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.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Tallbloke says “Ian Wilson, a qualified astrophysicist”, attempting an argument from authority, which always goes down badly of skeptic sites.
If he is, then he has some funny ideas. For example appears not to know how Doppler effects used to detect extrasolar planets actually work. And he says “The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits” yet when challenged to prove that this is correct (on the sort of timescale that is implicit in the discussion), he makes no reply. Perhaps you could try?
Jimmi: You have confused Ian Wilson with commenter Ian W. They are two different people.
As to your question, you may note my calculation agreed with Leif’s. We both demonstrated that an impacting body would have to be around 0.1% of the Earth’s mass to cause a deviation of the magnitude Joachim considers necessary to cause the GISP2 temperature swings.
Of course, so far as the (usually) smaller deviations caused by the disposition of other masses in the solar system are concerned, this is the many body problem. The maintenance of stability of planetary orbits relies on these perturbations, which maintain the harmonic relationships which create the *near* stability of the system.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 6:59 pm
RACookPE1978 says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:50 pm
The sun (unlike the physics “theory” of orbits and or collisions with items like the earth, moon, Mars, and Jupiter) is not a “solid” point mass though.
And yet, in calculation of the incredible accurate ephemerides by JPL http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/ that help guide our spacecraft with meter precision and predict transits and eclipse to fraction of a second accuracy it suffices to treat the Sun as a point mass.
Which is true, and completely irrelevant to the phenomena under discussion by RACookPE1978.
Joachim says:
Willis…
Do your own, get rid of the outmoded Leif-style and you will stay as the Best…….
(5) Reaching this point, I must not forget to mention our paper: We present EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE, which everybody should respect, that the EEO-cycle, the T”oilet”-P”aper”
-shifting, the CIO-impact – Z-type- pattern, the correlation of impact crater size-to Z
-type (“high voltage symbol”) temperature swing (cold-warm-middle level) EXIST and
are clearly VISIBLE and quantificable in the analyzed 20,000 years of temperature
evolution.
Cherry picking impacts (and making assumptions about their dating) which fit the turning points in the GISP2 ice core record doesn’t validate your impact hypothesis of shifts in Earth’s orbit, which is disproven by the simple calculations presented by Leif and myself.
The cherry-pick argument was missing until now…picking time has come folks….
Go ahead and pick just one single impact which counters our claim….this
is part of real science…. find one and we lost the universal claim of empirical
truth….. get a stout Warmist to do this work, do not do it yourself…..is too tedious,
whereas the Warmist will be delighted to clean out global overheating deniers…..JS
tallbloke says:
October 15, 2012 at 10:07 pm
…”it suffices to treat the Sun as a point mass.”
Which is true, and completely irrelevant to the phenomena under discussion by RACookPE1978.
On the contrary, it shows that for dealing with gravitational forces the ‘roiling plasma’picture is irrelevant and we can treat the sun as a point mass.
I am still waiting for the EOO data which does not look to be forthcoming. We can only assume it is dodgy like other aspects of this paper.
Geoff, I know you are very keen…. but I had other things to do, now its 2 am in the
morning and I just sent you an reply to make you happy….JS
To Geoff Sharp: Geoff, the EOO pulsation at both end of the minor axis is the
wave line of our 27-37 ka BP graphic. On it, the vertical temp change is at the same
time the Km- distance change Sun—>End points of the Minor axis., which as I said are
not stiff points, but flexible points.
For my 2013 paper I must provide a lot of astronomics of the Earth’s orbit to explain
the 60-year Scafetta cycle, and this is basic for the understanding of this cycle. I cannot
do it in WUWT comments, it would take to long. My booklet on the subject EOO-cycle
explains it in full and transparently with calculations (108 pages)but its in
German. There are those automatic machine translation of papers nowadays, but
I do not know how the readability afterwards is……
The EOO-cycle is the 556++ growing cosmic orbit cycle (do not listen to Leif, because
he has never heard of it and therefore, it cannot exist, would be his answer) Monckton
classifies this as the ‘argumentum ignorantum” : I never saw an elephant, thats why
elephants do not exist…..Ask him maybe he can explain to you this cycle for bridging
the time to 2013….
