by Vincent Courtillot, Jean-Louis Le Mouel and Fernando Lopes
Sources of variability of some terrestrial and solar phenomena.
As former members of the geomagnetism department at IPGP (Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris), we have always retained an interest in solar-terrestrial relationships. Being in charge of geophysical observatories, we have always paid the foremost attention to long series of observations and as a consequence to methods of time series analysis. As of some five years ago, we have undertaken a systematic study of several long series of observations recorded around the globe (“long” means from several decades up to three centuries).
The research program has been quite productive, with the publication of some 24 articles in the past five years (all freely available online; references at the end of this note). The papers have been published in a very diverse set of journals, mostly in geophysics and astrophysics (in a broad sense). Because we came from the solid Earth geophysics community, it was not always easy at first to be recognized. Thus, we published in those journals where our French IPCC colleagues published, such as Cryosphere or Earth and Planetary Science Letters, MDPI or Frontiers. As a result, readers may have found it uneasy to grasp the wider picture. This short note is intended to try and draw this wider picture, to stress some of its consequences in the spirit of the paper’s title, and to give full references to the papers published in the frame of the program.
We have first determined the spectral content of many long series of observations, using either the Wavelet Method (WM) or Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA). These series include global mean temperature and pressure of the lower atmosphere, a number of climate-related indices, solar activity through sunspots, length of the day, geomagnetic indices, extent of high latitude sea-ice, and more…
SSA allows one to decompose (in a way that a posteriori makes sense) a time series into a smooth trend and a series of components characterized by specific periodicities or pseudo-periods, based on which the series can be filtered and reconstructed.
We first applied the method to the series of sunspot numbers. The series could be satisfactorily reconstructed from simply a (rather flat) trend and two components with periods 11 years (Schwabe cycle) and 90 years (Gleissberg cycle). More interestingly, these components allow one to construct a precise and robust model of solar activity and to predict (so far rather accurately) the ongoing sunspot cycle and beyond [ref 1, 2, 3].
We have next determined the SSA components of the length of day (or Earth’s rotation velocity) and motions of our planet’s pole of rotation. To the Schwabe and Gleissberg cycles could thus be added the Hale (~22 years) and Jose (~160 years) cycles [ref 4, 5, 6]. We also analyzed tide gauges and sea-level change [ref 7, 8]. In all these series we could recognize the signatures of the four Jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune): i.e. their periods of rotation and many of their “commensurable” periods. This argues for a mechanism involving exchanges of angular momentum between the Sun, Earth and planets. Variations in the inclination of the rotation axis due to this coupling in turn affect insolation, much in the way exemplified by Milankovic cycles at much longer periods (from tens of thousands to millions of years). We propose to extend the concept of Milankovic cycles to the much shorter periods we have analyzed [ref 9, 10].
The main components mentioned above are common (in whole or in part) to all the series we have analyzed [ref 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]. The fact that these series of components are found in the rotational mechanics of the planets and in many Earth-bound phenomena argues for a causal (forcing) relationship that can only work one way. The components one finds in sea level, pressure, temperature… must arise from a causal chain going (1) from Jovian planets to the Sun
(or directly to Earth), then (2) to inclination changes in Earth’s rotation axis, with (3) consequences on insolation changes (therefore climate), sea level and tides [ref 8, 10, 17].
We note that trends could actually correspond to still other pseudo-periodic components with much longer pseudo-periods (longer than the data interval). As a result, we argue that a very large part of the geophysical and atmospheric variations covered by the series we have analyzed appear to have an external origin (astronomical or gravitational). The perturbing effects of the giant planets correspond to a remarkable set of frequencies [ref 5, 19] that modulate (force) solar activity, variations in inclination of the Earth’s rotation, many terrestrial parameters among which sea level, oceanographic indices, sea – ice and finally temperature. These components have in general not yet been modeled. These works shed light and are in turn illuminated by the works of giants, the Legendre, Laplace, Lagrange and Poisson, who revolutionized geophysics [ref 25, 26, 27, 28]. The core of their elegant physics explains well the careful observations gathered in the past 200 years.
