M.A. Vukcevic: Earth’s wobble and the longest temperature record

Posted: November 21, 2010 by Rog Tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Our Friend Vukcevic has sent me an interesting graph with no supporting information on how the curve for ‘Earth’s wobble’ is constructed from the JPL ephemeris. I love mysteries. :)

He attaches a suitable health warning.

I would like to make it clear at the outset, it does not appear that correlation is ‘effective’, since signal so obtained does not possess the required energy.
Of course I could be wrong, but for time being it is just an interesting, let’s call it coincidence.

VukCevic CET-wobble
Wordpress’ Gif image reduction is a bit crunchy so click on image to open full size.

[Update] Just in from the man himself:

Hi everyone

Roger, it is not great mystery, but my Byzantine approach to science (blame my ancestors culture and religion; excuses, excuses ..)

Sometime I find out something interesting, and put it on the web, here and there, just in case I fall under No.11 bus…, and again I got my bus pass couple of years ago…

I shall get to point:

I call it a wobble as a shortest and simplest word to use. I had to do my calculations twice and for some parts 3 times to ascertain what is happening here.

Final conclusion is: This is not mechanical wobble in any sense of word!

Lunar, Venus and Mars ephemeredes if added each either individually or as group make a mess or nonsense of whole thing. Neptune makes very little difference, if any not worthwhile bothering with.

So in the graph are included only Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, all planets with huge magnetospheres. Therefore it has to be a magnetic (or electro-magnetic) wobble, not gravitational (lunar effect would be largest) , and nothing to do with the Chandlers wobble as I understand it.

May I add, I was pleasantly surprised to see good forward agreement with

http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

To all: be critical as you whish, don’t expect too many details, or much further elaboration, until I get down to it to write something more intelligible, but may take time.

Comments
  1. Tim Channon says:

    Perhaps a reminder of this to do with the Chandler wobble might be good
    http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/chandler-wobble-c.pdf

    A serious problem is the data before ~1960 is dreadful. The technology for good enough measurements was not invented. I have private other reservations I do not want to state.
    One result is there is no way I can get a handle on the longer term factors.

    I did try to extract something for someone, with little success even with having a fairly exact law. That does seem to exist in the older data…. if you know it is there.

  2. tallbloke says:

    I need to run my sunspot cumulative integration back to the start of the sunspot record to see how well it agrees with CET and ocean temperature ‘records’ and reconstructions.

  3. harrywr2 says:

    In my simple mind I am seeing a pattern between what Lindzen and Pan , Willis Willis Eschenbach, Bob Tisdale and M.A. Vukcevic.

    The Southern Hemisphere is mostly water and the Northern Hemisphere is mostly land.
    The two main mechanism’s to dump heat to space are convection and radiation.

    Lindzen and Pan theorized that if one changed the angle of inclination of the Sun slightly you changed the magnitude of the Hadley Circulation patterns.

    If you vary the Hadley Circulation patterns you are also varying the relationship between heat lost to radiation and heat lost due to convection.

    The Solar System wobble is caused by Jupiter and Saturn, which is why astrologers are just as good at predicting future climate as N.A.S.A.

  4. tallbloke says:

    Hi Harry and welcome.
    The orbital parameter changes (Milankovitch cycles) which affect NH/SH insolation operate over much longer timescales than the planetary conjunctions, but I would agree there is the possibility of an effect due to the resulting motion of the sun wrt the centre of mass of the solar system. Some of the earlier posts on this blog investigate this, and there is research going on in the background at the moment.

