Nicola Scafetta: Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change…

Posted: July 18, 2013 by tchannon in climate
Graphic provided by Nicola Scaffeta, an update updated figure with a direct comparison with the IPCC models.

Graphic provided by Nicola Scaffeta, an update updated figure with a direct comparison with the IPCC models.

Above is updated graphic, notes on the above at the end of this web page.

Cite as: Scafetta, N., Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hindcast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs. Energy & Environment: special volume ‘Mechanisms of Climate Change and the AGW Concept: a critical review’. Vol. 24 (3&4), Page 455-496 (2013). DOI 10.1260/0958-305X.24.3-4.455 Nicola Scafetta has a new paper where he presents a compromise heuristic global temperature model based on a variety of factors, many familiar to regular Talkshop readers. Preprint here.

Abstract Global surface temperature records (e.g. HadCRUT4) since 1850 are characterized by climatic oscillations synchronous with specific solar, planetary and lunar harmonics superimposed on a background warming modulation. The latter is related to a long millennial solar oscillation and to changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere (e.g. aerosol and greenhouse gases). However, current general circulation climate models, e.g. the CMIP5 GCMs, to be used in the AR5 IPCC Report in 2013, fail to reconstruct the observed climatic oscillations. As an alternate, an empirical model is proposed that uses: (1) a specific set of decadal, multidecadal, secular and millennial astronomic harmonics to simulate the observed climatic oscillations; (2) a 0.45 attenuation of the GCM ensemble mean simulations to model the anthropogenic and volcano forcing effects. The proposed empirical model outperforms the GCMs by better hind-casting the observed 1850-2012 climatic patterns. It is found that: (1) about 50-60% of the warming observed since 1850 and since 1970 was induced by natural oscillations likely resulting from harmonic astronomical forcings that are not yet included in the GCMs; (2) a 2000-2040 approximately steady projected temperature; (3) a 2000-2100 projected warming ranging between 0.3 o C and 1.6 o C, which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1 o C to 4.1 o C; ; (4) an equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO 2 doubling centered in 1.35 o C and varying between 0.9 o C and 2.0 o C.

[update: original article head image is below, has been replaced by a new plot provided by Nicola Scaffeta

Image

Figure 16: [A] HadCRUT4 GST (gray) superimposed on the empirical climate model given by Eq. 7 where the anthropogenic/volcano component M A,V (t) is derived from the four alternate CMIP5 GCM ensemble average simulations of Fig. 1. The smooth black curve corresponds to the six-frequency harmonic component alone, representing the modeled natural variability. [B] Zoom of [A] for 1980 to 2030.

 [/update]

h/t to Andrew Montford

Comments
  1. vukcevic says:

    I normally don’t do planetary climatology but my friend Barry does
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/BC.htm
    once enthusiastic but now dead beat sceptic he is convinced that the latest rise in the CET could well be anthropogenic, nevertheless puto ridiculum est.

  2. Doug Proctor says:

    Note that, once again, all the real changes in the models are in the future. That is what all the first models did: predict a future that was radically different from the present. Then when the future became the present, we did not discard the non-observed trends, but created new ones with a new starting point.

    The model assumptions are wrong. Either the sensitivities were and are wrong, or the contributions of humans vis-a-vis CO2 were and are wrong.

    Of course my stockbroker also employs charts like this: the past, supposed to be brilliant and make me rich beyond my divorce lawyer’s dreams, didn’t work out that way, but the future, apparently, is going to do it.

    This time is special. Just add money.

    Sounds like a grant application for climate science.

  3. Ian Wilson says:

    The good thing about Nicola’s papers are that they highlight the connection between solar activity, the planetary configurations and climate. This is a first step in getting people to discuss the possibility that planetary influences may have an effect upon the level of solar activity and and upon the Earth’s climate.

    The next step, however, is to investigate how these connections between planetary motion and climate take place. The truth is that no-one really knows how these connections come about. In this particular paper, Nicola does his best to collect together all of the evidence that can be used in future investigations to clarify the actual mechanism(s) involved. Hence, it is an important milestone in the evolution of this field of endeavor.

    The single biggest failing on “our side” of the argument is lack of a scientifically plausible physical mechanism. Notice that I use the words “scientifically plausible”. It is not enough that we think our proposed mechanism “feels right” – it must be based upon principles that consistent with the laws of physics and it need to the best of all the possible explanations.

    Nicola has done his bit in trying to promote the search for a plausible mechanism for planetary influences upon the Earth’s climate. It is now up to others to flesh out the mechanism(s) involved.

  4. Roger Andrews says:

    Another question to be considered is why the impacts of the solar, planetary and lunar harmonics on temperature are largely confined to high northern latitudes:

  5. Paul Vaughan says:

    When busy people encounter material that’s not concise, they aggressively ski (skim & skip).

    Collegiality won’t help Nicola with that.

    Nicola’s core messages condensed onto 2 pages would reach a wider audience that would include more of the right people. As Nicola’s messaging has been structured in his recent papers, I believe he will mostly be attracting the attention of the wrong type of people — i.e. people who will be of no help figuring out how natural climate works.

    That’s what I think.
    I accept and respect that others think differently.

    May we all remain free to think whatever we want.

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    Roger Andrews (July 19, 2013 at 3:47 am) wrote:

    “Another question to be considered is why the impacts of the solar, planetary and lunar harmonics on temperature are largely confined to high northern latitudes:

    http://oi39.tinypic.com/sbr5me.jpg

    This is based on a premise that isn’t consistent with observation. I’ll aim to concisely illustrate why I say this sometime during the next 2 months.

    Roger’s wise to raise this issue.

    Regards

  7. thank for posting

    As Ian says, not all physical mechanisms are understood yet nor the paper claims that everything is already understood. Hopefully in the future the things will get clearer.

    A possible physical mechanism is proposed in my paper

    Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.

    which I believe to be the best physical proposal existing today. However open issues still exist and electromagnetic interactions need to be investigated too.

    However, the fact that not all physical mechanisms are full understood yet is not just a “failing on our side”.

    Nobody has a full theory of solar and climate variation yet.

    The benefit of the planetary theory of solar/climate variation is that it is shading light on both solar and climate variations better than any other proposed theory.

    Those who ignore it simply conclude that solar and climate variations are unpredictable and are not understood.

    To Roger Andrews

    in my papers (see figure 6 in the present) I show the effect in both the Northern and the Southern hemispheres.
    Note that the quality of the data is not the same in the two hemispheres, so you need some statistical analysis.

    Moreover, the climatic effect is through the clouds. in the south pole the snow albedo interferes with the cloud albedo (both are white from the space) and the clouds cause a warming too, so the pattern must be inverted in the south pole.

  8. “Nicola has done his bit in trying to promote the search for a plausible mechanism for planetary influences upon the Earth’s climate. It is now up to others to flesh out the mechanism(s) involved.”

    Ian, hopefully I too will be able to add some other bit to this 🙂
    I am not dead yet!

  9. Chaeremon says:

    Nicola Scafetta said: I am not dead yet!

    Then, please, take some time and write in no uncertain terms about your method and not “just” about (im-)possible explanations of the (un-)known past, present and future. From what I’ve seen between and along the lines in your work, your lead thoughts are as follows (please correct or object), in my humble words:

    1. Skeptics find fault with that of energetically+physically open systems (like: weather+climate) no global state nor its dynamics is measurable by climatologists.

    2. Instead of this uncomfortable truth, the mainstream oftentimes dished convenient untruths.

    3. The energetically+physically open system of weather+climate can not be measured globally and consequently the causal composition can not be measured globally (this includes everything possible or impossible about GHG components).

    Therefore, you created a new hypothesis and checked which undisputed observations can/cannot falsify. The rest is conclusion plus your prognosis of further behavior of the physically+energetically open system.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Ian Wilson says: ‘Nicola has done his bit in trying to promote the search for a plausible mechanism for planetary influences upon the Earth’s climate.’