The first results of our research program have been discussed in an informal seminar at the Paris Academy of Sciences last May. Some 20 academy members attended and a lively open discussion followed. We hope this open, truly scientific attitude prevails.
About the authors. Vincent Courtillot (courtil@ipgp.fr) and Jean-Louis Le Mouël are both emeriti professors of Geophysics at University of Paris, members of the Paris Academy of Sciences and former directors of Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris. Fernand Lopes (lopesf@ipgp.fr), also formerly at IPGP, now at Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, is a Research Engineer with a PhD in geophysics and a specialty in computing, inverse problems and time series analysis.
JC note: This is an important body of work, addressing many “known unknowns” in the climate system. I encourage you to pick a paper, read it, and comment on it.
Papers published in the frame of this research :
• [ref 1] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2017). Identification of Gleissberg cycles and a rising trend in a 315-year-long series of sunspot numbers. Solar Physics, 292(3), 43.
• [ref 2] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2020). Solar turbulence from sunspot records. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492(1), 1416-1420.
• [ref 3] Courtillot, V., Lopes, F., Le Mouël, J. L. (2021). On the prediction of solar cycles. Solar Physics, 296, 1-23.
• [ref 4] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D. (2019). On forcings of length of day changes: From 9-day to 18.6-year oscillations. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 292, 1-11.
• [ref 5] Lopes, F., Le Mouël, J. L., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D. (2021). On the shoulders of Laplace. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 316, 106693.
• [ref 6] Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D., Mouël, J. L. L. (2022). On two formulations of polar motion and identification of its sources. Geosciences, 12(11), 398.
• [ref 7] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2021). Sea-Level Change at the Brest (France) Tide Gauge and the Markowitz Component of Earth’s Rotation. Journal of Coastal Research, 37(4), 683-690.
• [ref 8] Courtillot, V., Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Gibert, D. (2022). On sea-level change in coastal areas. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(12), 1871.
• [ref 9] Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D., Le Mouël, J. L. (2022). Extending the range of milankovic cycles and resulting global temperature variations to shorter periods (1–100 year range). Geosciences, 12(12), 448.
• [ref 10] Courtillot, V., Lopes, F., Gibert, D., Boulé, J. B., Le Mouël, J. L. (2023). On variations of global mean surface temperature: When Laplace meets Milankovi\’c. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03442. (in sub)
• [ref 11] Courtillot, V., Le Mouël, J. L., Kossobokov, V., Gibert, D., Lopes, F. (2013). Multi- decadal trends of global surface temperature: A broken line with alternating~ 30 yr linear segments?. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 3, 364-371.
• [ref 12] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2019). A solar signature in many climate indices. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124(5), 2600-2619.
• [ref 13] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2019). Singular spectral analysis of the aa and Dst geomagnetic indices. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124(8), 6403-6417.
• [ref 14] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., & Courtillot, V. (2020). Characteristic time scales of decadal to centennial changes in global surface temperatures over the past 150 years. Earth and Space Science, 7(4), e2019EA000671.
• [ref 15] Dumont, S., Le Mouël, J. L., Courtillot, V., Lopes, F., Sigmundsson, F., Coppola, D., … Bean, C. J. (2020). The dynamics of a long-lasting effusive eruption modulated by Earth tides. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 536, 116145.
• [ref 16] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2021). A strong link between variations in sea-ice extent and global atmospheric pressure?. The Cryosphere Discussions, 1-28.
• [ref 17] Lopes, F., Zuddas, P., Courtillot, V., Le Mouël, J. L., Boulé, J. B., Maineult, A., Gèze, M. (2021). Milankovic Pseudo-cycles Recorded in Sediments and Ice Cores Extracted by Singular Spectrum Analysis. Climate of the Past Discussions, 1-17.
• [ref 18] Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., & Le Mouël, J. L. (2022). Triskeles and Symmetries of Mean Global Sea-Level Pressure. Atmosphere, 13(9), 1354.