He will probably do some “simple” calculations showing that the 556+ orbit cycle is just
an invention of J+L to confuse the public….Thats Life… JS
Tallbloke says : “You have confused Ian Wilson with commenter Ian W. They are two different people.”
Oh, so Ian W is not Dr Ian Wilson who published a few papers in the early 1980’s while a graduate student at ANU, then nothing for 25 years except one paper called “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?” Glad to hear it, as that stops me from insulting Dr Wilson by telling him that he has forgotten all his physics in that 25 years. So we can assume that Ian W is not the same person then, and is not a qualified astrophysicist, which would explain a lot……..
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:12 pm
On the contrary, it shows that for dealing with gravitational forces the ‘roiling plasma’picture is irrelevant and we can treat the sun as a point mass.
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly your technique of misdirection away from the point at issue.
The roiling plasma near the Sun’s surface makes up only a small part of it’s mass. So of course we can navigate spacecraft with sufficient precision using calculations which treat the Sun-as-a-whole as a point mass. This in no way precludes the possibility that all the solar system masses and fields are interlocked in a system of feedbacks which affect boundary-conditions near the solar surface to the extent of producing changes of up to around ~0.3% in its power output and much bigger percentage changes in its output of UV and solar wind speed and density. This is because as well as considering the Sun’s mass, you need to consider its modes of energy production and delivery, and the effect they have on the system as a whole.
I don’t expect you to take just my word for it though. As well as the numerous well written articles on the net amongst the misunderstandings, there is a growing body of published literature explaining various plausible hypotheses which can account for a number of physical mechanisms underlying empirical observations which correlate solar activity levels with planetary mass disposition. There is more on the way, to add to the existing empirical evidence and theory which is already strong enough to refute your misleading objections. There is a growing number of scientists and interested amateur researchers who are not so easily fooled by your false arguments and misdirections. The days of the inviolate lonely Sun unaffected by the system of which it is a part are numbered.
Even blind watchmakers can hear the ticking.
J. Seifert says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:55 pm
The cherry-pick argument was missing until now…picking time has come folks….
Go ahead and pick just one single impact which counters our claim
Impacts up to 20,000 years old, from the Earth impact database (none of them big enough to knock Earth off orbit):
http://www.passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase/Agesort.html
Impact Structures Sorted by Age
Structure Name
Age (Ma)*
Kamil
?
Carancas
0.000004
Sikhote Alin
0.000063
Wabar
0.00014
Haviland
< 0.001
Sobolev
< 0.001
Whitecourt
<0.0011
Campo Del Cielo
< 0.004
Kaalijärv
0.004 ± 0.001
Henbury
0.0042 ± 0.0019
Boxhole
0.0054± 0.0015
Ilumetsä
~ 0.0066
Macha
< 0.007
Morasko
< 0.01
Tenoumer
0.0214 ± 0.0097
Not content with re-writing orbital mechanics, Joachim wants to introduce other 'impacts' that didn't leave craters, and may have been earthquakes, volcanoes or landslips. I don't know enough about geology to know whether the Santorini caldera is the site of an impact which then formed a volcano, and I suspect Joachim doesn't either. But the available evidence seems to indicate that the caldera refilled more than once. Wiki says:
"Volcanism on Santorini is due to the Hellenic Trench subduction zone southwest of Crete. The oceanic crust of the northern margin of the African Plate is being subducted under Greece and the Aegean Sea. which comprises thinned continental crust. The subduction compels the formation of the Hellenic arc, which includes Santorini and other volcanic centres, such as Methana, Milos, and Kos.
Around the time of the radiocarbon-indicated date of the eruption, there is evidence for a significant climatic event in the Northern Hemisphere. The evidence includes failure of crops in China, as well as evidence from tree rings. The tree rings date the climatic event to 1628 BC
The violent eruption was centred on a small island just north of the existing island of Nea Kameni in the centre of the caldera; the caldera itself was formed several hundred thousand years ago by the collapse of the centre of a circular island, caused by the emptying of the magma chamber during an eruption. It has been filled several times by ignimbrite since then, and the process repeated itself, most recently 21,000 years ago. The northern part of the caldera was refilled by the volcano, then collapsing once more during the Minoan eruption.”