    Just an opinion but it would not surprise me if the role of magnetism turned out be be central to that.

  11. Chaeremon, sorry but I am not sure about what you are asking.

    Yes, I do make the case that climate system is not interpreted correctly by the IPCC AGW advocates and that the evidences point toward an alternative interpretation that I am developing.

    oldbrew:

    I do believe that also electro-magnetism does matter.

  12. Chaeremon says:

    Nicola Scafetta said: Chaeremon, sorry but I am not sure about what you are asking.

    I gave it another try, look in your email.

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    The fundamentally corrupted “physical mechanism” thought policing that goes on in online solar & climate discussions is patently not consistent with observation.

    If one peels off the authoritative facade, one finds only false assumptions (e.g. uniformity).

    As Tomas Milanovic has emphasized, no complete theory of turbulently coupled spatiotemporal fields yet exists.

    There’s absolutely nothing “unphysical” about turbulent stirring that manifests in aliased observational aggregates as mirage correlations.

    That’s why I’ve developed tuned aggregate & tachometer-style wavelet metrics to pick out global circulatory manifolds & frequency shifts.

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    Regarding Figure 6, note:

    (22.2)*(9) / (22.2 – 9)
    ~= 15.1

    Tip:

    +:

    (12.78649873)*(1) / (12.78649873 + 1)
    = 0.927465267

    (11.06967194)*(0.5) / (11.06967194 + 0.5)
    = 0.478391781

    Harmonic of 0.927465267 nearest 0.478391781:

    0.927465267 / 2 = 0.463732634

    Beat of 0.478391781 with 0.463732634:

    (0.478391781)*(0.463732634)
    / (0.478391781 – 0.463732634)
    = 15.13361376

    -:

    (12.78649873)*(1) / (12.78649873 – 1)
    = 1.084842838

    (11.06967194)*(0.5) / (11.06967194 – 0.5)
    = 0.523652579

    Harmonic of 1.084842838 nearest 0.523652579:

    1.084842838 / 2 = 0.542421419

    Beat of 0.542421419 with 0.523652579:

    (0.542421419)*(0.523652579)
    / (0.542421419 – 0.523652579)
    = 15.13361376

    Look deeper and see that this ties in rigidly with:

    Semi-annual:
    2300 year modulation

    Annual:
    1500 year modulation

    (Extra tip: Every ~1500 years the SJEV framework laps the adjacent solar system boundary framework set by the highest & lowest frequency Jovian planets, J & N — detailed algebraic derivation at a later date…)

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    More precise figures for anyone attempting to independently work ahead of schedule:

    2298.160281
    1499.158824

  16. tchannon says:

    Not too rapid fire Paul please, five six so far.

  17. Ian Wilson says:

    Nicola said (tongue-in-cheek):

    “Ian, hopefully I too will be able to add some other bit to this 🙂
    I am not dead yet!”

    Thank you for what you have done (so far) to get the Planetary Climate Theory into the peer-reviewed main-stream science. That by itself is a major accomplishment. We look forward to your future contributions with interest.

  18. suricat says:

    Veritas vitae.
    Veni. Vidi. Indagavi.
    Et interpretatus obcæcatum.

    Truth in life.
    I came. I saw. I discovered.
    I interpreted and was blinded.

    So much for modelling, eh? Weed out the ‘Chinese whispers’ and perhaps a better model can be constructed. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  19. Ulric Lyons says:

    This multi-frequency harmonic component approach is fundamentally wrong. What exists is an event sequence of heliocentric planetary configurations that are changing on scales of a year or two, down to a week or less. The product of Jupiter-Saturn synodic or syzygy cycles is not a sine wave, even if it was, their Trigon at every third synod could not physically produce a 60yr sine wave, and the quoted beat frequency periods in terms of the relative physical position of these two bodies (which is what matters), are meaningless. It’s not about lots of cycles modulating each other, but about real time multi-body angular synthesis producing a fast changing signal.
    What happened at 1881 and 1940, was that Jup+Sat were accompanied by another Jovian planet, which did not happen in 2000, neither did the temperature drop the same way. Showing that 60yr periodicity has already failed.

  20. Ok, Ulric Lyons

    let us wait the publication of your alternative theory.
    So it may be easier to understand your arguments.

    **************

    By the way, does anybody knows where Roger is?

  21. I have updated the above figure with a direct comparison with the IPCC models.

    Perhaps, Tim may show it.

    general details are in

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1

  22. tchannon says:

    Updated the article, thank you.
    Graphic clicks through to the original which is goodness me… 6600 pixels wide.

  23. Chaeremon says:

    Nicola Scafetta said: I have updated the above figure with a direct comparison with the IPCC models.
    Yay! now playing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0uplUvP_Qg

  24. Chaeremon says:

    Ulric Lyons said: What exists is an event sequence of heliocentric planetary configurations that are changing on scales of a year or two, down to a week or less.
    Not so fast with sequence but not a sine wave. Unknotted the jovians return to an almost year-bound position for conjunction with Earth, each planet with its own sluggishness. Look at the picture below: 1 complete sine curve per jovian in the ecliptic, and therefore in a climate forcing season

    http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/382263_418065698286264_1824499064_n.jpg (Tim, please picturize this .jpg width:563 height:198, TIA).
    This 500yrs of plain data is plotted at ecliptic° and at Sol’s spatial distance (offset to same zero for illustration, take care with interpreting distance and gravity); the data is available for replication.

    [mod: security, local copy displayed. –Tim]

  25. Ulric Lyons says:

    Nicola:
    We can discuss your dominant 60yr component without referring to my all findings.
    Sure there were events around 1881 and 1940 that produced short term peaks in global temperatures. But that does not mean that something is producing a 60yr sinusoidal signal between them. And as I said above, from 2000 the temperature has not dropped in the same fashion that it did from 1881 and 1940, which I say is for astronomical reasons. While you account for it with an unproven 40-50% anthropogenic component, giving your whole forecast a warm bias that may not exist.

  26. Ulric

    as I said there is little to discuss. You claim that my model is wrong because you have the “right” model. However, you do not tell us your model.

    When you will publish your model we will be able to discuss the issues.

    For now, note that I am not using just the quasi-60 year cycle but other cycles as well and I also claim that the cycles are numerous. The model as it is has passed a number of hindcast tests for 10,000 year.

    You need to demonstrate that you model works better.

    It may be that the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic forcing is lower, but things are done with what is known right now. In the future the model might be updated.

  27. tchannon says:

    Ulric, I’m in a quandary over whether to show something connected with what NS has been doing but I did not publish. My problem is not wanting to spoil the paper here by putting the focus on me; same applies if I make this a new article.

    Briefly the results of harmonic extrapolation from

    HADCRUT 3 global computed from gridded without Hadley statistical post processing
    HADCRUT 3 official global
    HADCRUT 4 official global

    Using withheld known dataproduce remarkably different results.

    R squared over 30 year extrapolation period against known (not over whole data)
    0.47
    0.34
    0.19
    For the first figure above, changes from 0.41 for the input data vs. model period to 0.70 for whole data vs. model.

  28. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tim, may I suggest that the sensible thing to do is bypass the peripheral quandary in the higher interests of expedient pursuit of enlightenment?

    I would further suggest that all any of us should care about is converging on the truth rapidly.

    It’s the Pareto Principle and in this context (a) yielding to social intimidation and (b) indulging in perfectionist communication reduces us to 1/4 (20/80) of our potential collective pace. That sort of inefficiency would be tolerated only in university & government operations.

    Maybe you’ll say what you have to say and no one will get it right away but the info will be immediately filed away brewing in subconscious reservoirs for instant opportunistic future linkage & reference.

    Worries about optics are our worst enemy.
    Every delay compounds future delays.

    Here’s my new contribution for today without further unnecessary delay:


    2-slide animation contrasting solar drive of physically differing northern & southern terrestrial hemispheres

    Tim & others: I look forward to seeing your ongoing contributions as soon as possible.