• [ref 19] Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D., Le Mouël, J. L., Boulé, J.B (2022). On pseudo- periodic perturbations of planetary orbits, and oscillations of Earth’s rotation and revolution: Lagrange’s formulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07213.
• [ref 20] Courtillot, V., Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Gibert, D. (2022). On the nature and origin of atmospheric annual and semi-annual oscillations. Atmosphere, 13(11), 1907.
• [ref 21] Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D., Mouël, J. L. L. (2023). On the annual and semi-annual components of variations in extent of Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice. Geosciences, 13(1), 21.
• [ref 22] Le Mouël, J. L., Gibert, D., Courtillot, V., Dumont, S., Ars, J., Petrosino, S., … Geze, M. (2023). On the external forcing of global eruptive activity in the past 300 years. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09564. (just accepted in Frontiers in Geosciences)
• [ref 23] Courtillot, V., Boulé, J. B., Le Mouël, J. L., Gibert, D., Zuddas, P., Maineult, A., … & Lopes, F. (2023). A living forest of Tibetan Juniper trees as a new kind of astronomical and geophysical observatory. arXiv e-prints, arXiv-2306. (in sub)
• [ref 24] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D., & Boulé, J. B. (2023). Is the earth’s magnetic field a constant? a legacy of Poisson. Geosciences, 13(7), 202.
From the above article:
“We first applied the method to the series of sunspot numbers. The series could be satisfactorily reconstructed from simply a (rather flat) trend and two components with periods 11 years (Schwabe cycle) and 90 years (Gleissberg cycle). More interestingly, these components allow one to construct a precise and robust model of solar activity and to predict (so far rather accurately) the ongoing sunspot cycle and beyond.”
(my bold emphasis added)
Unfortunately, the regularity of the “11 year” sunspot cycle is not at all like the clockwork of planetary orbits. Observational records of sunspot activity over the last three centuries show the sunspot activity cycle (from one solar min to the next solar min) has varied erratically in length from as short as nine years to as long as fourteen years. A range of 9 to 14 years is a variation of +/- 22% about the mean.
Further on:
“This argues for a mechanism involving exchanges of angular momentum between the Sun, Earth and planets. Variations in the inclination of the rotation axis due to this coupling in turn affect insolation . . .”
AFAIK, any possible temporal variation in solar energy received by Earth TOA due to very slight changes in Earth’s inclination (obliquity of the ecliptic) is considered to be insignificant compared to more dominate factors such as Earth’ orbital eccentricity and variations in the Sun’s absolute magnitude (beyond the variation solely due to sunspot darkening).
Bottom line: the above article does not offer a precise model of exactly how any angular momentum exchange from solar system planets directly affects sunspots or Earth’s inclination.
Natural variability. Do notconfuse the causes with the effects. Within the system there are various capacitances and inductive loops to modulate the effects.
For one degree change,you cause near ten percent chance in the temperature swing at mid latitudes. I think I remember doing that calculation in my head while driving a long road.
Whee!! Electric Universe. Discuss.
But their current model is mostly good enough for government work.
“(from one solar min to the next solar min)”
Periodicity doesn’t necessarily imply you know the peaks and valleys. As you say, natural variation plays a part. The peaks and valleys can be closer/further apart while the periodicity remains.
Hmmm . . . since gravity is the force that causes interactions (as asserted in the above article, exchanges of angular momentum) between the Sun, Earth and Jovian planets, you may be onto a breakthrough in unifying gravity and electromagnetic fields. 😉
Hmmm . . . Earth’s obliquity of the ecliptic is currently at about 23.4° and is decreasing 0.013 degrees every hundred years because of planetary perturbations. If you assertion is true, we would expect 0.013*10 = 0.13 % change in mid-latitude temperature every century just to this effect. Given that Earth’s current global average temperature is about 14.8 C (288 K), a 0.13% swing in that absolute temperature would be about 0.37 C. Thus, based on your remembered calculation, Earth’s changing inclination accounts for 0.37 C/century of global warming.
