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.
David: please check Leifs penultimate calculation and ask him about
your orbit extension/1 grade physics claim…He will certainly give you a
scientific answer….JS..
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Leif: You are the astronomy man of Anthony…..but don’t you realize that we did NOT write an astronomical, astrophysical paper
You obviously did NOT. However, an important ingredient of your ‘paper’ is the change in the minor axis of the Earth’s orbit by impacts. And my calculation shows that there is not enough kinetic energy in an impactor of reasonable size to affect the change you advocate. So the change of the orbit because of impacts cannot be the cause of whatever climate changes you postulate. That is all.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Leif: You are the astronomy man of Anthony…..but don’t you realize that we did NOT write an astronomical, astrophysical paper
In your ‘paper’ you say:
“This minor axis has two variable end points, which allow distance variations to the Sun. A closer distance of those end points to the Sun will produce higher temperatures on Earth”
You also say [Figure D] that the result of the impact is first to increase the semi-minor axis [by 50,000-1000,000 km or should that be twice those values? I assume twice because you talk about distances]. Now you cannot increase the semi-minor axis by more than twice 10,630.5 km, as at that point the orbit becomes a circle with a radius equal to the unchangeable semi-major axis. So even your proposed changes don’t make sense. How you get the ‘rebounce’ is voodoo. What force would do that? So all impacts will add up over billions of years of time and produce what? Doesn’t make sense.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm
by 50,000-1000,000 km or should that be twice those values?
If not twice, then the number 10,630.5 I calculated above should be doubled to 21,261 km.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm
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.
We are slowly getting there.
So do you accept that the Earth Moon system orbiting actually describes an epitrochoid path as they mutually orbit in the solar system?
If so do you also accept that the Sun has an epitrochoid ‘wobble’ in its orbit of the galaxy like other stars with large planets, or do you consider that it moves in a smooth orbit around the galaxy totally unaffected by the presence of the planets?
Ian W says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:54 pm
If so do you also accept that the Sun has an epitrochoid ‘wobble’ in its orbit of the galaxy like other stars with large planets, or do you consider that it moves in a smooth orbit around the galaxy totally unaffected by the presence of the planets?
Is a straw man argument. The stars, the Sun, and all their planets are in free fall and feel no forces due to their movements [other than tidal forces], so solar activity is indeed unaffected by the presence of planets.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm
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…
I cannot imagine a change in minor axis dimension without affecting the major axis. Disregarding the CIO logic I still do not see any evidence for a EOO more than 15000km.
“We are slowly getting there.”
No we are not…. prove the “wobble” has an effect. Using the same definition of “wobble”, the Earth has a “wobble” 150 million km wide …. what effect does that have?
The “wobble”-term sounds good to describe the impact effect!
For example: The Earth gets impacted by a [Holocene type small] flying object,
which CANNOT displace Earth with ONE STRIKE, lets say by 150,000 km to one
side, [as LEIF in his impact calculation, which are not applicable, DOES.] BUT the
strike only deviates slightly the angle of the flying direction by a few yards. This
happens, say in July. The planet continues with this deviated angle until Oct, 4,
which are about 200 Million km further along the road, when the minor axis is
reached…. and finds itself now sideward deviated by 150,000 km from the
undisturbed orbital path….This way, the temporary length of the semi-minor axis
increases by 150, 000 km. This amounts to 1,000th of the orbit radius,thus very
little and is absolutely feasible: An orbit wobble by a 1/1,000th (one thousands)
part off-road the regular orbit line….This is reasonable…..Now, the orbital flight
has a bulge or wobble on Oct 4, and Earth has to adjust direction toward the
fixed perihelion, because the perihelion is a fixed point, which does not permit
wobbles [this is the difference between the major and the minor axis…..because
of the flexible length of the minor axis. The astronomy counts with a maximum 3%
of minor axis lengthening during glacial times (so-called variability of eccentricity
a la Milankovitch). One 1,000ths due the impact is substantially less than 3% of
150 Mio km…..Now, the system is not yet repaired, because the wobble dynamics
will create another bulge in springtime, April 4. In order to get rid of the wobble
bulge, the solar system with its gravitational and centrifugal forces is trying to
eliminate the wobbles over the following decades of orbiting and re-establishing
its undisturbed orbital flight again…Too bad that Leif und Geoff have static,
outmoded astronomy perceptions, which do not help us…..JS…..