    Regards

  29. Sparks says:

    The Sun and solar system have a “Integral relationship”, whether the sun ‘runs the planets’ or the planets influence the solar activity the timing features are definitely there.

    I think this ‘planetary Influence’ also applies to the Earths Climatic Changes, Nicola Scafettas excellent work appears to show an Influence directly attributed to the Solar and planetary oscillation, Its a step forward in our understanding for scientists to use both the sun and planetary system as we cant have one with out the other. working out this “Integral relationship” is the key in my opinion.

    I’ve posted an interesting trend today of Uranus and Jupiters orbital resonance.
    Sunspot area 1875-2012 with Polynomial trend of Jupiter and Uranus distance.

    On the question of “whether the sun ‘runs the planets’ or vise-versa?” we can not solve this until we find another star or stars with a similar planetary system and a solar cycle with the same timing features that our sun and solar system has.

    On the other hand, I’ve been looking at the star Tau boo A and its planet Tau boo b, Tau boo A is a star (part of a binary system with Tau boo B) which rapidly flips its magnetic field, one interesting feature about this system is that it also has timing features associated with a strong center of gravity (which is caused by the binary star system) and a large orbiting perturbing planetary body affecting its parent star, possibly inducing a solar cycle.

  30. Ulric Lyons says:

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    “You claim that my model is wrong because you have the “right” model. However, you do not tell us your model.”

    You are using that as an excuse to avoid discussion of points I have made.

    “The model as it is has passed a number of hindcast tests for 10,000 year.”

    I would not pass it.

    “You need to demonstrate that you model works better.”

    I’m happy for now to point out the flaws in yours.

  31. Ulric Lyons says:

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    “For now, note that I am not using just the quasi-60 year cycle but other cycles as well and I also claim that the cycles are numerous.”

    Well clearly from your harmonic model your 60yr component has the greatest amplitude, and I contend that it is impossible for Jupiter and Saturn to produce such a 60yr sine wave like signal, meaning your theoretical astronomical basis for this is spurious. I already commented on some of your other cycles in my first post.

  32. “Well clearly from your harmonic model your 60yr component has the greatest amplitude”

    not really, Ulrich. The greatest amplitude is the 1000 year cycle. You have not read my paper, don’t you?

    If you study well my model the 60-year cycle becomes more prominent during specific periods such as from 1850 to 2150. It amplitude changes because it interfere with other cycles.

    The proposed model uses a minimal number of harmonics. In reality there are several other harmonics.

  33. Ulric Lyons says:

    Nicolas:
    Within the range of your projection for this century, your 60yr cycle has the greatest amplitude, and my point still stands, Jup+Sat alone cannot produce such a cycle from three synodic periods, it’s not possible.

  34. Dear Ulric Lyons

    I repeat that the greatest amplitude is the millennial cycle, also during the period 1850-2013. During the last century the millennial cycle was approaching the maximum, which is projected to occur in the 2060s (as also Issac Newton calculated, by the way).

    You are completely missing the fact that the 60-year cycle I am talking about is also present in the tidal potential. And also present in other astronomical records such as the Z-axis coordinate of the sun etc. And you are missing the point that for my argument what matters is the existence of a quasi-60 year astronomical cycle. The microscopic physical mechanism is irrelevant here.

    You need to study well my papers and look at figures 7 and 13 of the present paper.

    Again, you need to show your “right” model to claim to be correct. At the moment you are simply handwaving because of your poor understanding of the issues. When you publish your paper we can discuss the issues with a better understanding of what you are talking about.

  35. Ulric Lyons says:

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    “I repeat that the greatest amplitude is the millennial cycle,”

    You don’t need to repeat that, if it did exist as a cycle, it would not dominate through this century. But again, the reality is about periodic events rather than cycles.

    “..60-year cycle I am talking about is also present in the tidal potential.”

    Nothing to do with a 60yr sine wave.

    “for my argument what matters is the existence of a quasi-60 year astronomical cycle”

    Your astronomical model is deficient, it does not indicate the correct reasons for the pronounced nodes at 1881 and 1940, and incorrectly assumes a cyclic function.

  36. tchannon says:

    There is a combination of regular and irregular Ulric but most things do not have a known definite causal. A few we know, earth spins.

    I see no difference between your positions, there is looks-like but turning that into is-so, very hard indeed.

  37. tchannon says:

    Let me throw in a curved ball.

    A little while ago I pointed out the oddity of roughly 7y, 22y, 60y, factors of 3 in relationship where the 22y is likely to be the solar magnetic cycle. In addition the phase relationship points to connection.

    I don’t remember mentioning 7, 21, 60, 200 or 180 to 210 or whatever which is deVries and associated with radionuclude records believed to be connected with solar activity.

    As far as 1000y is concerned I’m not sure whether that ought to be shorter, certainly I’ve seen 800-900, which might make another x3. I have no idea at all why a factor of 3, not something I expect in natural systems except as an absence of. Nature is funny like that.

    There seems to be a train with rising amplitude. All rather vague yet something seems there.

  38. Chaeremon says:

    tchannon said: … there is looks-like but turning that into is-so, very hard indeed.

    At the level of observations there is no difference between looks-like and is-so, otherwise they fail to be accepted in scientific community. So, differences are reserved for use in assessing adventuresome hypotheses (this includes every thinkable and unthinkable proxy), like in: see the blank patch over there in the universe, it’s chock full of emptiness there must be black holes or else the edge of the universe! 😉

  39. Ulric Lyons says:

    @tchannon

    I don’t see that a 60yr envelope “looks-like” 3 Jupiter-Saturn synodic periods at all.

  40. Tenuc says:

    tchannon says:
    July 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm
    “…I have no idea at all why a factor of 3, not something I expect in natural systems except as an absence of. Nature is funny like that…

    Period 3 = Chaos

    Systems exhibiting deterministic chaos are often subject to period doubling. Get long periods of predictable quasi-cyclical activity, then suddenly – chaos.

    We are living with a variable star and have only accurately observed its behaviour for a tiny fraction of time. If it is driven by complex intransigent sub-systems, then future activity levels cannot be forecast. If it is not, can someone predict when we’re going to descend into the next Ice Age?

    Last 400k years temperature here…

  41. Ulric Lyons says:

    I’m still waiting for an answer on this from a while back….
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/11/scafetta-prediction-widget-update/#comment-925668
    pertinent comments from Willis too.

  42. tchannon says:

    One of the holy grails Ulric is a definite planetary solar or terrestrial linkage. If such a linkage is definite that’s when suddenly there are changes of attitude.

    Over the next few days I will probably be posting an article on a April pub. paper which moves some goalposts, links in with other stuff where I am going. This actually gives a new playground for discovering solar linkages, wide open pastures. Actually I am not surprised and also amused.

    [too darn hot here, computer on standby, cooling off, going to take a break ]

  43. Ulric Lyons says: July 22, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    “I’m still waiting for an answer on this from a while back….”

    As I responded there, the relevant papers were not yet published at the time.

    Now you can read these papers:

    Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.

    Scafetta N., and R. C. Willson, 2013. Planetary harmonics in the historical Hungarian aurora record (1523–1960). Planetary and Space Science 78, 38-44.

    You still do not get the point that the 60 year oscillation is in the tidal envelope and in other solar observable because the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn are not perfectly circular and there are other geometrical properties.

    A 60-year oscillation has been found also in the fall of the meteorites which is related to Jupiter and Saturn effect.

    [moderator adds, try these links:
    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_AGU-2012.pdf
    Seems to be PDF of slides from a presentation.
    and
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2190
    –Tim]

  44. Ulric Lyons says:

    Nicola said:
    “You still do not get the point that the 60 year oscillation is in the tidal envelope and in other solar observable because the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn are not perfectly circular and there are other geometrical properties.”

    I did get get that, which is why I asked you on WUWT what went wrong in 1643 and 1702 when they were even closer. There is still no 60yr oscillation produced by Jupiter and Saturn, it’s not possible. This whole approach of summing different wavelength sine waves is erroneous, there is not the slightest bit of evidence to suggest planetary forcing of solar activity behaves like that.

