What Dr. Scafetta is missing is the causal link between the planetary orbital periods, solar activity and the Earth’s Climate. This does not dismiss the possibility that such a link could exist, it just says that the mechanism is (currently) unknown.
The answer to his dilemma is the Moon. The Lunar tides of the Moon do have a discernible influence upon long term climate here on Earth.
The Moon has been moving away from the Earth ever since its formation billions of years ago. As it has moved away its orbital period has continuosly changed. This means that the properties of the Lunar Orbit have been shaped and moulded by combined tidal and gravitational effects of Venus and Jupiter, particularly at times when the orbital periods of these planets have been a sub-multiple of the orbital period of the Moon.
I will be showing in a paper to be published in 2011 that long term changes in the Lunar orbit are synchronized with long term changes in Barycentric motion of the Sun.
I cannot discuss these links in this forum as yet until I can get my paper published.
It might be eventually shown that the level of solar activity on the Sun is determined
by the barycentric motion it undergoes due to the gravitational influences of the Jovian planets. It might also be reasonable to argue that changes in the level of solar activity have an effect on the Earth’s climate. All I am saying is that what ever effects changes in solar activity have upon the Earth’s climate are being greatly reinforced by synchronized changes in the long-term variations in strength of lunar tides
experienced here on Earth.
I believe that the Lunar tidal effects will be identified as the (dominant) mysterious “amplification mechanism” that strengthens the apparent link between solar activity and the Earth’s climate.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
This amplification can ONLY work if the planets are lined up in front of the sun when the planets are at the closest point. With the solar system moving at 300km/sec.
Example: a car moving forward at a constant speed with a kid running aroung it. The closest point is infront and the furthest point in back.
The fields are elongated and not ellipical with the mass(sun) in constant motion forward?
By the way, Why is the CERN collider using the wrong proxy to understand the Universe? An atom rotates 3 dimensionally, while planets and suns rotate 2 dimensionally.
Smashing 3 dimensional objects to look into two dimensional space…hmmm.
Joe Lalonde says:
October 20, 2010 at 11:49 am
“By the way, Why is the CERN collider using the wrong proxy to understand the Universe? An atom rotates 3 dimensionally, while planets and suns rotate 2 dimensionally.”
Actually, if you think about it, the parts of the solar system do move 3 dimensionally. They rotate at some speed, at some angle to the eliptic and travel both around the sun and with the sun in the galaxicy. Easily in 3 dimensions. pg
Good piece of work Ian – looking forward to seeing the published paper.
Miles Mathis conjectures that what we perceive as the gravity fields is made up of a force of attraction + a repulsion field caused by photon bombardment. Your premise that changes to the orbit of the moon, caused by small solar changes, acts as an amplifier and effects Earth climate sounds plausible.
Is it possible to link this with the changes to the Earth’s EM field as posited by Vuk?
P.G. Sharrow
The solar system is not a rotating ball. How will the collider answer questions to compression of gases like the sun and planets?
Looking at the Universe in a single big bang would mean all of the galaxies and solar systems would be of the same age and develop closely to the same pace. The collision itself is energy stored by the atoms or molecules and the volacity they at traveling at are the ONLY two energies involved. This means whatever materials breakaway from this has slower volacity and energy in smaller fragments. Is this a good theory?
Not when blackhole can fit the theory much better when one explodes.
I’ve never bought into the “Big Bang” theory. Just does not look right to me. I prefer a steady state universe. Chaos to organization, organization to chaos. All at the same time. “Black holes” are not the bottomless pit where every thing falls into and disappears. They actually have very large leaks at the poles due to tight, strong, magnetic field twisting, confusing inertia/mass effects and local gravitation effects. Escaping energies cause the “searchlight”effects seen, especially when material is caught up in the beam.
The earth rotates on 2 axis, one at the geographic poles and the other in a slow precession that changes that alignment with the solar elliptic. Most of the Angular Momentum of a space body is contained in it’s atomic structure (mass). There is also Momentum energies in it’s spin and orbital travel, both around a larger body and in travel with that body. Everything in motion in 3 dimensions, externally and internally.
This rotation about 2 axis and searchlight effect may well be the explanation for pulsars. 2 axis spin and travel may well explain photonic energies.
That which is large similar, to that which is small. pg
Thanks P.G. Sharrow.