J Seifert;
1. The GCM’s being wrong doesn’t make you right.
2. What you have done is not a reconstruction, nor is it a model. It is curve fitting using selective variables.
3. Writing a paper about Halocene forcing doesn’t mean you get to ignore the laws of physics.
4. You can’t claim what you have done has more skill (or any skill for that matter) than the GCM’s until you have predicted something and seen that prediction borne out.
5. I don’t need to ask Leif about anything. He’s presented his rough calcs, as has Willis. Their calcs are more than sufficient to show that the forces that you assume are orders of magnitude too large to have been caused by the impacts you have identified. I followed their math and the numbers are reasonable.
6. You seem to be under the impression that the orbit of the earth, after being perturbed in some manner, somehow returns to its original state. You seem to be of the belief that an impact only affects the minor axis. These things evoke that famous quip from Einstein “that’s not right, that’s not even wrong”. If you are correct, then all those satellites orbiting the earth according to the exact physics that Leif is trying to explain to you must have been faked along with the moon landings. (SARC!)
It seems to me that you have put a tremendous amount of effort into this paper, and you are very attached to it. I’ve done the same, but when objective evidence is put in front of me that I am wrong, I’ve had to eat crow. Seriously, stop rejecting the things people like Leif and Willis are trying to tell you. Instead, embrace them. Learn the physics, get to the point where you know what formulas to use, when, and why. Get to the point where you can follow the math and understand it instead of making excuses that your paper isn’t a physics paper. That’s just a ludicrous excuse. Learn the physics, then come back to your work and look at it with a fresh perspective.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm
This way, the temporary length of the semi-minor axis increases by 150,000 km
It cannot increase by more that some 10,000 km because that increase makes the orbit circular. Any further increase would make the semi-major axis larger which is impossible.
outmoded astronomy
Has served well for hundreds of years and are still perfectly valid.
Meanwhile I still can’t attempt to replicate the finding of the cycles, as my questions about their GISP2 data remain unanswered. How can I proceed when the only version of the database available to me has such obvious errors, looks possibly corrupted?
Since replication of results is important, and Mr. Seifert has not addressed my concerns about that from which the entire paper is built, I cannot confirm this paper is even science, let alone good science. Who do the authors think they are anyway, Climate Scientists™?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:29 pm
the semi-major axis larger which is impossible.
which was what Seifert said, probably lifted from Wikipedia. But, of course, it is not impossible. If a large enough body slams into the Earth, the orbit of the Earth can be altered in any which way, or even completely destroyed.
J Seifert;
In order to get rid of the wobble
bulge, the solar system with its gravitational and centrifugal forces is trying to
eliminate the wobbles over the following decades of orbiting and re-establishing
its undisturbed orbital flight again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Seriously. That’s not right, that’s not even wrong.
davidmhoffer says:
October 14, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Seriously. That’s not right, that’s not even wrong.
It seems to me that further discussion of Seifert’s missive is fruitless.
To Geoff: Your quote:
“””I cannot imagine a change in minor axis dimension without affecting the major axis. Disregarding the CIO logic I still do not see any evidence for a EOO more than 15000km.”””
The shape of the ecliptic plane of the Earth’s orbit pulsates from ellipse to circle to ellipse
and so forth….The apside (perih-to aph) stays CONSTANT, but whereas the minor axis, within
ongoing Milankovitch cycles lengthens/shortens up to 3% (= several million km) in LENGTH .
This is the astronomical background of the flexibility and variability of the minor axis – called variability of the eccentricity….
…… I guess the evening got late. We left the qualified discourse and somehow fell into rudimentary astronomy, where all peers, please read the above 2 paragraphs, can
evaluate enormous discrepancies between the first (Geoff) and the second (mine)
paragraph.
The same applies to Leifs great calculations….. the pre-conditions/description of
impact dynamics based on kinetic energy are Leifs invention, and his calculation
results confirm his kinetic inventions….this has nothing to do with our analysis,
because the impact process is different and rather follows my explication given as
comment further up concerning the “wobble’ term.
To the remark: personal “outmoded astronomy”: Due to this type of
science, proudly hobbeling along “for centuries”, GCM Holocene reconstructions
underperform “without status of truth”, because the astronomical side and the 5
macro-drivers ( EOO, the CIO, the 60-year Scafetta, the 100,000 year eccentricity
Milankovitch and the SIM -cycle ) have successfully been kept out by Warmists in clima
calculations.