  45. J Martin says:

    @ Paul Vaughan

    Your animated gif is pretty interesting. Though at my age I think I’d prefer two stationary gifs.

    So mathematically and in words what is the difference between deceleration and integration ?

    I think I understand integration being a sort of running total of heat input, presumably with some smoothing factor. But I don’t think I have a grip on Solar deceleration.

    Can you elucidate a bit please ?

    So what you are saying is that the temperatures in one hemisphere are governed by one characteristic of the sun and the temperatures in the other hemisphere are governed by a different characteristic of the sun. That’s pretty revolutionary.

  46. J Martin says:

    @ Paul Vaughan

    The Southern hemisphere is governed by solar input, because it gets more sun and is mostly ocean.

    The Northern hemisphere is governed by solar deceleration, which perhaps translates into magnetic changes (?) and thus by some mechanism, temperature. Some of Vuk’s graphs for the Arctic show a good match.

    So there we all are averaging the World and never getting anywhere when really there are two different primary mechanisms at play.

  47. Roger Andrews says:

    In an earlier comment Ulric Lyons linked to a plot of Central European temperatures that shows no evidence for 60-year cyclicity, which raises the question of where do we see this cyclicity and where don’t we? Here’s a world map that shows the regions where I can define cyclicity in the air temperature records (yellow) and those where I can’t. The map is generalized and subject to interpretational subjectivity in some cases:

    Someone may be able to see a pattern here. I can’t.

  48. R J Salvador says:

    Ian Wilson says

    “The single biggest failing on “our side” of the argument is lack of a scientifically plausible physical mechanism. Notice that I use the words “scientifically plausible”. It is not enough that we think our proposed mechanism “feels right” – it must be based upon principles that consistent with the laws of physics and it need to the best of all the possible explanations.”

    One way to make a physical connection (plausible?) between the very good contribution of Nicola Scafetta’s planetary oscillations on climate is through the work of Hiroko Miyahara and her ideas of the sun’s modulation of Galactic cosmic rays by the Heliosphere. Planetary oscillations cause variations in the Heliosphere which modulates both the energy level and attack angle of cosmic rays reaching the earth. I suggest using a Boltzmann or Arrehnius type equation to describe the effect of modulation where the exponent is a function of magnetic oscillations instead of temperature.

    Eg: Temperature effect= CGR*EXP(Magnetic wave function)

    I have used a combination of such functions to get correlations to the temperature anomaly (80%-84%) but I lack any depth of knowledge in planetary oscillations. For CGR I used a variation of Hathaway’s CGR equation where CGR=4400-5*SN. The exponential wave function simulates either a change in the energy distribution of the CGR or the attack angle in the atmosphere or both. Such a modulation of the CGR could possibly describe the impact on atomic collisions and ionization rates or reaction rates for aerosols and therefore cloud formation. Just a thought for minds better than mine.

  49. Ulric Lyons says: July 22, 2013 at 8:17 pm

    discussing with you is like to discuss with a tree or a wall. I repeat, the answer to your questions is here:

    Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.

    Scafetta N., and R. C. Willson, 2013. Planetary harmonics in the historical Hungarian aurora record (1523–1960). Planetary and Space Science 78, 38-44.

    The 60-year cycle is modulated by other cycles and sometimes the interference is destructive. So, it is possible that it may not appear clear during some periods. Typically, grand solar minima are characterized by such destructive interference as shown in the above two papers that use more cycles than just the 60-year cycle.

    The 60-year cycle is particularly evident during the period 1850-2150, as explained in my paper, Fig 13B.

    Spend some time reading my papers instead of repeating always the same issue.

    J Salvador says: July 22, 2013 at 10:42 pm

    what you say is correct and part of the problem. I briefly discuss the issue in my paper. Future research will deal with these hypotheses.
    .

  50. vukcevic says:

    The 60 (or more likely 65) year cycle as observed in the climate’s natural variability (mainly in the AMO) according to what I find is not an astronomic fundamental, but the Earth-born cross-modulation.

  51. You folks should be applauding Nicola Scafetta for showing (once again) that the IPCC’s models are flat out wrong. Any theory based on the idea that a single variable is dominant is doomed to failure. If climate was that simple there would be nothing for us to debate.

    In his Figure 17, Scafetta gently reminds us that climate is affected by many variables. Modern “Climate Science” is woefully inadequate to untangle these variables and that is why none of the existing climate models can produce convincing “Backcasts” even with the advantage of hindsight.

    Scafetta’s predictions based on planetary resonances are criticized (rightly in my estimation) for lack of a convincing “Mechanism”.

    So why are we not criticizing “Consensus” theory that is based on a mechanism that is obviously false, namely the Arrhenius’ 1896 theory?
    QUOTE
    The selective absorption of the atmosphere is……………..not exerted by the chief mass of the air, but in a high degree by aqueous vapor and carbonic acid, which are present in the air in small quantities.
    UNQUOTE
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/

    “Climate Scientists” like Jeff Severinghaus and Thomas Stocker participated in the EPICA studies of Antarctic ice cores (Luethi et al.). These studies show a striking correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration as Al Gore claimed in his award winning movie. Yet these “Experts” do not support Al’s claim that CO2 drives temperature. When you ask them “Why not”, they “Lawyer Up” just like Mike Mann.
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/

  52. gallopingcamel says: July 23, 2013 at 4:23 am

    The argument is generally correct. Just a couple of points.

    “Scafetta’s predictions based on planetary resonances are criticized (rightly in my estimation) for lack of a convincing “Mechanism”.”

    This is not a valid argument in science. Scientific theories can be criticized if they fail hindcasting tests, not if all physical microscopic details are still unknown. Also the gravitational theory of Newton was unfairly criticized for a “lack of a mechanism”, and the mechanism is still missing!

    Also all other major physical theories do not have “mechanisms” explaining them, but they are believed good because hindcast the experimental outcomes. It is the ability of reproducing the data that constitute a valid test about a scientific theory. Ocean tides were associated to the moon for millennia without any need of a “mechanism”.

    On the contrary, the IPCC model do not pass the hindcast tests.

    I may say, that those who continuously refer to the “mechanism” instead of looking at the hindcasting tests simply demonstrate to not understand the scientific method.

    Said in other words, the important question according the scientific method is not:

    “what is the mechanism of your theory?”

    but

    “can you theory hindcast the data?”

    The mechanism problem is secondary and not absolutely necessary.

    In any case, my papers also deal with the mechanism problem. For example, the idea is that the planets modulate the sun which then modulates the climate. You need to give a look at figure 13 where the solar model is directly compared in hindcast mode against the temperature.

    This paper details a possible physical mechanism:

    Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    =
    Kasuha says:
    July 23, 2013 at 3:40 am

    Okay, Scafetta’s approximation is not very scientific and contains a lot of free parameters capable of approximating just about anything. I can agree with that.
    That does not mean you have to write an article full of insults and hate about it. All of the scientific discussion content of the article could fit into one, maybe two paragraphs. The rest is completely unnecessary and for me it further lowers credibility of WUWT as a whole.

    We’ve seen worse right here on WUWT. My personal favorite is the analysis where the temperature record was approximated solely by aliasing errors.
    =

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/23/congenital-cyclomania-redux/#comment-1369142

    Kasuha falsely assumes random errors where careful diagnostics crystallize systematic biases.

    1+1 = 2

    Maybe sometimes narrow temporal focus causes folks to overlook what temporal evolution indicates about spatial pattern? Solar cycle deceleration indicates changes in the spatial evolution of solar butterfly wings.

    Reminder:

    Variation of cyclical spatial evolution — (a) vs. (b) :

    (a) http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/589/1/665/fulltext/57538.fg1.html

    (b) http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/589/1/665/fulltext/57538.fg2.html

    @ R J Salvador

    The audience (e.g. Kasuha) tragically failed to connect the 2 dots you illustrated.