So even if the caldera was originally created by an impact, the date does not fit Joachim’s scheme.
“Go ahead and pick just one single impact which counters our claim…”
Joachim,
I already told you there are 28 impacts since 10ky ago that are larger than Kaali. If your theory was any good, you would have been able to detect them all from the data without any further information. The fact is that you only “detected” a few, and several of those “impacts” are not even real (Sirente, Santorino, Helike). You are arguing that:
A) there are atypical temperature changes in a “Z” pattern
B) only orbital changes can cause that change
C) impacts cause orbital changes, therefore
“atypical temperature changes” prove that Helike/Santorino/Sirente/whatever were impacts.
You have nowhere proven assertion B). People here have shown you simple computations showing how that cannot be true, and instead of providing any computations to support your assertion you claim that “simple” calculations cannot be right. The burden of proof rests on whoever is writing a paper. Without that, it is just an unsupported idea.
BTW: you seem to be labouring under the impression that your idea is a climate model. It isn’t: it is simply a set of correlations in a temperature time series. The attribution of the components of the fit to real physical processes is the beginning of a theory. But every process in the attribution must be supported, reasoned, and argued. However, you take offense at most attempts to ask for reasoning and explanation…
PS: You could also find similar correlations in IBM stock prices, but you would have to do more than that to prove to any investor that you knew how to explain the changes in share prices with time.
PPS: You have argued Storegga, before. There are several theories for that, and impact is not at all prominent among them. See Marine and Petroleum Geology 22 (2005) 11–19
PPPS: One last argument that has so far not been pointed out: a 1/1000 change in orbital distance would change the energy reaching Earth by only 2 parts in one-thousand, that is less than 3 W/m2
J. Seifert says:
October 15, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Thanks, Joachim. My comparison does not rest in the slightest on Leif’s calculations. It rests only on my own calculations. I did not use Leif’s calcs at all. My calcs are based on the relative masses. The Earth (6e+24 kg) is ten billion times more massive than even the huge Chicxlub meteor (~ 6e+14 kg), the impact that bopped the dinosaurs on the head.
It’s hard to consider relative masses that huge. So I took a more everyday example. I considered a car. It might have a mass of about a tonne (1,000 kg). One ten-billionth of the mass of the car is a tenth of a milligram (0.0001 grams).
The weight of a midge is on the order of half a milligram. So my example is actually quite accurate. In terms of mass, a car is to a midge as the Earth is to the Chicxlub meteor. In neither case will the impact of the two significantly change the orbit of the larger.
So I’m not making up some imaginary comparison. That’s the actual scale of the masses, ten billion to one. In essence, you are claiming that when a midge hits a car, it changes the course of the car. Well, yes, if you can look on the microscopic level it does, … but only one midge-worth, and that’s laughably small. Not even a measurable amount. Lost in the noise.
To your other points. Have I read the paper? Heck, no. I got as far as your claims about the orbit alterations from cosmic impacts, and only the minor semi-diameter changing as a result. At that point, I found myself unable to read further, because my eyes were rolling and I was shaking my head and laughing all at once … and I fear I never went any further.
You also say:
Ah, my friend, you totally and completely misunderstand me. I thought I had made it clear the second time I explained it, but let me try again, my writing is never as limpid and transparent as my own reading of the words would have it..
What I said was that in their present form, your claims are not falsifiable. I did not say that I could not falsify them. I said that your claims are not capable of being falsified. Why can’t they be falsified? Because they are far too vague and scattered and lacking in numerical specificity. Here’s the example I gave up-thread:
Because of the lack of numerical specificity, your statements are not falsifiable. In other words, in scientific terms they are worthless. Meaningless. Valueless. Purely anecdotal. You need to back up your ideas with the actual calculations that show that your ideas are valid.
Best regards,
w.
To Willis….I always tend to long explications…some people I know always complain.