Now the IPCC is all atwitter over the catastrophe that will befall Earth if it warms 1.5 C above pre-industrial global temperature and admits that we’ve already accumulated about 1.0 C of that warming (of course, blamed on mankind’s CO2 emissions). Thus, they should be very worried about that inevitable 0.37 C/century warming.
As to the remainder of your post, I comment not.
Also from the above article:
That mechanism remains unexplained in this precis, and their one reference that seems to deal with the problem, utilises the term “seems like” at a critical point in their summary.
If gravity was enough, the Dark Mutterers would not need to invent new Dark Stuff for every gap between theory and observed facts.
It was the fact that visible matter (and even dark interstellar dust clouds) could not explain the gravitational attraction needed to keep galaxies from “flying apart” at the rates they were observed to be rotating that led directly to the concept of dark matter.
There is not a “deficiency” of gravity and, for the above article, gravitational force alone is the postulated mechanism for the transfer of angular momentum between bodies in the solar system . . . unless I completely misunderstood the article (i.e., I did not find an appeal to dark matter with the solar system).
I was pointing out that the precis above expresses uncertainty about the entire mechanism of planetary interference, and that the solution may be more readily extracted from electrodynamics than pure gravitational theory, an incomplete theory currently begging support from the stupid, stupid concept of Dark Stuff.
Oh, by the way.
Of course, only with direct north-south tracking, which almost never happens, it sort of swings around.
You know, I never bothered to check my work, but you seem to get to a number very much in the ballpark of what is regularly said here by people much cleverer than me, so…our cause differs, our results agree?
They don’t propose a single model … they provide a scientific and historical review of works over the last 200 years that suggest the extraterrestrial influences have a significant effect on climate and other aspects of how our planet behaves.
From the fourth full paragraph of the above article:
“More interestingly, these components allow one to construct a precise and robust model of solar activity and to predict (so far rather accurately) the ongoing sunspot cycle and beyond”
(my bold emphasis added)
AFAIK, that IS proposing a single model that incorporates their findings.
@ToldYouSo
That is not how science works.
First you make measurements and collect data of real world phenomena.
Then you say hmm, I wonder if this idea is true.
To do this you create a model to test your idea against the data.
When collecting data there is no requirement to have an a priori model.
Models however precise are not data.
From the fourth full paragraph of the above article:
“More interestingly, these components allow one to construct a precise and robust model of solar activity and to predict (so far rather accurately) the ongoing sunspot cycle and beyond”
(my bold emphasis added)
It appears they are already using their “precise and robust” model . . . although the above article does not indicate the numerical accuracy of that model in hindcasting the ~300 years of observational data.
A simple graph showing the fit of their model’s hindcasts to the actual sunspot cycles or to measured variations in Earth’s obliquity of the ecliptic over that time period would have been nice to see . . . but alas.
I’ll give you a hint:
Look for Theodor Landscheidt and angular momentum !
https://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/11000-year-c14-graph-lines-up-perfectly-with-angular-momentum-graph/
https://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/52
http://bourabai.ru/landscheidt/relationship.htm
Did you actually closely examine the topmost graph in the first Landscheidt article that you linked???
If so, you would see that the table of maximum angular momentum values has entries that DO NOT “line up perfectly with the peaks in solar sunspot numbers”. In fact some of those maximum momentum values coincide with sunspot numbers below the Sharp Grand Minima Line that is indicated on the graph.
Speaking of hints:
“Test all things; hold fast what is good.”
— Bible, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NKJV)
And take that in addition:
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/DecadalEnso.htm
I think that what they are saying is that when you take all the factors into consideration, what appears to be an unpredictably variable-length pseudo-cycle becomes predictable. There is not one sole factor driving sunspot activity like clockwork, but there are perhaps numerous clockwork-like mechanisms that combine to produce a predictable variable effect.