    @ J Martin

    Diagnostic refinement points directly to the thermal equator. I aim to share further illustrations (with concise comments) during the next 2 months.

    Regards

  54. Ulric Lyons says:

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    “discussing with you is like to discuss with a tree or a wall. I repeat, the answer to your questions is here:”

    No that is not the answer to my question, it’s just waving the same stuff in my face again. Which makes your gibe a projection.

    “The 60-year cycle is modulated by other cycles and sometimes the interference is destructive. So, it is possible that it may not appear clear during some periods. Typically, grand solar minima are characterized by such destructive interference as shown in the above two papers that use more cycles than just the 60-year cycle.” and

    The 1881 and 1940 nodes are so apparent because of the other gas giants, there is no 60yr cycle produced by Jupiter and Saturn alone, least of all in a 60yr sine wave.

    Maybe if we meet at tallblokes conference in September, I’ll show you what was happening through Maunder and Dalton at a monthly scale.

  55. Ulric Lyons says:

    MONTHLY ARAURAS 1500-1948 Power Spectrum (Silverman)
    Peaks at 83yrs, 55yrs and 33.3yrs (page6):
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf

  56. GS says:

    There are at least 2 real world 60 year cycles that could affect climate. Nicola has covered both of them many times in his papers.

    Jupiter and Saturn via their orbit patterns exert tidal or magnetic forces on Earth that peak every 60 years.

    There is also a 60 year cycle in the Sun’s velocity around the SSB over the last few hundred years. This is solely brought about by the outer 4 planet positions and is a result of triple conjunctions and quadruple conjunctions that just happen to occur during this period.
    [mod: edited by snip. Please let the mods try and contain things. –Tim]

  57. Tim,

    Willis Eschenbach wrote on

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/23/congenital-cyclomania-redux/

    that you and Tallbloke banned him from your website. Is that true?

    If so, I am linking his article above, criticizing my and your article

    I just posted the following response

    *********

    First of all, let us start saying that interested readers need to read my paper if they want to know what I say instead of reading Willis’ rants. On my web-site free copies can be downloaded. The paper under analysis is here

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_EE_2013.pdf

    However, other papers were published and there may be a need to read them all to know the details, including the references.

    About Willis’s article I see that my paper is not making to sleep somebody, which is a good sign.
    But people need to sleep well to write properly.
    If not the probability of saying non-senses increases greatly.
    It appears that Willis had a nightmare.

    Let us start from the easiest thing that demonstrates that Willis have lost some hours of sleep and/or panicking.

    1) Willies criticized my Figure 11 and the trigon graph by Kepler by stating

    *****

    And as you might expect from a man citing Kepler, Scafetta treats scientific information like fine wine—he doesn’t want anything of recent vintage. Apparently on his planet you have to let science mellow for some decades before you bring it out to breathe … and in that regard, I direct your attention to the citation in the bottom center of his Figure 11, “Source: Geophysical Data, J. Biddy (USA) 1978″.
    Finally, he highlights the “20 year and 60 year astronomical cycles” in Kepler’s chart at the right. In fact, what he calls the “20 year” cycles shown in Kepler’s dates at the right vary from 10 to 30 years according to Kepler’s own figures shown inside the circle, and what he calls the “60 year astronomical cycles” include cycles from 50 to 70 years.
    *****

    I have numerous problems with Willis citing my paper. First of all Willis deceives the reader by forgetting that those references such as Kepler model, which was a climatic model, wos referenced in a section dedicated to the ancient understanding of climate change. I reference also Ptolemy and Medieval writers, but Willis did not note it.

    Second I never talk about a guy called “J. Biddy.”
    Who is J. Biddy, Willis? A subject of your nightmare?

    As any reader can easily see by reading my paper I am referencing to “J. A. Eddy” not “J. Biddy”

    Willies probably does not know it, but J. Eddy is likely one of the greatest solar physicist of the last 50 years. Here is his profile in Wikipedia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Eddy

    Now, let us talk about Kepler trigon.

    There Willies see cycles varying between 10 and 30 year and between 50 and 70 year, instead of 20 and 60 years.

    However, on that graph these are the reported dates (written by the hand of Kepler)

    first trigon) 1583, 1603, 1623,
    second trigon) 1643, 1663, 1683,
    third trigon) 1703, 1723, 1743,
    fourth incomplete trigon) 1763,

    which are the conjunction dates of Jupiter and Saturn.

    Where Willis saw in the Kepler’s diagram cycles varying between 10 and 30, and between 50 and 70 I do not know.

    Given the above it is evident that Willis did not read my paper and is simply trying to mislead the readers of Anthony’s blog. It would be nice to know if Anthony agrees with Willis on these points.

    2) Given the above is not surprising that Willis does not understand the logic of the cycles I am taking about which requires a careful reading of my paper, and some knowledge in physics.

    About the “Congenital Cyclomania Redux” for using just 6 harmonics spanning between the decadal to the millennial scales Willis does not know that the logic implemented in my model is essentially equivalent to the harmonic constituent astronomical model used to predict the ocean tides on the Earth where up to 40 (very close) harmonics are used. My 6 harmonic model is a baby in comparison.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_tides#Tidal_constituents

    I am sure that Willis does not believe in the harmonic constituent astronomical tidal model either which happens to be the most accurate and advanced geophysical model. The only model that actually works in long range predictions.

    In addition, Willis accusation that I am using 3 free parameters (amplitude, phase and frequency) for each cycle is false. The cycles parameters are both deduced by the analysis of the data and by a cross-comparison with the astronomical cycles that suggest both the frequency and the phase. In the present paper I made the choice of using oscillations with at most very small adjustments for statistical optimization because many more cycles may be present generating beats.

    Look at Figure 7 and 8, and 13. But you need also to read the references of my other papers to understand the physical origin of the cycles.

    For example, Willis has not yet understood that the 61-year cycle used in the analysis comes from the beat between the Jupiter-Spring tide (9.93 year) and the Jupiter tide (11.86 year) as explained in my paper.

    The only true free parameters are the amplitude of the cycle that need to be calibrated against the temperature data.

    The cycle at 10-11 are essentially the solar cycle that is made of a 10, 11 year cycle modulated by the 12 year cycle of Jupiter. I talk about this in another paper, for example.

    Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.

    The physical meaning of the oscillations I am using is clearly explained in the paper and in its references.

    Many other things are omitted by Willis such as that I do tests calibrating my model in 1850-1950 and reconstruct the climatic oscillations from 1950 to 2012, for example. The solar model I propose hindcast major climatic pattern during the last 10,000 years. See for example Figure 13 and also other references. Etc.

    So, the interested readers are invited to read my paper.

    I thank the numerous readers above that have noted that Willis comments were erroneous and that one of Willis’ problem is personal arrogance, another is ignorance. I still hope that Anthony realizes it.

    The issue of climate change is complex. It is evident that my model performs much better than the IPCC models and has been tested on hidcasting capabilities.

    It is evident that Willis does not have a better theory of climate change.

    Nature will eventually confirm or rebut my theory. Up to now Nature seems to follow it quite well.

    I do not claim that the model is complete yet, other cycles are present (in the case of the tides 40 close cycles have been found). The research continues with other peer reviewed papers on science journals.

    As it happens, somebody will be convinced sooner and somebody will be convinced at the end, such as Willis.

  58. Ulric Lyons says:

    GS says:
    “Jupiter and Saturn via their orbit patterns exert tidal or magnetic forces on Earth that peak every 60 years.”

    Earth has its first rough synod with the other two at 5 Ju-Sa synods = ~99yrs, though 11 Ju-Sa synods is tighter. I thought the idea was to look for what may effect the Sun rather than Earth?

    “There is also a 60 year cycle in the Sun’s velocity around the SSB over the last few hundred years. This is solely brought about by the outer 4 planet positions and is a result of triple conjunctions and quadruple conjunctions that just happen to occur during this period.”