Now, lets try to be short and concise, 3 points only:
(1) You disrespect empirical knowledge drawn from the Holocene temperature evolution.
You read to end of our paper introduction, clearly recognizing that
competing institutional Warmist -GCMs for the Holocene (read Gavin Schmidt’s work,
we dissected it in detail) are completely below any scientific standards and draw next
to nothing from the Holocene temp evolution. Take our detailed 27-37 ka BP time
span ….. (read, just for comparison the S. Rahmstorf, 2003 and 2002 works on
D-O events:- see refs: he produces a helpless mumbeling that 27-37 kaBP were just
a “mystery”
(2) In your previous works, you showed a sharp sense in dissecting a paper from top
to bottom. This time you opine after you reached the first paragraphs on the
state of-the-art description of the sad Holocene GCM science. This is a 180 degrees
turn, and quality loss….. At this point, I am truely convinced that Leif was stuck under
your bed and released whisperings…
…The inspiration to try to struggle against our great celestial analysis paper came
not by lifting your eyes toward the sky but clearly originates from the opposite
direction somewhere down……..
(3) Each of us took his position now ..we can leave it, like it is….. It WILL BE DECIDED BY
HISTORY, who was on the right camino … whether we were in advance of history and
you are trying to throw sand into its wheel with simpel pocket book calculations, or, the
other way around, you are in advance of history by greasing history’s wheel at the
WUWT blog at Anthony’s and we are the ones who try to throw the spanner into the
gears…
….Time will tell….. let me add the obligatory “but”: The cosmic impact community,
will grow, as does the EOO-cycle. They will identify, measure and assess
more and more impact details over the years, the forcing mechanisms additionally
clearer and history’s wheel momentum will get stronger for us as the time goes by……JS
J. Seifert says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:23 am
To Geoff Sharp: Geoff, the EOO pulsation at both end of the minor axis is the
wave line of our 27-37 ka BP graphic. On it, the vertical temp change is at the same
time the Km- distance change Sun—>End points of the Minor axis., which as I said are
not stiff points, but flexible points.
I do not know how you expect rational criticism of your work when you are not providing the data asked for. I leave the door open that someday you may provide a clear explanation that is open to falsification, you cannot write a paper that has the data missing. Until then your work can not be taken seriously.
I have determined the GISP2 data used in this paper is wrong.
I have graphed the Alley 2000 GISP2 data as available from NOAA. I have confirmed it matches the graphs presented in the paper.
But it has the errors I noted before. I have also graphed the Kobashi 2011 “GISP2 4000-Year Ar-N2 Isotope Temperature Reconstruction” dataset. They do not match.
Since Kobashi is in Years AD I subtracted 1950 per Alley to get Years Before Present (BP).
Kobashi shows a major low at 1100BP, Alley as downloaded shows this about 1200BP. Kobashi has a major peak at 1250BP, and it’s a very steep drop from 1250 to 1100BP. Alley doesn’t show that, with only a gentle sloping down from 1500BP. Kobashi’s highest peak is about 2975BP. The highest of Alley is at 3300BP. Etc.
Also Kobashi has a greater range, about -33.4 to -27.2°C. Over that period, Alley only goes from about -32.2 to -28.7.
I have found confirmation of Kobashi for the time of the Little Ice Age. The dip is easily seen in Kobashi. Alley shows what eyeballs as a gentle curve from a 950BP peak which flattens until a sudden rise starting about 175BP (1775AD).
But as discussed in this January 2012 AGU press release about an (at the time) in-press paper, they examined dead plant samples from under the Baffin Island ice cap and other proxies to get the timing of the LIA onset.
There was a large cluster of “kill dates” between 1275 and 1300 A.D., indicating the plants had been frozen and engulfed by ice during a relatively sudden event.
Kobashi shows significant drops around then.
The team saw a second spike in plant kill dates at about 1450 A.D., indicating the quick onset of a second major cooling event.
The Kobashi data shows a high point at 1448AD (504BP) then suddenly dropping about 1.7°C by 1469AD (481BP).
Link to paper’s paywall. Abstract says: “Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD.” Between this paper and Kobashi there’s roughly only a 10-20 year difference.