I think this sub-thread has got stuck on predicting sun cycles (which has become quite a precise art) while the actual article, hence issue at hand, is Geophysical Effects, in other words, they affirm one of my favourite conspiracy theories, namely that the celestial bodies have noticeable and often dramatic effect upon the biosphere, by which I mean everything from the top of atmosphere to the planetary core, i.e. earthquakes are also weather,and the weather is severely affected by tectonics, which are affected by “gravity” from other planets…but they don’t go that far?
I tend to agree with you — lack of mechanisms (as revealed and tested through models) is always problematic in science.
Thank you. It always refreshing to get an objective reply . . . they are so few and far between these days!
The sunspot model is fairly well built, a number of regular contributors here have shown us the numbers. It is more accurate than, say, any financial model I’ve ever seen, and it’s one of the longest useful astronomical series we have, I think. People did detailed pen sketches of sunspots before they knew what it was.
Vincent Courtillot Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, France
Jean-Louis Le Mouel Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, France
Well, I think we all have some reading to do before we spout off!
Settled science, eh
Story tip
“”University students should be forced to study climate change alongside their degrees, the new president of the British Science Association has said.Professor Dame Jane Francis””
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/make-university-students-study-climate-change-says-science-chief-rmzcwhpmb
Are they going to study climate change, or climate change propaganda?
Studying the climate would be a good thing. If they actually looked for the evidence they would find there is no evidence establishing human-caused climate change is real, and they could calm down a little. That would also be a good thing.
If they are doing it as well as taking their degree subject(s) it will only be climate change propaganda.
Isn’t climate part of geology, the study of the Earth?
In a sane alternative universe it is. In this timeline it’s in the political science or philosophy department.
What a moniker you have chosen scvblwxq! Can’t even guess at what it could mean.
As per all liberal “education” proposals, this plan is to employ more liberals to “train” possible realists to believe crap.
Think of all the training that governments and corporations are required to provide for “equity, inclusion, etc., every trainer being a graduate of a “basket weaving” program paid for by “student loans” that pay liberals to teach such basket weaving courses, yet another liberal full employment scam.
“basket weaving” = degree that produces no positive value to society.
Very interesting.
Some time ago I also became aware of this paper by Keeling and Whorf 1997 PNAS concerning ocean tide effects on climate.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/6238/chapter/10
Interesting that they find a 90-year Gleissberg cycle in sunspot records. NASA found an 88-year cycle in ancient Egyptian Nile records and Norse aurora records of the same period. More recently, an 80-year cycle has been found in eastern Australia flood and rainfall records. Presumably, all are the Gleissberg cycle, but which is the correct length? Or has the length – like the “11-year” sunspot cycle – actually been variable? Is a cycle with a variable length difficult to detect with Courtillot et al’s WM and SSA methods?
“Or has the length – like the “11-year” sunspot cycle – actually been variable?”
Good question.
min-to-min or max-to-mas is not necessarily a good way to measure periodicity. The lengths of man-to-min and max-to-max depend on the rise time and fall time of each cycle which can be different due to natural variability and other external causes.
But I thought the science experts told us that only one single parameter controls Earth’s climate, that CO2 is THE temperature control knob, and that “the science is settled”?
Here’s a clue, warmunist doofuses (and it is obvious that you don’t have a clue):
“Everything looks simple when you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
The Earth and the solar system and the galaxy and the universe, and the micro levels of physics down to particle level, constitute a marvelously complex interdependent system of systems that we are only just beginning to understand.
Nothing is ever simple.
“But I thought the science experts told us that only one single parameter controls Earth’s climate, that CO2 is THE temperature control knob, and that “the science is settled”?”
Some people are saying that, but I wouldn’t call them science experts.
A science expert would not present speculation, assumptions and assertions as being facts.
I am decidedly unfamiliar with geophysics. However, I do have a passing familiarity with time series and as an EE, frequency analysis. The current “scientific” climate studies that are based on temperature through daily averages, monthly averages, 30-year averages, ΔT averages, and simple linear regressions leave much to be desired in dealing with a cyclic phenomenon. These averages plaster over so much information it is simply not funny.