    In 1821 and 2000 they were not triple. These conjunctions are periodic events on sequences, they are not cycles.

  59. Curious George says:

    Nicola – I am afraid that Willis has a point. You have too many arbitrary parameters, no physical mechanism, and not even a clean mathematics – e.g., “The cycle at 10-11 are essentially the solar cycle that is made of a 10, 11 year cycle modulated by the 12 year cycle of Jupiter.” I call that a little arbitrary.

    Why don’t we go back to basics and prove that God himself governs the climate? Let’s try cycle length of 2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31, and for a long-term trend, 101 years?

  60. tchannon says:

    Nicola, I keep out of the Rog/Willis matter. Is he banned? I wouldn’t necessarily know if I did not invoke it which I did not. (I am not aware of a ban)

    Please try not to escalate things, I have to try and keep the lid on inappropriate comments without seeming to be excessively unfair. (this is why I cannot take part and I will misjudge sometimes)

    My reaction to Willis was smile and walk away. It didn’t need an answer.

  61. Curious George says:“The cycle at 10-11 are essentially the solar cycle that is made of a 10, 11 year cycle modulated by the 12 year cycle of Jupiter.” I call that a little arbitrary”

    please read these papers:

    Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.

    Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.

    where the issue is explained in details.

  62. suricat says:

    Nicola Scafetta says: July 23, 2013 at 10:10 pm

    “A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation.”

    I’ve a question. Whenever I hear of a ‘study’ on Sol’s ‘luminosity’ it tends to only involve the vis spectra and IMHO this is a ‘wasteful’ exercise. Isn’t it so, that ‘wave-length’ (frequency) variation causes greater energy flux change due to the Planck level variation?

    I’d like to read your proposal in “Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.”, but don’t know how to get it (I’m just a lowly engineer). Could you paste a link please?

    Best regards, Ray.

  63. suricat says:
    July 23, 2013 at 11:55 pm

    see my web site for downloading the paper

  64. Curious George says:

    Tim – maybe “we” can do nothing about a “paywalled edifice”. Maybe you can do something about it. Maybe you could ban a reference to a paywalled article in a discussion without identifying it as such.

  65. GS says:

    @Ulric

    I thought the idea was to look for what may effect the Sun rather than Earth?

    You thought wrong…read the papers.

    In 1821 and 2000 they were not triple. These conjunctions are periodic events on sequences, they are not cycles.

    With respect to solar velocity I have already stated this, but the 60 year pattern goes back several hundred years.

    Looking for a hot year during a cool period does not prove anything, do not make the same mistake as Svalgaard by putting all your eggs in one basket, climate is a result of many processes that work together (and has nothing to do with the position of Ceres).

  66. Ulric Lyons says:

    @GS

    The 60yr pattern finished in 1940. And whose to say that the pair of conjuncts in 1821 is the equivalent to the triples in 1881 and 1940?
    Your [mentioning] about a hot year or Ceres has nothing to do with my discussion of 60yr pseudo cycles.
    [mod: edit]

  67. GS says:

    [I think] (Svalgaard, Willis, Watts) over at WUWT are certainly making fools of themselves on this topic. I fail to see how they can criticize when they have no knowledge on the topic.
    [mod: edited ]

  68. tallbloke says:

    Scafetta makes his papers available via his duke profile page.

  69. Roger,
    nice to see you back from vacation

  70. GS says:

    @Ulric

    The 60yr pattern finished in 1940

    No it didnt, study the Scafetta graph.

    The solar velocity continues to show a 60 year cycle for several hundred years to come. Looks like the PDO cycle to me.

  71. Ulric Lyons says:

    @GS

    The graph shows a varying 20yr pattern, nothing like the PDO. The only worthy thing you have noted is the triples at 1881 and 1940, though it’s not evidence of a 60yr oscillation. At year 2000, the pattern breaks, there’s no triple conjunct, or one of your (undefined) quadruples, and most importantly, global temperature since 2000 has not dropped in a manner like through the 1880’s or 1940’s.

  72. steverichards1984 says:

    Well done to Dr Scafetta for his latest exploration in astronomical cycles.

    It would be good I feel to widen participation in this research.

    Using R the computer language available to all computers and users free of charge, I propose we start collating suitable formulas and parameters to build up an acceptable set to enable the full testing of the linkage between astronomical cycles and climate cycles. I’ll propose my test at the end of this entry.

    As the good doctor has shown it is possible to build up a series of terms that create a semblance of the pattern of average temperature on earth.

    Disregarding the worth of the term ‘average surface temperature’, with all of its problems it would be interesting and helpful if we could ‘crowd source’ the final discovery of the proposed relationship between the two.

    Dr.S has produced a number of formulas which enable us to make a start:

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_AGU-2012.pdf eq.(10)
    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_AGU-2012.pdf eq.(11)
    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_AGU-2012.pdf eq.(12)

    If we put these into R by doing this:

    x=seq(1900,2060,by=0.01)
    y=(0.83*cos(2*pi*((x-2000.475)/9.929656))) + (1*cos(2*pi*((x-2002.364)/10.87))) + (0.55*cos(2*pi*((x-1999.381)/11.862242)))
    plot(x,abs(y),type=”l”)

    literally “cut ‘n’ paste” the above into your R window and you will graph pop up that looks like:

    red line in slide 15 of http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_AGU-2012.pdf

    So now we have the Doctors 3 main effects, it would be good to expand on these 3 terms.

    As Saturn and Jupiter move above and below the solar horizon by 1.5 – 2.5 degrees, this need to be taken into account. we need to a cos or sin to each term to allow for that effect.

    The value preceding each trig term I am assuming will be related to the mass and distance of each planet. This will need to be carefully considered to get the values as accurate as we can.

    Now, we can assume that either one of 2 scenarios exist here (in my mind):

    1) its the gravity of the planets effecting the earth/sun causing climate change

    2) its the planets effecting cosmic rays etc prior to them hitting earth.

    The choice of 1 or 2 above decides which way to travel.

    2) my prefered option can be tested by ‘rotating’ all terms through space in X Y and Z, (ie rotating our solar disk and its planets in azimuth and declination simultaneously applying a ‘weak force’ (ie +0.1 to each term). Such that in one position, the rotation of the solar system, with this weak force coming towards the earth from a certain direction will give a better match between HADCRUT3 and the R output.

    Let me put it this way, we have our solar system in space, lets say the crab nebula is the overriding force of cosmic rays, we need to move the crab nebula into a different position, run R and move again, repeat until the crab nebula has been at every 10 degree latitude and 10 degree longitude.

    Run a R evaluation to find the ‘fit’ between each run and HADCRUT3.

    Plot the top ten matches and the bottom ten matches.

    If option 2) was correct what I propose we would see is a very good match apart from volcanic events etc AND when the cosmic source was 360 degree opposite we would get a reverse correlation (Because the direction of cosmic rays is reversed).

    I would urge people who have not used R before to get a copy, cut ‘n’ paste the above code and we can all join in.

    Ps I have not worked out how to rotate my simple R expression in 3D yet.

    Also a simple way of downloading a hadcrut dump into a suitable format to superimpose onto our graphs above.

    I would like it to be as widely acceptable as possible to all.

  73. steverichards1984 says:

    Keplerian Elements are here:

    http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_pos

  74. GS says:

    @Ulric

    Ho Hum, do we need to take baby steps here?

    Look at the wavy line near the middle of Nicola’s graph, it represents the smoothed high and low points of solar velocity. There is a clear 60 year cycle that agrees with the PDO timing.

  75. R J Salvador says:

    The 60 ish year cycle which is necessary for correlations to work, I believe, is found in a quiet article that was brought to the attention of Tallbloke by Paul Vaughan.

    Here is the news article:
    http://www.spacedaily.com/news/sunstorm-00a2.html

    Here is the paper:
    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/18001/1/99-1455.pdf

    Here is Paul’s quick analysis of the significance.
    http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20130316%20-%2060%20Year%20Cycle%20of%2027%20Day%20Terracentric%20Solar%20Rotation.pdf

    This rotating magnetic spotlight has major beats in the 60 year time frame with the earth’s rotation around the sun. The solar wind associated with this rotation could cause the 60 ish year oscillation of the earth’s magnetic field.