I noted before how the Alley download had many instances where a time is repeated with a different temperature. If those are where the time should have increased, given the spacing it could explain how the timing is different from Kobashi, with the differences growing further back in time (further down in the Alley download file).
But Alley is also lacking in features that Kobashi has, such as the LIA and assorted peaks and lows.
Thus I have determined that Alley 2000, by the version available for download, which matches the graphs in the Seifert and Lemke paper, is wrong.
With Alley being flawed in timing compared to Kobashi, and this paper relying on the timing of cycles and cosmic impacts with regards to Alley, this paper must also be flawed, as it argues it is in good agreement with a flawed temperature record.
Quick Addendum to previous post:
Alley 2000 was only compared to Kobashi 2011 over the period covered by Kobashi. Thus when I said of the peaks “The highest of Alley is at 3300BP” that refers to that period, not the entire record. Etc.
tallbloke says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:27 am
you need to consider its modes of energy production and delivery, and the effect they have on the system as a whole.
Is just hand waving. And the energy is produced in the core from which it takes 250,000 years to diffuse out of the radiative interior
The days of the inviolate lonely Sun unaffected by the system of which it is a part are numbered.
They have been numbered for at least 150 years with no end in sight.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 16, 2012 at 12:27 am
Tallbloke says : “You have confused Ian Wilson with commenter Ian W. They are two different people.”
Oh, so Ian W is not Dr Ian Wilson who published a few papers in the early 1980′s while a graduate student at ANU, then nothing for 25 years except one paper called “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?” Glad to hear it, as that stops me from insulting Dr Wilson by telling him that he has forgotten all his physics in that 25 years. So we can assume that Ian W is not the same person then, and is not a qualified astrophysicist, which would explain a lot……..
You really should have more respect. Ian is doing a lot of good work. In comparison you are yet to rise above troll status.
Ian’s website below.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/
Ray says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm
I also believe that astronomical cycles affect the long term climate rather than the idea that short term events cause ‘runaway positive feedback’ to cause major long term climate change.
My comments to follow are offered respectfully.
I am skeptical about the hypothesis of Earth Orbital Oscillations. There seems to be a preponderance of astronomical studies and calculations that such a cycle does not exist and you offer no explanation or citations to support this idea. Astronomical proof is needed to support this. Without further proof, this is just an unsupported and questionable hypothesis. Perhaps there is another astronomical pattern that is causing the climate cycle that you are observing.
I have done the <b<astronomical proof. There is no correlation between an Earth orbital oscillation frequency and climate frequencies, but there is indeed a strong correlation between the astronomical function of the solar tide function of Earth, Mercury and Jupiter, and the global sea level oscillations as measured by the known satellites:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_me_er_ju.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_solar_tides_me.gif
It can be seen that the main effect is phase coherent with the astronomical heliocentric synodic Mercury/Earth tide function.
.“Reply to Volker Doormann:
We are peers on this website and you are the good, star gazing, esoterical ASTROLOGICAL guy…I know, Pluto told you all, stars do not lie and because Saturn crossed the Venus line, the discussion paper must have many flaws….. My climate peers, Doormann has spoken…JS”
This attitude is unprofessional and detracts from your efforts to put forth an unbiased scientific proof of your theories. The “trolls” on this blog that you criticize are seen by us all as being “trolls”. When you lower yourself to that level, you also appear to us as being a “troll”. Do not lower yourself to that level. Stay above the fray and remain calm, cool, and professional.
As all students of philosophy learn in the first semester is the fallacy of the McCarthy judge, who has argued that the physical work of a Russian scientist cannot be have any worth, because he is a communist. To be professional it is necessary to look on the argument *) and not on that what people talk bad about the speaker of the argument. You lower yourself, if you take such comments for true in that way, that you see for the criticised person bad talk, but not for the arguments.
*) The argument was given (above) in a graph that shows that the temperature reconstructions over millennia like (A. Moberg or E. Zorita) have fundamental periods of about 913 years and not 790 years as J. Seifert claims in his book.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_seifert_790.gif
V.