  5. I did not point out this before, however if you see:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/adolfo-giurfa-unified-field-explained/
    and make the calculations, you will find a difference:
    Gravity/10 EM Field
    Grades Radians Sin Cos Total Field(Nm)

    78.80 1.375 0.980955 0.194 1.175190 Gravity phase angle
    11.20 0.195 0.194234 0.981 1.175190 Earth EM field (Difference)
    22.40 0.391 0.381070 0.925 1.305616 Earth expected Tilt
    1.10 0.019 0.019197 1.000 1.019013 Difference w/.reality)
    As the UF contention is that everything works as the action between two forces, rather charges, which really are an alternate current, where when the negative component is ahead positive, then this current is considered the negative force and so the negative. Where the phase angle determines the outcome, the wider the angle the more EM field. However I expected that adding the angle from both earth´s hemispheres would give 23.5 degrees, however this addition results only in 22.4° where the difference, as you can see, it is 1.1°, which not surprisingly corresponds to Cos 1, or what is the same, it is the distance from the axis=Wobble.
    What do you think? (as this is just a “back envelope calc”?

  6. tallbloke says:

    I think you need to do some back of envelope calcs for other planet’s tilts if the Giurfa Unified Field is going to be unified throughout the solar system at least. ;)

  7. If we could know the actual measure of the real forces in the planets of the solar system we could deduct them accurately. We suppose “masses” from apparent diameters and not considering any other fields but gravity while repulsion/attraction could be acting where we suppose only traditional mechanics. Though EM explains the Mercury case´s eccentricity, as a conductor moving in a magnetic field producing a current.
    I really want to leave the process of generalization to other, and educated, people.

  8. Tim Channon says:
    November 21, 2010 at 4:20 am
    Perhaps a reminder of this to do with the Chandler wobble might be good
    http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/chandler-wobble-c.pdf

    Numbers which agrees with the numbers of the difference I pointed out.

  9. Tim Channon says:

    Adolfo, the Chandler wobble is extremely small, far too small to have any direct effect. I tried to work out if it linked with external planetary force on earth but to date, nothing.
    Couple of points:
    1. The date in the file is wrong, should be 1962 (dataset origin 1962:1:1)
    2. An almost identical result can be obtained via modulation products used directly. Working out which is cart and which is horse does not seem possible.

    V. is talking about longer term so this detail is an aside.

  10. tallbloke says:

    Vuk is playing his cards close to his chest as he has a potential publication deal. Good for him!

  11. Tim Channon says:

    General comment about parasitic periodicies in the solar system.

    In some cases there are huge masses involved which are likely to lead to long time constants, mostly low pass in one form or another. I suggest this is a wildcard which will tend to smother faster effects. This might also explain why eg. very long periodicies might have more effect than a simplistic approach says.

    In the case of a spinning mass such as earth and perhaps the sun (we know little) external forces will product gyroscopic reaction. This might be useful in diagnosis, tweak that way, must produce a reaction this way.

    Earth tilt changing has been mentioned. Ah, thought I had deleted this, it seems not. Done ages ago, it suggests the hemispheric temperature according to UAH has steadily changed.
    Not the same thing as actual earth tilt.
    http://www.gpsl.net/data/msu_tilt.png
    msu tilt

    Just did a quick rework on the same old msu data, confirms. I find this a strange result because it looks so “off pat” too good to be true. A kind of linear change over that many years? My immediate reaction was satellite drift yet that would have been seen.
    On the other hand the reports it is getting warmer in the Arctic and colder in the Antartic agree with this. The amount from this data is very small, too small I think to measure reliably on the ground.

    Maybe I ought to take a closer look sometime.

  12. tallbloke says:

    Tim, interesting graph. I wonder what a closer study of the hemispheric rcords of the ISCCP cloud project might show up.

  13. Tim Channon says:

    Trying to get several other things done, heck. Okay have data for UAH TLT ready, to Jan 2010, forget the rest.

    Chuck NH and SH at the analyser. Unexpected result.
    Firstly, there is no way data like that can be modelled closely, including the problematic nature of multi-satellite, tweaked by the authors to try and correct lots of things.

    The plot shown previous post was done when I had just finished the end corrected filter software and was trying it out for real. That is pushing things, but works well enough. Year and more of occasional improvement, same result.

    Now I have done a quick exercise.
    The analyser (house name synth) did a quick plain Fourier decompose into 13 components (arbitrary number guessamatics on what is sensible in this case)

    r2 is not wonderful, 0.78 and 0.62 it reports.