You have a good sharp mind!
I believe that the Lunar tidal effects will be identified as the (dominant) mysterious “amplification mechanism” that strengthens the apparent link between solar activity and the Earth’s climate.
See this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39678117/Planets-Moon-Field
Adoflo,
Not to hurt your feelings but I can say with 100% certainty that that statement is full of crap. Science and physics in particular have made many incorrect hypothesis that have put much fiction as being our LAWS. Not one science person has included rotation, pressure or stored energy into understanding motion.
Why is it that a tornado forms from the clouds and pulls energy into a destructive force yet science has hypothesized that hurricanes and cyclones get their energy from the ocean? What winds can an ocean produce? None. It can give evaporating moisture to the cause but not wind and being the lowest point gives it the drive to travel and store energy and pick up more from the lower atmosphere that it was spawned from.
What is CO2 actually doing to change our weather is to displace the gases at the planets surface adding more pressure exerted out into the atmosphere. Why is the average surface winds slowing? The heavier CO2 molecule is rotating with the planet due to it’s density which is slowing the winds that take away the radiant heat from the sun. This gives the illusion of the planet heating up, but it is the same heat being displaced slightly slower. Have you seen the research on ocean salinity changes on the oceans surface? That is the direct cause of added pressure to the planets surface. How about the growth up mountains? Does that not show added pressure exerting out?
Heat and CO2 are two seperate things. A heated CO2 molecule can cool and drop to the planets surface.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=501
Re: Electrical weather based analog forecast
Postby Carl Smith » Mon May 05, 2008 6:45 am
Comment by Carl Smith toward end of thread, which he intended to make me think about the N/S movements of the extents of the lunar declination, being driven maybe by the positions of the other planets relative to above/below the ecliptic plane. He hinted that therein lies the keys to interplanetary drivers for the longer term.
Not just the heliocentric positions, but this 3rd dimensional compounding effect.
There is no doubt in my mind that the lunar tidal movements and results in the oceans and the atmosphere are the main drivers of the climate and short term weather, that acts as a local focal mechanism to couple the planetary and solar effects into the global circulation patterns that is the about 95% of the natural variation in the weather.
If I can lend any support to this effort at educating the public let me know, that is my end game, not money or fame.
I have been off line for 3 days helping my daughter move, back on line again.
P.G. Sharrow says:
October 22, 2010 at 3:56 am
“I’ve never bought into the “Big Bang” theory. Just does not look right to me. I prefer a steady state universe.”
‘Big bang’ conjecture has many problems, which require the application of more and more complicated ‘pixie dust’ to cover the holes!
My view is that the universe consists solely of a universal all pervading energy field (aether).
Additive spins/vibrations of energy in some or all of the x,y and z axes account for different manifestations of energy we observe, including matter.
Energy is ‘translated’ into different forms, but never destroyed.
The energy spins/vibrations we think of as matter are being destroyed in one part of the cosmos and being created in another.
This dynamic process is driven by the simple rules of deterministic chaos, which operate like a driven oscillator. The non-linear driver for this ‘universal oscillator’ is the tension between packets of energy with stable spins (what we call electrically neutral) and packets of energy which have unstable spins (what we call electrically charged).
Neutral energy packets and those having charge of opposite sign attract, while those packets having similar charge sign repel.
All I need to do now is just got to work out the details:-)
Tenuc,
The choas starts ro make more sense when matter is put into two catagories.
One is mass and the other is gases. They both have very different qualities when applying heat and pressure. A great deal of mass has a mixture of gases that has varied effects depending on this mixture and what is happening at that particular instant.
Compression in space NEEDS some barrier to go against to store energy as in rotation, the energy will keep seeping and disipating without one. Storing of energy need mass pressure and heat so vibrating molecules can compact tighter.
Very rarily I’ll use numbers unless it is accurate measurements as the formulas and theories applied are man made concepts and in many ways is number manipulation.
Being all the fields inseparable, we do not realize how important are overlooked things like: orbit eccentricity, gravity acceleration, magnetic/electrical fields.
Post normal science may argue many things, however it overlooks simple and inmediate facts as the same forces which make our hearts within our chests to be inclined in a certain and defined angle, act all over around us and we ignore them.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39961403/Eccentricity-Field
….but, we want everyone to know we are so “intelligent”, so “wise”, so “cool”, that we have ignored, that, from more than two thousand years, the pythagorean “Tetraktis”, expressed in the simpler terms possible what we can´t with supercomputers and self conceited complicated mathematics (while trying to hide the fact that those same super computers, make its calculations by using the most simple of arithmetics).