..Leif comments purely on astronomical matters and is carefull NOT to mention EOO
cycle analysis and TP-shifts….not a single word on this. Also not one word on the
temperature evolution over the Holocene. His approach obstructs the cosmic analysis
by disregarding “cosmic cycles visible in the Holocene temp evolution”.
I believe he has room for betterment and in late spring, our promised 60-year cycle
paper will follow and I will include an extra page for him with urgently desired astronomical
numbers. JS
Leif, all has been said, no point to continue the low quality discourse,
let me keep the hope that you have room for betterment… Thats it. JS
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Leif comments purely on astronomical matters and is carefull NOT to mention EOO
Because you have not explained what EOO is. But as I said, “It seems to me that further discussion of Seifert’s missive is fruitless”, so don’t bother.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:32 pm
let me keep the hope that you have room for betterment
We all have, even you.
The earths eccentricity is altered by impacts in theory.
http://www.jhu.edu/~lhinnov1/hinnovresearch/earthsorbitalparameters.htm
There does not seem to be a large effect over a long time period.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Ok, so you are saying the EOO is part of the Milankovitch elliptical change process brought about mainly by the 4 larger planets, but the EOO (unhindered by CIO) is a step oscillation pattern following the general trend of the Milankovitch cycle. The Earths orbit is pulsing in and out measured at the minor axis but overall following the Milankovitch trend.
If so what evidence do you have for the separate EOO pulse?
This guest post is bad and reminds of some of the worst pieces in pseudo science.
It is possible that impacts, even very small, change the climate on large time scales.
What is impossible is that they do so by significantly changing the orbital parameters on short time scales (e.g 1000 – 10000 years)..
Using the observed asteroid masses and velocities, this would simply violate the mechanical energy conservation law (Kinetic energy + Potential energy = constant) which the Earth’s orbit respects with a very high accuracy.
So while the proposed correlation might be right (I am open minded), the proposed mechanism is wrong with an absolute certainty.
And will stay so as long as one accepts that Hamiltonian mechanics is an acceptable approximation of the general relativity to describe the Solar system’s orbits…
This paper strikes me as unsupported, as no details are given regarding the computations. Mostly, it seems to be based on the extraction of Cyclical patterns, of the sort one might do using Fourier transforms, and explaining away the discrepancies as the results of impacts. It might be good, but the paper needs strong backing for its claims regarding the postulated impacts. Moreover, no references are provided regarding those impacts, and many of them are absent from the quoted Earth Impact Database.
For example, the Helike disappearance is most often attributed to an earthquake, and I could not find any mention of an impact.
The santorini event ALSO is most often described simply as a volcanic explosion. Why is this activity attributed to a collision? Similarly , Sirente is not listed as a proven/probable impact site.
The Mahuika crater is claimed by this paper to have caused the disappearance of a Chinese fleet near New Zealand at 1443. What is the documental evidence for the presence of that fleet in New Zealand and its disappearance?
Signals from some small impacts are claimed to be visible in the data (like Kaali, Estonia, claimed to be 2500 yrs old, whereas http://tsun.sscc.ru shows it to be 4000 yrs old). The Expert Database on Earth Impact Structures (EDEIS, http://tsun.sscc.ru) lists 28 impacts (proven or probable) in the last 10000 yrs with larger magnitude than Kaali. Shouldn’t they all be visible in the data?
PS: I first tried to post this comment last Friday on Tallbloke’s blog, but it did not go through. I post it now here so that Seifert and Lemke may address it.
PedroS: See reply over at TB and I very much appreciate your help in
detecting additional impact events. They should, as you correctly point out,
due to their impact size, indeed be visible in the GISP2 data. This stands, of
course against Leif’s “SIMPEL” calculations, as he put it. He opposes that
your impacts will cause temp-drop-rebounce-patterns and the TP-shift, as
basic indicator for impact occurence. He studied our paper well to put forward
his qualified conclusion
The only problem is that Leif maintains that NOT ONE SINGLE IMPACT which
you will identify for us will show you our IDENTIFIED (1) impact pattern nor
(2) a TP-shift. nor (3) the relation of crater size to temp drop.
He did simple calculations discovering that you cannot discover (1)+(2)+(3) in the
GISP2 data set, because only half-star-size flying objects are capable to produce
identified 3 effects in our paper….JS
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm
The “wobble”-term sounds good to describe the impact effect!