    Both NH and SH have an obvious low frequency component which it has adjusted for best match. (not going to explain everything here) This is a Fourier component, not Discrete, ie. input is time quantised, model is analogue, no DFT bins but there are a finite number of frequencies, erm… that 13. Guess that 5 would give much the same answer.

    As it turns out it shows N and S rather different, 58 and 38 years, which I thought was heart drop time, no dice, wrong.

    When plotted that looks promising. Tried the lot, too confusing.

    Easiest way to show is release a live spreadsheet. Might even be the first real one released.

    synth data is lower down the ss page, and is full ss model, two of them (second is to the right). Can be played with.
    To me this is a kind of shock. The sum looks like the result for the tropical data I showed elsewhere, bet it is close. The diff is close to a straight line, why? However if you get a copy and do what I say, surprise.

    Party trick. As I said this is live models.
    There are three+ useful things you can do.

    1. Top date (top left of model) is the output start date and can be changed to anything you want. Was actually set to 1978:1:15 and that is the original reference (phase zero).
    Leave alone for now.

    2. The second date shown (2nd model row) is simply a decimal increment on the index (or date column), was month, 1/12th of a year.
    If you edit this and copy the cell all the way to the bottom, you have a different date increment.

    If you set both models to eg. +1/6 (2 months), watch the plot I have done.
    This is a model forecast and of course is wrong, cannot be known and to do this properly it needs model development and validation against withheld data, a long and laborious process, not done in this case.

    3. You can create new XY data by sum(column list) or just for particular columns. Also, can do sum(abc)+$?$? where $ $ is the cell of the Offset in the table header. The data then has the same offset as the original data.

    PLEASE REMEMBER Synth is often about exploring and gaining insight into datasets, it is a model, Fourier decomposition and recomposition, not real.
    Do not bet on horseraces…
    There again this is only part of it.

    Here we are http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/uah-tlt-tilt.ods

  14. Michele says:

    OT

    5000BP – 15000BP

    Magnetic variation – volcanic eruptions – Ice Age – Sunspot
    Part number 1

    http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=12200

    Michele

    Bye bye
    :)

  15. tallbloke says:

    Michele, grazie per il vostro collegamento e l’articolo che interessante avete scritto. La causa dei cambiamenti nei livelli di attività vulcanica dovrebbe essere di grande interesse alla società moderna. Abbiamo veduto recentemente quanta corsa può essere influenzata da un’eruzione vulcanica in Islanda.

    Everybody should visit Michele’s link and read her article. Just use google translate.

  16. tallbloke says:
    November 22, 2010 at 11:25 am
    Interesting. I think we´ll measure temperature with a magnetometer!. This really shows that there are no watertight compartments among different frequencies.
    Really surprising that, when analyzing earth´s temperature there appears a most peculiar way of thinking which only considers LWR. Then, Vukcevic´s relations are perfectly valid: Heat by resistance, reactance, inductance, friction……though it may produce anger heat in some “narrow angled” working brains (following UF this can be translated in less EM field brains) :-)

  17. tallbloke says:

    Tim,
    this plot agrees with your analysis quite well
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:37/from:1977/plot/hadcrut3sh/mean:37/from:1977/plot/hadcrut3nh/mean:37/from:1977

    Thanks for the spreadsheet, just took a quick look.

  18. tallbloke says:

    Vuk:
    How does this look if you plot summer CET only?

  19. Michele says:
    November 22, 2010 at 7:37 am
    That the actual director of this “terrible” apocalyptic dynamics is to be found in the earth’s magnetic field, which as I reported in previous research, seems to be closely related to the interplanetary magnetic field
    The Interplanetary electromagnetic field All of it!

  20. Tim Channon says:

    TB: Thank you. I am nervous without an independent check.

  21. Bob Tisdale says:

    harrywr2 says: “The Southern Hemisphere is mostly water and the Northern Hemisphere is mostly land.”