    Here is work by M Vukcevic:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

    The level of granulation needed in the data to work with this oscillator is at the day level which creates an obstacle. I gave up.

    Are the Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies holding this magnetic field in place? That would explain it’s persistence from cycle to cycle.

  76. Ulric Lyons says:

    @GS
    But who says nature smooths it like Nicola has? Such a piddly little signal too, obviously nothing like the amplitude of his 60yr component.

  77. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: July 24, 2013 at 12:34 am

    Thanks for the link TB. I’ve been reading, but need to read some more and then need to cogitate.

    Best regards, Ray.

  78. @Nicola Scafetta

    Nice points about a mechanism not being necessary. Newtonian gravity works pretty well given the lack of a “Mechanism”. Nevertheless, for us simple folks a plausible mechanism is a great comfort.

    The CAGW Alarmists have a “Mechanism” to explain why CO2 concentration in the atmosphere should affect temperature. Glassman has a different “Mechanism” to explain the paleo CO2/temperature correlation:
    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

    I find the Glassman mechanism more persuasive than the IPCC mechanism.

  79. To gallopingcamel

    Plaisible mechanisms are explained in the paper. It is the planets modulate soar variability and then the sun modulates the climate.

    Read well my article

  80. About Willis article on WUWT, something interesting is happening if you read my latest comments.

    Both Anthony and Willis are claiming that they want data, code etc. This is a surprising request from people that criticize my work by claiming to have rebutted it.

    They criticize without even knowing the data that I used!!

    Few hours ago I submitted a final response that has not yet appeared on the WUWT web-site, while comments submitted after my response are being uploaded.

    So, I am reporting my response here

    *********************************

    Anthony says: “Dr. Scaffetta, this is a simple request, one I make often of others…….”

    and I told you, every relevant information to obtain the results is already written in the paper.

    Note that Willis responded (Willis Eschenbach says:July 24, 2013 at 7:42 pm)
    that he wants
    “A link, not to the paper describing the data, but to the actual data that you used.”
    “A link, not to the paper describing the computer code, but to the actual computer code that you used.”

    So, Willis is further confirming that he criticized my work without having done any calculation. He does not have the data nor the books, nor the computer codes nor the mathematical skills to write the code and the exel files by himself to interpret my analysis.

    Therefore, his criticism is handwaving. His criticism is essentially based on his own deep ignorance on the subject.

    Anthony, do you understand that people should criticize “AFTER” having done some homework first, not before?

    So there is no need to continue this discussion with Willis.

    If he had properly studied my papers up to the point to criticize them, it is he who should provide you with the data, codes etc. If he has not studied my papers and he does not even know the data that I used, his criticism is void and his defamatory article needs to be withdraw with an apology.

    But let us see if the request is at least appropriate in the form. He wants to have the “web-link” to the data claiming that my paper does not have them.

    Well, let us see. For example I am using the HadCRUT4 surface temperature. Did I put a web-link where the data can be downloaded or not? This is Willis’ dilemma.

    Now I invite the readers of this blog to download my paper from here

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_EE_2013.pdf

    As it is easy to see a web-link to the HadCRUT4 dataset is in page 1, footnote 1 in the bottom page.

    If you read the footnotes of my paper, they contain numerous web-links where the data can be downloaded.

    Therefore, Willis’ request further demonstrates that he has not spent any time in reading my paper. Willis is only a loudmouth and a blusterer.

    So, Anthony, you first acknowledge that Willis does not have the skills to criticized my paper and that his comments are therefore void and withdraw because not based on a re-analysis of the data (he does not even know which data I used), then you can ask me to write a guest blog to explain my paper.

  81. GS says:

    Good point Nicola, Willis and Anthony are on very shaky ground. All hand-waving and bravado.

    I see my student (Clive E. Birkland) is doing a fine job of bringing them down.

  82. Ulric Lyons says:

    Nicola, what is the proposed source of your 115yr oscillation, and why do you think it would it have changed during Maunder ect?

  83. Ulric Lyons says:

    Re; http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_EE_2013.pdf

    “In fact, the 1/7 resonance of Jupiter and Uranus is about 85 years”

    In fact very close to 83 years, as in the Aurora power spectrum peak from Silverman.

    “The full astronomical configuration [Trigon] repeats every ~900-960 years using the sidereal orbital periods of the planets, as Ma’saˇr [63] observed following Ptolemy, or every ~800 years using the tropical orbital periods, as Kepler [89] observed.”

    It’s either 43 or 40 synods, so is 854 or 794.4 years. Note; 40 and 43 are NOT divisible by 3.
    Not that I am supporting any of your ideas about a Trigon forming a 60yr sine wave. I just don’t like sloppy astronomy.

  84. Ulric Lyons says: July 25, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    read my referenced papers to know the meaning of the cycles. The one on the Holocene, 2012

  85. About my final response to Anthony listed above that did not appear on WUWT, Anthony has finally responded by censoring it. See here

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/23/congenital-cyclomania-redux/#comment-1370658

    He is only able to say

    ********
    [snip]

    REPLY: Don’t put words in my mouth not said Dr. Scafetta. I won’t tolerate it.

    You are welcome to compose a reply where you do not state things I have not said or written – Anthony
    *******

    Did I wrote something that he did not state or written in that statement?

    I posted it again, let see if Anthony understand.

    Tim or Roger, may I ask to run a new post on this point and on the censorship at WUWT? Readers may need to know.

  86. Ulric Lyons says:

    OK so it’s the beat of your theoretical 10.87yr cycle and the 9.93yr syzygy. That’s an amazing amplitude and strong wave form you are getting out of that harmonic, I wonder how that works…

  87. Anthony continues to censor my response reported above

    The thing are getting quite funny

    I added a new comment (July 25, 2013 at 12:31 pm ) not yet posted:

    *************

    Anthony,

    why you do not want that people know what I wrote?

    Willis is writing a lot of falsehoods and non-senses.

    For example, above he wrote

    Willis Eschenbach says: July 25, 2013 at 11:45 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/23/congenital-cyclomania-redux/#comment-1370927

    *******
    Well, he starts by detrending the data using a quadratic equation of the form
    A X4 + B X3 + C X2 + D X + E
    *******

    Anthony, let me know. How can the above function written by Willis be “quadratic”? It contains both a four and a third order power: X^4 and X^3.

    And in addition I never use such 4-order function.

    Who do you think to convince?

    Those who will read my papers with the purpose to understand them will easily find it out.
    Don’t you think?

  88. suricat says:

    Dr Scafetta.

    First of all, my apology for reading between half of two of your papers. I’ve confused the ‘Environmental’ paper with your ‘personal’ and latest paper. However, I’ll continue to read both until I’ve a better understanding of your overall concept.

    From what I’ve already read I must congratulate you for the collection of data that indicates an excellent correlation between Earth’s climate and Sol/planetary mechanics. However, I also understand the insistence from your critics in their demand for an explanation of the ‘causal mechanism’. The disclosure of this ‘causal mechanism’ is made more difficult by the measurement of TSI and the accepted ‘standard’ for its measurement. May I make a few suggestions that may seem to be ‘unconnected’, but are actually ‘pertinent’ to this subject?

    When younger, I used to sail as an off-shore captain. My main observations of a ‘tide on the turn’ were that ‘wind with tide gives a long “swell” (waveform on the sea)’, but ‘wind over (against) tide gives a short sharp choppy sea’. I know this is a liquid/gas interface, but it’s a dynamical factor for a fluid interface in conjunction and opposition. The ‘weather’ usually changed with the tide as well.

    It strikes me that the ‘gravitational waves’ generated by orbiting bodies bear a resemblance to the ‘Rosby waves’ that are generated by geological prominences, they both force ‘lighter fluids’ (‘low density/low viscosity’ fluids) into a higher altitude and can generate turbulence.