One cannot simply deny that the earth exists in a complicated universe with a multitude of cyclic pieces that come together in what can best be described as chaotic. This analysis of various effects through time series analysis, to find the frequencies that exist should not be summarily dismissed. The fact that some cycles vary in wavelength is not a reason to say they don’t exist. I am old enough to have built vacuum tube oscillators. Anyone who has tried to stabilize one of these knows how easy it is to cause varying frequencies. Natural cycles are not any different, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I look forward to seeing more studies using frequency analysis to understand this natural world we live in.
Your comments resonate with me too.
I am in the same camp. Fix frequencies of oscillations might be the exception when outside influences are present. It appears to me (a novice in physics) that many oscillations we are familiar with in our daily life only have fix frequencies under fixed conditions. Once we add in additional outside influences, frequencies change in response. Light passing through different densities of matter changes frequency and direction, sound waves change frequency as the source moves towards or away from a point of detection. A simple pendulum may appear to keep a fixed period of oscillation but try adding additional swinging components to the pendulum with smaller moments and see what happens as they share their angular momentum in what might appear to be a chaotic fashion.
I think this report is highly interesting and seems based on objective analysis and reasoning without the detriment of politically motivated predetermined conclusions. If the sunspot cycle doesn’t perfectly match the expected 11 year periodicity during all observations, that doesn’t prove there isn’t a strong eleven year driver underlying it with outer additional factors influencing the periodicity externally. We think of the day as 24 hours long, but as the authors mention it actually changes over time dependent on the distribution of mass on Earth just as a spinning dancer or skater changes their frequency of rotation by moving their arms toward or away from the axis of spin. Our universe is always an enchanting and intriguing thing to behold.
As this sight doesn’t seem to allow me to post edits – here is the edited comment.
I am in the same camp. Fixed frequencies of oscillations might be the exception when outside influences are present. It appears to me (a novice in physics) that many oscillations we are familiar with in our daily life only have fixed frequencies under fixed conditions. Once we add in additional outside influences, frequencies change in response. Light passing through different densities of matter changes frequency and direction, sound waves change frequency as the source moves towards or away from a point of detection. A simple pendulum may appear to keep a fixed period of oscillation but try adding additional swinging components to the pendulum with smaller moments and see what happens as they share their angular momentum in what might appear to be a chaotic fashion.
I think this report is highly interesting and seems based on objective analysis and reasoning without the detriment of politically motivated predetermined conclusions. If the sunspot cycle doesn’t perfectly match the expected 11 year periodicity during all observations, that doesn’t prove there isn’t a strong eleven year driver underlying it with other additional factors influencing the periodicity externally. We think of the day as 24 hours long, but as the authors mention it actually changes over time dependent on the distribution of mass on Earth just as a spinning dancer or skater changes their frequency of rotation by moving their arms toward or away from the axis of spin. The fact we can measure different frequencies of the Earth’s rotation doesn’t mean it isn’t rotating with a roughly 24 hour frequency on average. Our universe is always an enchanting and intriguing thing to behold.
It would be great if any here with the appropriate expertise were to summarize the findings of these various articles. I wish I had the time to read all of them but…
What’s about Mars ?
https://www.tychos.info/chapter-13/
“Earlier on we saw how Mars has a distinctive 79-year cycle within which it returns to the same celestial spot. It turns out that, according to modern-day researchers of solar activity, the Sun also has a 79-year cycle! According to Theodor Landscheidt’s studies, the cycle of solar activity is related to the sun’s oscillatory motion about the center of mass of the solar system.”
This Instagram really made a point to me. No one ever thinks of the changing electric and magnetic field changes as our solar system progresses very quickly through the universe.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Csb4u77vv6f/?igshid=NzZhOTFlYzFmZQ==
There is a study by the solar physicist, Valentina Zharkova, who discovered how two magnetic dynamos at different depths in the Sun give the 11-year sunspot cycle and another cycle of around 400 years. She says that the Sun is going to be cooling enough to lead to a mini-ice age for around 40 years with probable crop failures starting in a few years.