Good one Adolfo!
Tenuc says:
October 23, 2010 at 11:30 pm
“All I need to do now is just got to work out the details:-)”
I have been following this trail of bread crumbs thru “Wonder Land” for over 25 years. I am glad to discover a fellow traveler. Perhaps someday we can share insight. pg
“Not just the heliocentric positions, but this 3rd dimensional compounding effect.”
Richard, use the archives links to look at the first two posts on this blog. The first examines the relationship between the vertical motion of the sun relative to the barycentre, LOD and temperature. The second looks at lunar cycles affecting the north Atlantic temperature.
The types of influences discussed in this thread have kept me curious about the effects on weather patterns around the globe. As a forecaster for over 30 years, I noticed there seems to be a periodicity to the amount of cyclonic motion exhibited globally in the atmosphere. Animations of stitched imagery from weather satellites seems to bare this out. LOD changes mean changes in angular momentum. Can these changes be short-order enough to impart greater vorticity to systems in the atmosphere on a day-to-day, week-to-week, or month-to-month basis? Any feedback here woudl be appreciated.
Hi Rod and welcome. I have downloaded the LOD data from KNMI climate explorer and looked closely at this. LOD is affected on a short term (monthly) basis by energy exchanges between the crust and the atmosphere. These may be linked to lunar cycles. These variations are up to around 10% of the longer term changes in LOD I believe are caused by the motion of the Sun and other planets. See the very first post on this blog for the long term LOD correlation with solar motion WRT the solar system barycentre and global temperature.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/planetary-solar-climate-connection-found/
Ian WIlson;
“I believe that the Lunar tidal effects will be identified as the (dominant) mysterious “amplification mechanism” that strengthens the apparent link between solar activity and the Earth’s climate.”
The Moon does modulate the Solar signal, but it patently follows the dominant Solar signal too. The same lunar condition can be positive or negative depending on whether the Solar signal is weak or strong, such that it intensify the heat, or intensify the cold, for 3 to 6 days. This would seem to down to modulation of Solar wind connections, and nothing to do with tidal effects on the Earth`s atmosphere.
Neither Myself or Piers use Lunar declination values in our forecasts. I did give it some thought though, as Ken Ring, Richard Holle, and others swear by it.
So I examined sea tide time tables to look for a declination effect on sea tides. I looked around the Equinox`s, when max and min declination are furthest from new and full Moon spring tides, and compared these neap tides with those around the Solstices, and they do not really differ. So if Lunar phase, and the seasons (bigger spring tides at the Equinox`s), govern sea tide heights, how is Lunar declination supposed to affect the atmosphere ? and to do what ? just mixing the air does not modulate global temperatures.
Hi Ulric,
I would expect that if changes in lunar declination make a difference to the mixing of the air, it might affect global temperature by shifting air to places where it’s inherent heat might escape more easily to space.
tallbloke says:
October 30, 2010 at 9:27 pm
That is an `if` and a `might`. I reckon Ian and Richard need to demonstrate the declination effects.
Agreed. I’ve asked Richard for a summary of the success or otherwise of his hurricane predictions. Could I ask you for the same for the near term predictions you made?
I am packing my stuff to head home from Mesa Az today back to Kansas in time to vote.
I will be processing data from the hurricane season, but the rough idea seems to be that outer planet synod conjunctions inhibit Tropical storm production for a 10 day period centered on the conjunction and the inner planets enhance production at the time of synod conjunctions…..
Will be processing data to ascertain….
I still want to make an animated movie of the goes satellite maps to show the declinational effects on the atmosphere. I have down loaded what photos are available via ftp connection (past three years only) rest of photos I will have to purchase on dvd.
Effects are shown for the movement of the enso effects across the equator in the middle of the Pacific, but very little pattern enhancement until the global zonal flow hits the Rockies and Andes then on the Eastern lee side there is a much enhanced effect that may be responsible for North Atlantic warm trend, tornado production and Atlantic hurricane production.
By the time these perturbations reach Europe they are in a more zonal movement pattern again. However I think you will find they still carry pulses of precipitation patterns that have forecast value.