For example: The Earth gets impacted by a [Holocene type small] flying object,
which CANNOT displace Earth with ONE STRIKE, lets say by 150,000 km to one
side, [as LEIF in his impact calculation, which are not applicable, DOES.] BUT the
strike only deviates slightly the angle of the flying direction by a few yards. This
happens, say in July. The planet continues with this deviated angle until Oct, 4,
which are about 200 Million km further along the road, when the minor axis is
reached…. and finds itself now sideward deviated by 150,000 km from the
undisturbed orbital path….This way, the temporary length of the semi-minor axis
increases by 150, 000 km. This amounts to 1,000th of the orbit radius,thus very
little and is absolutely feasible:
We can test this claim quite simply, without going into orbital mechanics. Consider an Earth like object flying in a straight line through free space at Earth-like velocity. It is impacted from the side at right angles to its trajectory by a big meteor travelling at a similar speed. All of the impact energy is converted to KE for the purpose of the argument (in reality, much of the energy would be dissipated as heat). How big would the object need to be to produce the 150,000km deviation from the path that the undisturbed object would have taken that Joachim Siefert estimates?
200,000,000/150,000=1333.3
1/1333.3*8=0.006 degrees deviation from the undisturbed course
sin(0.006)=1*10^-4
The velocities of the objects are the same so the mass of the impactor therefore has to be 0.1% that of Earth.
That pretty much agrees with Leif’s calculation of an object half the size of Ceres producing a 100,000km deviation in the size of half the minor axis of Earth’s orbit.
As I told Joachim in email early last week, this hypothesis isn’t yet ready for prime time. It was given as friendly advice.
To me, the more interesting question is what the effect would be of an impactor punching a hole through the Earth’s crust sending shockwaves through the mantle. I would guess (and it’s only a guess), that there would be immediate planet wide cooling due to volcagenic albedo, followed by warming due to increased atmospheric mass due to the resulting widespread volcanic activity. That would (I guess) then be followed by cooling due to increased biomass-atmosphere chemical interaction and the resultant drawdown of excess atmospheric gases.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:18 am
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.
I’m not too worried by your dragging up Anthony’s temporary re-classification of my website during a period when we had a disagreement over an issue irrelevant to the topic of this thread, you smearing troll. We do give serious consideration to interesting ideas dismissed out of hand by fools like yourself it’s true. The 2000 plus people who visit my site daily regard this as an asset rather than a demerit.
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,
The planets exerting the tidal forces are exerting them in such a way that there is a tendency, identified by Wolff and Patrone’s model, for more energy to be released from overturning convection cells beneath the Sun’s surface on the side of the Sun facing the barycentre of the system. The barycentre exerts no force of its own, as Anna V tirelessly reminds us, but it is a ‘shorthand’ single word ‘notation’ for the combined forces of several planets acting on the Sun used by those of us who are working on the details.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2012 at 5:11 pm
The stars, the Sun, and all their planets are in free fall and feel no forces due to their movements [other than tidal forces], so solar activity is indeed unaffected by the presence of planets.
If the Sun was a point-like perfectly-elastic billiard-ball-in-space you’d be right, but it isn’t, and you’re not. Your friend Gough’s appeal to the authority of Chandresekar and Rayleigh isn’t either. Which is why we aren’t seeing it elevated to being a submitted rebuttal that Wolff and Patrone can respond to. Referring to the year-old note sent to you in email by Gough is just a worthless smear. Repetition of wrong analysis doesn’t make it correct [Though some may come to believe the propaganda].
Tallbloke :”The planets exerting the tidal forces are exerting them in such a way that there is a tendency, identified by Wolff and Patrone’s model, for more energy to be released from overturning convection cells beneath the Sun’s surface on the side of the Sun facing the barycentre of the system. The barycentre exerts no force of its own, as Anna V tirelessly reminds us, but it is a ‘shorthand’ single word ‘notation’ for the combined forces of several planets acting on the Sun used by those of us who are working on the details.”
Regrettably for this argument, the position of the barycentre relative to the Sun is determined largely by the positions of the heavy planets Jupiter and Saturn, but these do not produce the largest tidal forces. Qualitative handwaving style physics using the barycentre will therefore always produce a spurious correlation with J-S cycles, as the tidal forces due to Mercury and Venus (combined) are actually greater. This means that use of the barycentre leads to an unjustified answer