‘Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/
NOAA also agrees that the sunspot number will be reducing starting in 2025 and going to zero in around a decade and staying at zero at least until 2040 when their prediction end and that will reflect a lower solar output leading to terrestrial cooling.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/predicted-sunspot-number-and-radio-flux
I’m simply wondering, if the IPCC has cited even one of these 24 papers in their climate change reports? If the change in angular momentum is correlated to 14C levels/cosmic rays e.g. cloud formation, then the IPCC should either start to do some real scientific work, including in their reports for political decision makers, or it would be preferable, that they get shut down completely. The political agenda they’re supporting, is mainly based on pseudo-science, including cherry picking and manipulation of observational data, as well as negating scientific data that doesn’t fit their purposes. This is doing much more harm than good, and those hit hardest are the poor on this planet.
Of course they haven’t, it isn’t in their job description to evaluate the most accurate cause of climate change. They were set up purely and simply to hammer home the human cause of climate change and use it as a political weapon. Let’s not be foolish and actually ascribe scientific aims to this political organisation!
The analysis of long-term periodicities, and periodicities which occur in fits, in geophysical records is interesting enough, but a person has to have a model in mind about how one thing causes another to make any headway. Science works through models tested with reliable data.
Otherwise what one ends up with is something like the “chilly climate” for women entering certain scientific and engineering fields. It is an alleged effect that relies on statistics for proof of its existence rather than a specific model about how it works. I had a heated argument at a mathematics conference two decades ago because I wanted an explanation for how the alleged chilly climate manages to work its evil in manufacturing and mechanical engineering, but not in civil engineering, or in physics but not chemistry or earth sciences or inverts effects in the social sciences but … well you get the idea. Statistics without a mechanism is not particularly compelling — i.e. look at the history of the Palmdale bulge.
The reason for seeing periodicities showing up in systems governed by celestial mechanics and the undoubted influence of the giant planets on orbital elements of the entire solar system is principally due to there being so little dissipation that resonances are sharp thus highly sensitive. The solid earth, oceans and atmosphere are highly dissipative. The moon/sun have measurable influence on nearly everything, but even in a case like ocean tides the “resonant” effects actually are not resonances at all but accidents of physiography. Influence of far away giant planets on phenomena like earthquakes or eruptions…doubtful.
(my bold emphasis added)
I serious doubt that. The solar system is full of examples where gravitationally-induced tides of one body orbiting a larger body are dissipated within both body bodies, due to induced frictional heating, with the result that the smaller body becomes locked rotationally (aka “tidal locking”) so that it always presents the same face to the larger body it is orbiting. The Sun-Mercury pairing and the Earth-Moon pairing are two prime examples of such.
“All twenty known moons in the Solar System that are large enough to be round are tidally locked with their primaries, because they orbit very closely and tidal force increases rapidly (as a cubic function) with decreasing distance.”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
“. . . so that it always presents the same face to the larger body it is orbiting. The Sun-Mercury pairing and the Earth-Moon pairing are two prime examples of such.”
Although Mercury is tidally-locked to the Sun, it’s not 1:1. Indeed, it’s the only known tidally-locked body in the the Solar System that isn’t 1:1. It’s actually 2:3–for every two orbital revolutions, Mercury rotates three times. So it doesn’t exactly present the same face to the Sun.
“All twenty known moons in the Solar System that are large enough to be round are tidally locked with their primaries . . . .”
Actually many moons that aren’t round are also tidally-locked with their primaries. It’s interesting about the Galilean Moons. Io makes two orbital revolutions for every orbital revolution of Europa. Europa makes two orbital revolutions for every orbital revolution of Ganymede. And Ganymede almost makes two orbital revolutions for every orbital revolution of Callisto–but not quite. The three inner Galilean Moons of Jupiter are not only tidally-locked, but they are also locked in an orbital resonance–4:2:1.
Actually, I was not aware of that fact. So, thank you for correcting me.
Today is a great day, for I have learned something new!
Wow! And no dog stories.