Derived?? DERIVED??? Now that is a weasel word used by CO2 proponents! So let’s take this to its logical conclusion. You “derive” (coughcough) that some magical emminance from the barycenter (hackhack) is somehow more powerful than puny CO2, more powerful than mighty clouds capable of mitigating shortwave IR, more powerful than vast oceans in the capacity to absorb and move heat energy from one place to the next on our planet, more powerful than overwhelming ocean moving winds, and more powerful than tall buildings and short BBQ’s in their sensor changing abilities to affect Earth’s temperatures around floating and stationary temperature sensors. If your barycenter derived “number” is that powerful, it must, it MUST be calculated into landing trajectories of space craft on distant planets and space travels. That your “number” is not, proves you…WRONG! You have falsified your own theory.
That IRISH enough for you? Hm?
Volker Doormann says:
October 16, 2012 at 6:37 am
*) The argument was given (above) in a graph that shows that the temperature reconstructions over millennia like (A. Moberg or E. Zorita) have fundamental periods of about 913 years and not 790 years as J. Seifert claims in his book.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_seifert_790.gif
Trying to fit the temperature or solar record into a fixed repeating cycle will never work. Solar down turns linked with climate proxies do not follow strict repeating patterns, so any attempt to filter these trends will be wasted. As described to Willis some time ago the mechanism is fluctuating over an 80 year time period that repeats every 172 years that produces solar downturns of infinite combinations but still clusters around the 172 year average. So much time has been wasted by many chasing the elusive sine wave that never quite fits.
To Geoff and your Volker Doormann reply: Our present EOO-790 year cycle period
[you ask for details on EOO-cycle calculations] is put as being a CONSTANT by
Doormann into the past….. Volker did this on his own.on his website..this is not correct,
because EOO-cycles are growing [as identified in chapter 2] and the most visible prove
for this growth is our figure concerning the 27-37-ka BP time span. Over this time, the
EOOcycle grows from already having reached 1,300 years, to a 1,650 years period
into the past…. (the shortest EOO cycle is at its minimum length at about 7,000 BC
(556+ yr-cosmic cycle length), from where EOO cycles periods get longer both into the
future and into the past….JS
AND! Just for giggles, what is the energy capacity of your (gag) derived calculation? In joules please.
And I got more!
Pamela Gray says:
October 16, 2012 at 8:06 am
We are all using the same data Pamela, the “barycenter crowd” as you call it do not have their own exclusive data. The derived value is not a weasel word, the JPL values have a standard formula not questioned by science applied that produces an outcome that Leif will not refute.
If you require the exact formula it is available in my paper.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/173
Just in case I type something like “JI%*)%&*ytuji” and what I meant was “think”, or go beyond acceptable discourse and let a “damn” slip out, it’s because I am home with a cold and filled with cough syrup and hot toddies. Hell, I had to fix this little post a dozen times!
Geoff Sharp says:
October 16, 2012 at 8:20 am
the JPL values have a standard formula not questioned by science applied that produces an outcome that Leif will not refute.
The JPL data is not in question, the relevance of the stuff derived from it is. As Shirley [who is a planetary effect enthusiast] points out “”The freely falling orbital motion of the Sun is unable to supply the required moment arm at any location; there are no differentials of force or acceleration within the Sun arising solely due to the orbital revolution” http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRAS.pdf so the whole Angular Momentum calculation is moot as also Carsten showed here on WUWT some time ago.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 16, 2012 at 8:11 am
period that repeats every 172 years that produces solar downturns of infinite combinations but still clusters around the 172 year average.
Just for the record you could answer the following:
Should we enter a Maunder type Grand Minimum the next few cycles, that will falsify your theory, right?
Geoff Sharp says:
October 16, 2012 at 8:11 am
period that repeats every 172 years that produces solar downturns of infinite combinations but still clusters around the 172 year average.
Another quote from Shirley’s [who is from JPL, btw] paper:
“Thus, there can be no relative acceleration of any two constituent particles of the body of the Sun that is solely due to the revolution of the Sun about the Solar System barycentre and the spin-orbit coupling hypothesis […] must be discarded”