our approach] way, way below our performance…
I am certain, that if an university would put a million or two into impact modelling,
they would provide you with your wanted numbers. And I am also certain that
they would put Leifs calculation notepad to where it belongs…..JS
Ian W
“You are claiming that there is NO centripetal force on any of the stars or planets – as the barycenter is virtual – I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps you would explain.”
No, that is not what I am claiming. What I am saying is that not only is the barycentre a virtual point, it is a completely unnecessary virtual point. The real forces in the solar system are gravitational forces acting between the planets. The barycentre is a mathematical convenience not a real object. If you cannot show that any effects are independent of the choice of origin, then you have not shown that they are real. The challenge therefore is : derive the results you claim are significant, without using the barycentre. Simply stating that the barycentre moves around proves nothing.
“Holocene temperature evolution data shows unmistakably, that the planet Earth starts to oscillate in its orbit after each sizable cosmic impact. Due to resulting minor Earth orbit deformations Earth’s temperatures first fall for decades, then rebounce into excessive heat for the following decades and oscillate back by returning to their previous average value”
I must confess, I have difficulties with understanding the mechanism described in the paper. I had the feeling it tries to explain the oscillation temperature in my car through the vibrations created by the impact of the flies in the windshield.
Furthermore, when the Earth was knockdown from the warm orbit – to keep the terminology – how on earth does it rebounce and come back to the warmer orbit? I do not understand this phenomenon (CIO pattern – page 9). For the Earth to change its orbit there needs a bit more then a couple of flies on the windshield, but maybe I am wrong – let me see the numbers. Wonder how is the Moon then behaving to the Earth suddenly changing the orbit? That would be an interesting situation.
(I saw Leif putting a number already above with 5 times Ceres, which makes it easier to judge)
It looks like the whole CIO pattern was thought looking at the temperature graph and deriving Earth’s cosmic movements from it – as davidmhoffer says “is a raging case of confirmation bias.”
It is not clear what does “cool orbit” mean. How far is it from the sun and what TSI reduction is it?
Once the Earth got further away from the Sun why would it ever come back closer where it was before? What “drives” it there? Astronomy is a very precise science where the movement of the heavenly-bodies are calculated with years and decades and centuries in advance. We know that Aphopis will come to its rendez-vous 2029 the 13th of April and will fly at about 1/8th of the lunar orbit away of the Earth.
For the Earth to move to a “cool orbit” it would need to move at least a million of kilometres from the Sun away to influence TSI a bit of %, that is 3 times the Earth-Moon distance…
To me it looks like a collection of observations and some ideas, but am missing the logical deduction and calculations, and the basic astronomy check, however I might be wrong, it is late week-end. I am with Leif that the paper needs retraction and rethink with the calculation done.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I am certain, that if an university would put a million or two into impact modelling,
they would provide you with your wanted numbers. And I am also certain that
they would put Leifs calculation notepad to where it belongs…
It takes no money to follow my calculation. Anybody can do that; even you, if you try.
Leif, you are off again as last year, when you apologized….
I never ever claimed that the Earth orbit fully around the Sun would go
outwards by 100,000 km [or distance XYZ] ….which is impossible,
because, now I repeat this a third time on this blog, the Aph-Perh-
distance is a constant and cannot vary, except, due to Geoff Sharp,
for 15,000 km in a 60 year cycle…..Our orbit change of EOO and CIO
concerns only the end point of the minor axis…
Reach for your “simple calculation” notebook again…JS.
It is great to see thinking outside of the box. We definitely need some new stuff for the box! One thing that ocurred to me is that impacts might be able to influence climate without perturbing the orbit. Even simply mixing out the ocean should cause dramatic cooling for a while.
J Seifert;
you can see it in football/soccer, as small push of a player with NO force makes the other players fall over like the bowling pins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think you’ve confused the earth being “tippy” with Guam. Have a chat with Hank Johnson, I’m sure he can explain it to you.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/01/congressional-tipping-point-not-an-april-fools-joke/
As one who is always alert to extra-terrestrial causes of change in planetary climates I recognise some of the known elements, but find other aspects of the paper hard to swallow, in particular their emphasis on the frequency and lasting effects of substantial cosmic cratering and the rather mysterious multi-centennial Earth Orbit Oscillation Cycle.
I do observe that, in considering basically the Holocene’s 10,000 years:
1. Their emphasis on Milanovitch is puzzling as even the shortest of M’s cycles is twice as long as the period under consideration.
2. Their use of SIM appears to ignore the work by Charvátová and several others, which goes back to Jose, half a century ago, and which contains a clear cyclicity of 179 years, tied to the LIA’s individual minima and which is absent from their consideration.
3. There is an absence of Svensmark’s Cosmic Ray influence in ionisation of aerosols on cloud cover and temperature and no mention of Shaviv who would have had something to say about cosmic ray impact frequency..