    The Northern Hemisphere is also mostly ocean, about 60%, In the Southern Hemisphere, its about 80%.

  22. Tenuc says:

    Vukcevic says: “I would like to make it clear at the outset, it does not appear that correlation is ‘effective’, since signal so obtained does not possess the required energy.

    Of course I could be wrong, but for time being it is just an interesting, let’s call it coincidence.”

    Here’s an interesting snippet about this from Richard Gross, a JPL geophysicist:-

    “Writing in the August 1, 2000, issue of Geophysical Research Letters, Richard Gross, a JPL geophysicist, reports that the principal cause of the Chandler wobble is fluctuating pressure on the bottom of the ocean, caused by temperature and salinity changes and wind-driven changes in the circulation of the oceans. He determined this by applying numerical models of the oceans, which have only recently become available through the work of other researchers, to data on the Chandler wobble obtained during the years 1985-1995. Gross calculated that two-thirds of the Chandler wobble is caused by ocean-bottom pressure changes and the remaining one-third by fluctuations in atmospheric pressure. He says that the effect of atmospheric winds and ocean currents on the wobble was minor…”

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2000/chandlerwobble.html

    Looks like you’re on the money again Vuc. Hope the new publication deal is going well.

  23. @Tenuc says:
    November 23, 2010 at 6:11 pm
    And those pressure (acceleration) changes caused by….field changes, gravity changes:
    http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gravity-meter/id358324984?mt=8
    BTW Something happened ~8000 years BC (*) as Stonehengers built their monument to find out what was happening around.
    (*)After Gerald S. Hawkins’ Stonehenge Decoded

  24. Tenuc says:

    Adolfo Giurfa says:
    November 23, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    “@Tenuc says:
    November 23, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    And those pressure (acceleration) changes caused by….field changes, gravity change…”

    Yes Adolfo I agree. Is it possible that the unified field changes as external factors, like less solar EM or planetary perturbations effect on Earth’s EM emissions?

    We know that the Earth’s crust is not solid, rather it is made up of several thin over-lapping moveable plates. If the reduction in EM field causes the Earth to become more compressed due to a corresponding increase in gravity, then this could explain the current crop of seismic activity – also that seen during the Maunder Minimum.

    We are living in interesting times. :-)

  25. Hope Vuk could tell us how much interesting. Guess he is not participating because he must be involved building up a new Stonhenge :-)

  26. Tenuc says:

    @ Vukcevic

    Adolfo triggered another thought which may relate to the changes in climate regime we are currently experiencing as we head once more into a cooling period. Is it possible that the position of Earth’s EM geodesic power grid drifts due to external modulation?

    Here is a picture of the Becker-Hagen Grid showing the major EM circuit:-

    http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/5808/image024ss.jpg

  27. Dear Vuk: If you consider the Moon in your calculations, it will make a perfect fit. Though it has no EM field of its own (at least not big) it is like Mercury or Venus: Conductors moving in a powerful field…and you know what happens in those cases.
    Relative to their eccentricity, the Moon has a negative EM field: -3.78 Nm at 0.03 eccentricity and -6.17 Nm at 0.08 eccentricity, while Jupiter has a positive EM field of 16.41 Nm.
    You know Richard Holle considers successfully the Moon in his forecasts:
    http://research.aerology.com/

  28. harrywr2 says:

    Vukcevic,

    Saturn and Jupiter align every 20 years 243 degrees apart,(basically in a different earth season), then every 60 years +9 degrees from the previous 60 year cycle. Then every 800 years they align at the origin. The Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period are roughly 800 years apart.

    [Reply] You might want to check those figures again. And take a look at http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/meet-the-new-kepler-p-a-semi/ for some calcs on the ~900 year cycle ;)

  29. Murray Duffin says:

    For me, what is most interesting about Vuk’s correlation is that their is an upward trend in the wobble (magnetic field strength?) that corresponds nicely with the warming since the LIA. It strikes me that both the curve displayed and the warming share a common cause. Perhaps simply a more active sun.