So I will be in contact again after a trip of 1300 miles in 20 hours or so by car.
[Reply] Thanks for the update Richard, and have a safe journey
tallbloke says:
October 31, 2010 at 5:04 pm
“Agreed. I’ve asked Richard for a summary of the success or otherwise of his hurricane predictions. Could I ask you for the same for the near term predictions you made?”
The major hurricane I was looking for on the 179yr look-back was Igor, although it did not reach the Caribbean http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2010/IGOR/track.gif
New work I have done, shows a very clear link between solar proton bursts, and hurricane formation http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20100819_0900/index.html
http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2010/index.html
The increase in volcanic activity forecast from late September through October has been well born out. Using a 179yr look-back for location, I said that Indonesia would be at most risk this Autumn.
I would be very interested to see Richard`s animation of Lunar declination effects on the atmosphere, I have yet to be convinced that Lunar declination is at all important.
How did the temperature forcasts for late august on go globally? I didn’t really notice the colder spell you forecast for mid aug-mid sept in Britain.
Managed to make the 1385 mile journey in a few minutes less than 18 hours, every thing fine at the farm and house after being away for 10 weeks. Went to vote today, bought the groceries needed to restock the frig, dog and cat food, fresh fruit, meat and veggies.
Back on the 19kbps dial up line, cannot load my favorite moving 24 hour loop satellite weather photos…..;(
Wow, long drive in quick time, glad it went well. Get some rest. The inquisition on your soothsaying can wait. 😉
tallbloke says:
November 1, 2010 at 8:15 pm
“How did the temperature forcasts for late august on go globally? I didn’t really notice the colder spell you forecast for mid aug-mid sept in Britain.”
Everyone I know noticed it cool off and get very wet for the 2nd half of August in the UK. I didn`t actually say mid Aug to mid Sept, if you check, I said there would be a warming spurt from late August.
Globally, many regions show it cooler from mid Aug, though not as deep as I expected, and few large floods occurred through this period, but rainfall did increase. The largest floods were late July to early August, many in response to cooling from local circulation, as in Pakistan:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~floods/Currentt.htm
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/global_temp_accum.shtml
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/precipitation/global_precip_accum.shtml
Re Ian Wilson’s post –
“It might be eventually shown that the level of solar activity on the Sun is determined
by the barycentric motion it undergoes due to the gravitational influences of the Jovian planets. It might also be reasonable to argue that changes in the level of solar activity have an effect on the Earth’s climate. All I am saying is that what ever effects changes in solar activity have upon the Earth’s climate are being greatly reinforced by synchronized changes in the long-term variations in strength of lunar tides
experienced here on Earth.
I believe that the Lunar tidal effects will be identified as the (dominant) mysterious “amplification mechanism” that strengthens the apparent link between solar activity and the Earth’s climate.”
It will be very interesting indeed to see Ian Wilson’s paper on the possible lunar effects on the climate cycles.
Scafetta, like his peer Nir Shaviv, acknowledge their hypotheses lack the missing Amplification Mechanism – clearly it is the major element which is required to set Solar activity in place as the key motivator of climate cycle phenomena. Frederick Bailey’s analysis (solarchords.com) presents a plausible answer to the missing link but is typically and understandably (but not necessarily validly) challenged by those who choose to believe a strict (probably common view) Earth/Sun orbit rather than an Earth/Solar System Barycentre orbit dynamic.
It is the orbital movement of the Sun about the SSB which in Bailey’s analysis, driven by perpetual Jovian Group centre of mass movement, which results in significant variation in Earth/Sun separation distance (chord length) such that wattage receipt at Earth varies in predictable cycles (via Inverse Sq. Law).
He equally postulates the same dynamic, via consequent often very rapid velocity accelerations/decelerations of the Sun as it shifts position about the SSB, is also the driver of Sunspot cycle amplitude, but Sunspot activity he argues does not significantly influence climate cycling.
One wonders whether there may be a plausible link between Bailey’s ‘chord length driver’ mechanism and Ian’s lunar dynamics – I for one look forward to it with great interest.
Lawrence A
Hi Lawrence, and welcome.
Nir Shaviv found an amplification in his JGR paper ‘Using the oceans as a calorimeter’ and suggested cloud cover variation linked to the Svensmark effect might be responsible for it.
