Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
We have the ill-fated stillborn Copernicus Special Edition as an example of how those authors went about analyzing the possible effects of astronomical cycles. Let me put up a contrasting example, which is The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change. Heck, it’s even got “cycle” in the title. Please be clear that I am not advocating for this study. or saying that this explains how the climate works. Instead, I am offering it as an example of a reasonable paper showing a real scientific investigation of the effect of sun-moon-earth cycles and conjunctions on the climate. From the abstract:
We propose that such abrupt millennial changes [rapid global cooling], seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon.
A well defined 1,800-year tidal cycle is associated with gradually shifting lunar declination from one episode of maximum tidal forcing on the centennial time-scale to the next. An amplitude modulation of this cycle occurs with an average period of about 5,000 years, associated with gradually shifting separation-intervals between perihelion and syzygy at maxima of the 1,800-year cycle.
We propose that strong tidal forcing causes cooling at the sea surface by increasing vertical mixing in the oceans. On the millennial time-scale, this tidal hypothesis is supported by findings, from sedimentary records of ice-rafting debris, that ocean waters cooled close to the times predicted for strong tidal forcing.
And here is their Figure 1, showing the peak tidal strengths for the last several hundred years:
So why do I like this analysis of cycles, and yet I was so scathing about the analyses of cycles in the Copernicus Special Edition? The answer is simple: science, science, science.
First off, they make a clear statement of their claim—they propose that periodic changes in the strength of the oceanic tides affect the global temperature.
Next, they propose a mechanism—the strong tides stir up the deeper, colder ocean waters and bring them to the surface, cooling the globe.
Next, they connect the astronomical cycles to the earth through recognized and well understood calculations. There is no fitting of parameters, no messing with fractions. There is no mention of golden ratios, Titius Bode “law” calculations, the music of the spheres, or the planetary Hum. Just mathematical calculations of the strength of the tidal-raising forces, such as those shown in Figure 1. They’ve cited their data source in the caption. Note that what they show is the accurately calculated strength of a real measurable physical force, and not some theoretical superposition of some mystical confluence of the orbital periods of random planets.
And finally, they offer observational evidence to support their claim.
Hypothesis, proposed mechanism, mathematical calculations without tunable parameters, identified data, clear methods, observational evidence … plain old science, what’s not to like.
Now, is their claim right? Do strong tides stir up the oceans and bring cooler water to the surface? I have no clue, although it certainly sounds plausible, and the forces are of the right order of magnitude. I haven’t looked into it, and even if true, it’s a side issue in my world. But it may well be true, and they’ve made their scientific case for it.
Like I said, I offer this simply as an example to assist folks in differentiating between science on the one hand, and what went on in far too much of the Copernicus Special Issue on the other hand.
w.
PS—While code and data as used would have been a bonus, this was published in 2000, which is about a century ago in computer years. However, I think I could recreate their results purely from their paper, in part because the mechanisms and calculations for planetary locations and orbits and tidal forces are well understood. So it’s not like trying to replicate Michael Mann’s Hockeystick paper of the same era, which could not be done until the code was published …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is there a correlation between those dates and events on earth? Interesting premise to say the least.
I agree, astronomical cycles are interesting. There is no debate about forcing or TSI or whatever. They are all about Newtonian mechanics. Personally, I can’t imagine that the movements of the planets around the sun DO NOT cause deltas of planetary angular momentum and if you change the angular momentum of the earth, now can it NOT cause a disruption or change in ocean currents?
Will these attacks on that journal now be a regular feature of this blog? Can I expect this to be like the Friday Funny feature and see some further attacks from Willis once a week?
I am amazed at Willis and his spewing bile over the Physics journal over and over. Amazed.
Ugh, sorry but there is *way* too much going on in that one graph. I don’t really get what it is supposed to illustrate?
Willis
You affirm steps:
“they make a clear statement of their claim”
” they propose a mechanism”
“connect the astronomical cycles to the earth through recognized and well understood calculations”
” offer observational evidence to support their claim.”
Hypothesizing by analogy:
Extrapolating the results of this paper would suggest a corresponding stirring of fluid layers in the Sun by the Jovian planets moving about the barycenter.
Compare Wilson et al 2008 where they find spin-orbit coupling, but at the time they were unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause.
Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle? Wilson et al. Pub. Astronomical Soc. Australia, 2008
There may be further evidence of such tidal variations visible in total solar radiation, solar UV, and/or sunspots, or the heliosphere.
the book “Climate Change in Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas” Prof Ivan Frolov & ors Praxis Publishing 2009 suggests that planetary gravitation may play a part. They suggest this as a theory without giving any opinion. That book also examines the role of CO2 and human emissions and conclude such matters are not relevant. They describe the 60 year cycle and conclude that Arctic ice will increase from about 2010. That seems now to be the case, although a year or two late. The authors are from the St Petersburg Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute.
Oh the Irony – the 1st author is Charles D. Keeling!!!! When most are blaiming the “Keeling curve” for earth warming, Keeling, himself, was thinking more about tides. You miss that one Willis? Thank you for the article.