4. There is no mention of the AMO’s harmony with these solar variations, nor the ENSO’s influence. The oceanic oscillations’ ties to solar variation is becoming increasingly clear.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 1:26 pm
He calculates a 100,000 km distance change ALL AROUND THE COMPLETE ORBIT…..see his figures….whereas: I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move outward…which is absolutely imposssible since the aphelion-perihelion distance is an adiabatic constant and does NOT move…. what senseless energy calculation assuming what we never have claimed…..
This complication does not matter much, only changes the mass by a factor of roughly two [which is within the bounds of a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation]. Your paper is still dead. You asked for review, you got it.
Leif: You are the astronomy man of Anthony…..but dont’ you realize that
we did NOT write an astronomical, astrophysical paper but a Holocene climate
forcing analysis evaluating the GISP2 temperature evolution.?… This in line with
competing Holocene temperature evolution GCMs – read the 2 given Gavin
Schmidts papers from 2011 and 2012 for comparison…..and their capability
of Holocene temp reconstruction…
We dissect the Holocene and identified cycles surging out of the Holocene
temp evolution, which were also recently detected by spectral ice core analysis
(the 556+ EOO-cycle) (see cycle detection chapter). You keep silent on
cycles because your notebook is empty on existing cycles…and….you continue
[Willis more on this] with demands for full astronomical numbers for exact impact
dynamics, energy releases, impact angles etc …. are you sure this does not go
too far? Please read quoted COMPETING Holocene reconstructions:
Do they prove their Laurentide ice melt forcing assumptions? Show me
calculations for their Dansgaard- Oeschger conveyor belt Gulfstream reversal
or for rapid temperature swings of the Younger Dryas period….
Those professoral ineptitude papers contain nothing but ifs, whens, coulds,
mights and do not show the calculation methods for Gulf stream and Laurentide
ice flow parameters ….. this is the real sad state of Holocene science….From this
view angle you have to assess our paper…go easy on astronomy…..
Well, lets say then, so what.?…. The ultimate astronomical figures are missing. But
nevertheless our Holocene reconstruction works and is superiour to all results of
GCMs on the market. We explain, as best of all, a total of 20,000 years of
climate change….. this is unrivaled [you keep silent on this….. why?],
whereas your own method does NOT produce a single Holocene reconstruction …JS
To Albert Jacobs: The 60-year multidecadal cycle as also manifested in the
AMO was set aside until 2013….it is not missing but announced, you are
6 months ahead of your time, just wait, this AMO and all related Scafetta
aspects see quotes in the book warrants a separate full paper…I explained
it all, what is your point of mentioning decadal mechanisms…?
The same Svensmark: Micro-drivers (as cloud formation) are the ones, which
cannot be identified in the Holocene temp evolution…. Many times said all
over…..JS
To Lars P: Focus on the impact mechanism graph, the center part with the
Sun and the cold, average and warm orbital run presented, the graph explains
better than words….JS
J Seifert;
The first Figure A graph, as is, but then a second graph,
from which the Spikes of the Impact symbol as NOT pertaining to the EOO being
removed…. therefore: Overlay the impact “Blitz”es, as I call it, on top of figure A
and take the CIO impact spikes out…..and then the clean TPs of the EOO are
left to remain…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’ve entirely missed the point.
Add in the cyclical forces referred to by Albert Jacobs. Add in the orbital eccentricities of the moon. Add in sun spots. Add in variations in earth’s magnetic field. Add in AMO, PDO, ENSO and TSI and GCR and and and… I could come up with dozens of sub sets that in the absence of the others look as well correlated as what you have produced, and my results would be no more meaningful than yours.
Well, actually mine would be more meaningful than yours because I wouldn’t make the mistake of proposing a physical mechanism that is impossible. You go on to compound your glaring inability to understand physics in your response to Leif:
J. Seifert;
He calculates a 100,000 km distance change ALL AROUND THE COMPLETE ORBIT…..see his figures….whereas: I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move
outward…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ll not steal Leif’s thunder other than to say you really, Really, REALLY need to take a 1st year physics course. Your response to Willis shows that you also have no idea of what the scientific method is all about. Your orbit has been perturbed and you are lost in space….
This thread has been both amusing and educational. The educational part came entirely from the helio vs bary centric discussion however.
I do not claim that the COMPLETE orbit, all around, would move
outward…which is absolutely imposssible since the aphelion-perihelion distance
is an adiabatic constant and does NOT move….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Take that 1st year physics course twice.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Our orbit change of EOO and CIO concerns only the end point of the minor axis…
Reach for your “simple calculation” notebook again…
And I repeat that this will only make a change of a factor of two, so no real difference.
It still takes a lot more energy to change the orbit than the impactors have, so your paper is still dead. The calculation is simple as I demonstrated. No notebook needed or used, so you can stop using that silly phrase..