Let’s hope the CERN CLOUD experiment comes up with some results soon. Keep an eye on Nigel Calders blog for that.
I think the Earth probably does orbit the sun rather than the barycentre, near enough anyway. If you consider that the maximum distance from the sun to the barycentre at any time is around 800,000km and the average sun-earth distance is 149,000,000km I can’t see the variation of 1% making a huge impact on Earth’s surface temperature, as radiation falls off with distance anyway. I will take a look at the solarchords.com website though, so thanks for the link.
Thank you for the welcome Tallbloke. Afraid I’m not a scientist so whilst learning fast (and enough science/maths in my background to do so) cannot yet enter too deeply into scientific debate, but at least able to comprehend most material.
It was Shaviv’s “Using the oceans …….” paper I was referring to. I agree he suggested the Svensmark effect might be the missing amplification driver but he produced no evidence in support himself so in that sense I felt he was somewhat speculative, but based his feeling on the work of a highly accredited scientist.
My reading and re-reading particularly of Newtonian solar mechanics but partly also the observations of such as Jose, Landscheidt and Fairbridge indicates to me quite strongly that all 10 solar system bodies (including the Sun) ‘experience’ gravity motivated perturbations relative to one another. This leads me to believe, as I interpret Newton did, the Sun in consequence is perpetually being ‘repositioned’ relative to all other planets (including the Earth) – with the Jovians doing most of the ‘driving’.
Thus it does not seems unreasonable to believe that all planets primarily orbit the SSB (and in doing so they still go around the Sun) – even though many scientists don’t accept that – indeed maybe there is a consensus in that direction, but then we sceptics aren’t always all that convinced by alleged or even real consensus – are we?
Newton and these other renowned scientists agreed the Sun deviated as much as a little over twice its radius from the SSB – as you say only 1 % of the AU. You use the expression ‘near enough anyway’, and you say ‘probably’ implying some uncertainty. And I get the impression that many scientists in the field dismiss any further debate on the topic because it is so seemingly small a variation. But are they correct to do so. Is it not still at the least, an open question.
Probably for most purposes the 1% may be close enough to ignore. But if it is moving those sorts of additional distances from Earth (additionally to the elliptic perhelion/aphelion variance) then it can periodically be quite significant in terms of wattage impact.
Bailey’s analysis rest entirely on Newton’s analysis of Solar System dynamics – which among other things would say that mathematically it is impossible for the Jovians to be following one set of mathematics and the small planet group, another. No doubt if Newton is wrong then Bailey is wrong.
Bailey’s analysis demonstrates the significance of that extra 1% variation on wattage factors – it seems to me a plausible analysis. I do also have the feeling from all I have read by many scientist researchers that the Svensmark et al, Solar/Cosmic flux/Cloud line plays a part, and I also wonder about the Sun/Earth magnetic influences about which I have been reading more recently too.
But then I’m just a simple ‘citizen scientist’ as I gather such as myself are sometimes called, working hard to come up to speed with the heavyweights in this great debate. And sometimes ignorance can be a real advantage I’ve found.
Lawrence A
Hi Lawrence,
if you take a look back through the archives on this site, we have had some interesting discussions which touch on this issue. ‘Meet the new Kepler’ is one which may help. The ‘consensus’ here is that the inner planets get dragged round by the sun as it wobbles around the barycentre, and the big jovian gas giants are far enough away and sufficiently massive that they maintain their orbits more round the barycentre.
There have been some experiments onboard satellites which accurately measure the sun’s apparent diameter and this does vary slightly over the course of the solar cycle. This has been attributed to the rising and subsiding of ‘hills’ on the solar surface caused by increasing and decreasing magnetic activity. However, it would be interesting to see if the magnitude of those changes matched the change in apparent size that would be due to a barycentric offset.
I would expect such a signal in TSI would be detected by the sensors, but you never know how the raw data has been treated. One person who may be able to help with that is Nicola Scafetta, who is a member of the ACRIM team, and has published papers relating to barycentric effects. I have been in touch with Nicola by email, so I will drop him a line and get back to this thread with any reply I recieve.
Good idea Tallbloke – I’ll look forward to hearing what Scafetta has to say on it – but I won’t be too surprised if its the consensus party line – but one would hope for something more original and creative from such an outstanding scientist as Nicola clearly is
Lawrence A