I.R.G. Wilson published a followup 2013: The Venus–Earth–Jupiter spin–orbit coupling model
Willis
It is very interesting and an area where I have done some work. Whenever the Moon passes over the North American continent lifts by 2 inches. We have measured the variation in the gravity field directly with extremely sensitive accelerometers. Don’t know if they are right, but the science is good…
[snip – uncalled for sniping -mod]
I was referring to the “The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause
of rapid climate change” article, of course… Willis, you have to write in BOLD that this article was, indeed, written by Keeling!
I think the tidal forcing of climate is an important dynamic that is often overlooked. MITs Carl Wunsch has determined that winds and tides are the only forces capable of redirecting currents. The graph reminds me of a 2000 paper by Dr Keeling (famous for his graph of CO2 concentrations. He too was a proponent of tidal forces to explain cooling events that that were not aligned with changing CO2. He wrote “We propose that strong tidal forcing causes cooling at the sea surface by increasing vertical mixing in the oceans. On the millennial time-scale, this tidal hypothesis is supported by findings, from sedimentary records of ice-rafting debris, that ocean waters cooled close to the times predicted for strong tidal forcing.”
Read The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change. PNAS, April 11, 2000, vol. 97, no. 8.
My only problem with that theory is cooling would only happen in the subtropical and tropical oceans. In the polar regions tidal action would bring warmer waters to the surface. I suspect the Dansgaard Oecshger warming events were due to tidal caused warming.
syzygy!
Great Scrabble word! 🙂
Any author using ‘syzgy’ gets my vote of confidence. Next scrabble game look out!
Hmm, 1974 was also (arguably) the inflection point for going from cooling to warming. I wonder if there’s a relationship there with Point C.
That said, none of the points, or any combination of the points correlate with a ~sixty year cycle, so while there could be an effect, it is not the whole story.
As I am yet to see an actual reasonable scientifically-founded refutation of the recently much talked about patterns in physics papers, I am amazed at the amount of hatred that keeps pouring their way.
Easily one of the more intriguing
climate papers by Keeling.
It makes sense, and would explain a
lot(including the current cooling).
Close on the heels of the closure of a journal in which some skeptics presented their arguments, the science category for blog awards–dominated by skeptical bloggers–has been eliminated.
It seems to me–pace Willis–that the real issue is not whether Willis or others agrees with or respects the quality of the journal Patterns in Physics, but that discussion is being stifled in the name of orthodoxy of ideas, methodology and claimed results.
Like the Cardinals of the Catholic church in the time of Galileo, experts are setting themselves up to censor and censure others whose views they do not agree with.
In the matter of climate alarmism, I am a skeptic. I do not think the sky is falling and I am not off to see the King or even to tell the President. I follow WUWT and a dozen other climate blogs.
Based on my own study of climate over the last 50 years–including MA in geography and MS in Earth Science–my opinion is that more than half of both alarmist and skeptical blogs is rubbish. Worst of all are the alarmist journalists who seem willing to stoop to anything for a headline..
Both alarmist and skeptical bloggers are only marginally worse than the IPCC, including the political summaries. Cherry pickers whether peer-reviewed or not thrive within the ranks of the IPCC.
Willis and others are probably right to criticize papers in the banned journal as below their standards for doing science. But they miss the point: the journal was banned to silence a heresy, not because of its quality or because of allowing pal review. That is what the CEO of Copernicus wrote as his reason for closing the journal. I assume Willis and others read the first letter he wrote before he added the charge of “nepotism” (sic).
I’m a bit thick today. While planetary and lunar gravity may lift oceans to give us tides how can this effect cause vertical mixing? As I understand it the oceans under these gravity effects could simply expand. If this is the case, would not this simply reduce pressure at all depths? There would have to be another effect to cause vertical mixing. Do oceans currents modify sufficiently, at depth, to cause the mixing?
Perhaps so, but so is the article. The most recent of several from the W. Do you guys ever get tired of looking the other way?
Told you I was thick! Tides are just water sloshing around; producing different water column heights. Perhaps the mixing also has a “horizontal dragging” element…….
This article makes no sense to me on the face of it.
But it makes a whole lot of sense when you consider the broad context.
So our climate fate depends on the alignments of the heavenly bodies. We are doomed. It’s in the stars.
Wow , . . . my goodness . . .
is it possible that so much of our weather from year to year, or even decade to decade, is in large part the moon or planets . . . ?
. .does that mean . . that . .’ughh ‘ . . CO2 might not have a GREAT effect . . .
. does that mean, that trying to cut CO2 won’t have MUCH OF ANY EFFECT ? !? !? !
. .OMG . . IT”S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT . .! ! ! ! 🙂 🙂 🙂
( .I sure hope I DON’T have to put ‘SARC” after this . . . uuhhh, OK . . SSSAARRCC ! ! ! )
I think I agree with Pointman’s summation of the situation.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/cool-it/