    Sol’s ‘weather’ is mostly seen as ‘Sunspot Activity’ (SA), but there must be more to this. In one model apparent SA reduces TSI in the vis spectra, but in another model SA increases TSI because the EM energies emitted by the ‘spot’ are of a higher ‘Planck energy’ than the surrounding Sol emission and invisible to the vis spectra.

    It’s a minefield.

    Best regards, Ray.

  89. Ian Wilson says:

    Ulric,

    Take two tuning forks, one with a frequency of 512 Hz and the other with a frequency of 508 Hz. Now combine the sound of these two tuning forks, what do you get? You get a clear and continuous 4 Hz beat signal. Your ear continuous responds to this 4 Hz signal.

    It is possible to build up the equivalent of a continuous low frequency wave from two higher frequency waves. In similar manner, a synodic forcing term can impart energy to a body at the synodic frequency – particularly if that body has a natural resonant frequency that matches the forcing frequency.

  90. @ Nicola Scafetta,
    I did read your paper.

    The mechanism in the paper is essentially the same as the one you explained to me over a cup of coffee at Bob Evans two years ago. My objection back then was that if planetary resonances modulate the core activity of the Sun we would not notice because it would take the photons produced roughly 20,000 years to escape the photosphere.

    Your response was that a much faster energy transfer mechanism exists, namely acoustic waves.

    You should remember that I am a strong supporter of your work because it is based on hard science and observations. You are not trying to make “Mother Nature” conform to your models. You stick with what the observations say even though you know it has a negative effect on your funding. You have seen the politically astute Nicholas School of the Environment expand while the Duke physics department shrinks. I am more than impressed by the fact that your analysis does a better job of backcasting than the IPCC’s models. While forecasting is a risky business your forecasts are far more plausible than Pachauri’s. In the end you will be vindicated,

    Even so I am having trouble with your “Mechanism”. What do those acoustic waves do when they reach the Sun’s surface? Clearly they don’t have much effect on TSI which does not vary enough to explain Earth’s observed temperature fluctuations. Perhaps they modulate the “Solar Wind” in a way that will affect cloud cover. With that in mind I am trying to understand the work of Shaviv, Svensmark, Christensen and Kirkby.

  91. Ulric Lyons says:

    @ Ian Wilson
    That’s more like a tremelo effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28acoustics%29
    Surely Scaffetta is taking the Music of the Spheres far too literally. Take his 61yr component; the beat of 11.86yrs and 9.93yrs. It rests on the assumption that each Jupiter orbit produces a considerable cyclic wave in solar activity.

  92. Volker Doormann says:

    Hi Rog & all,

    some news just for the records

    You can compare this function with the Fig. 3 A in the paper of Dr. Scafetta.

    The frequency of the sun spot number is not constant. The frequency shift is in correlation to the global temperature (Yamal data)

    I have discovered the solar tide functions three years ago – an update from this year

    http://www.volker-doormann.org/frequencies_of_climate.doc

    Scafetta’s Figure 11 (Left) Schematic representation of the rise and fall of several civilizations since Neolithic times that well correlates with the 14C radio- nucleotide records used for estimating solar activity (adapted from Eddy’s figures in Refs. [90, 91]).

    The complex near 900 year period in the Eddy’s 14C figure I have overlayed with the two solar tide functions of Pluto/Neptun plus Quaoar/Pluto back in time 5000 years in this graph created 26th February 2010 :

    Figure 16A from Scafetta 2013. This shows his harmonic model alone (black) .. “. My summation of solar tides from Jupiter and lower moving planets shows that:

    In Dr. Scafetta’s paper in Figure 5 A he shows a 61 year sine modulation in respect to the global temperature minus its quadratic fit curve.

    There are two real astronomic functions of A = 59.3 years and B = 63.6 years. In the years 1800 to 2100 these astronomical functions are near in phase corresponding to an average time period of 61.45 years and in phase with hadcrut4 oscillation:

    But the two functions A and B are not related to Jupiter/Saturn harmonics.

    The global climate code of the last 10000 years has four main causes. The first cause is the tidal force from planetary neighbour couples acting on the Sun’s power. Hereby the tidal force is proportional to the inverse square root of the tide frequency. The second cause is the impedance of the ocean oscillations as effects of the wobbling Earth axis of 433 days and its higher harmonics, known as MEI. The third cause are the drops in temperature after massive volcano out stream. The 4th cause is the slowly relaxing high solar power after the last big ice age
    The first cause of the climate code is solved. The second cause still waits for a formula describing the effect using the known harmonics. The third cause is recognized and can be used to the code. The 4th cause is solved by Prof. Patzelt from the glaciers in the Alps. The greenhouse effect is not significant in that code.
    It has been shown that a subtraction of a time shifted MEI from hadcrut4 data remains with the solar tides in times, when there are no volcanos involved.
    However, this scope is a basis to come to a good climate prediction tool if there no volcano outbreaks decreasing the global temperature temporary:

    Best

    Volker

  93. Chaeremon says:

    Volker Doormann said: … an average time period of 61.45 years …

    This interval is equivalent to 760 moons (the unremitting luni-solar Bringer of Seasons), accurate to at least 2 decimals. Have you checked the characteristic displacement of lunar apsides and nodes with this interval, for example with full-moon 2011-06-15 at 20:12 UTC in the middle of twice the interval. I just checked the characteristic for 40 years.

  94. Volker Doormann says:

    @Chaeremon

    I think it is only an element in the resonating solar system, in which all resonances are of integer numbers.

    I have given here both astronomical solar tide functions and its summation function to show that there is a real astronomical function, which phases are coherent with the global temperature and because of the ellipticity there is a better climate simulation possible than to take a stupid sine function of no reasons.
    As I wrote the common relation rules for the solar part of the global climate are the solar tides from neighbour couples and its tidal force, which is the inverse of the square root of the tide frequency. An effect by the Moon or terrestrial tides are possible, but I have not found any coherence to the global climate.

  95. Chaeremon says:

    Please excuse the typo in my previous comment, I checked 140 years.

  96. Volker Doormann says:

    @Chaeremon

    What is your conclusion of your check?

  97. Chaeremon says:

    Volker Doormann said: What is your conclusion of your check?

    Two things: in terms of signal/noise ratio, if there is choice between impact of outer planets and impact of the luni-solar couple in our backyard, then the latter is either dominant or has to be ruled out (in the present case this is expected from you and on physical grounds, no maths fudge).

    The other thing is: the luni-solar signal always has my attention, it is way too close to planet Earth for being ignored seriously (e.g. by applied idiocy a.k.a. AGW). The signal imposed by your 61.45 years interval (760 moons) baffled me, yet we cannot hijack the thread here.

    My suggestion: send instructions how your original 61.45 years interval is to be reconstructed from observations (I use ephemeris data and numerical integration). Into the other direction, I can send the data points for the 140 years so you can check the luni-solar signal by yourself. If you agree I can begin with a post to your blog, on what [new] page?

  98. Volker Doormann says:

    @Chaeremon

    OK. Because the ‘cycle’ of 60.45 year is topic here mention in the paper of Dr. Scafetta, it is no secret how to calculate the time period.

    There are three frequencies in [1/years] of the objects:
    Quaoar: 0.00347490 [1/years]
    Pluto: 0.004037467 [1/years]
    Uranus: 0.01190320 [1/years]
    The synodic frequency is then:
    f_ur – f_ qu = 0.01190320 – 0.0034749 = 0.0084283 [1/years]
    f_ur – f_ pl = 0.01190320 – 0.00403746 = 0.00786573 [1/years]
    The synodic tide frequency is twice the synodic frequency.
    2 * 0.0084283 = 0.0168566 [1/years]
    2 * 0.00786573 = 0.01573147 [1/years]
    The mean tide frequency is then 0.01629404 [1/years] and
    the inverse is a period of 61.372 years.
    The precise value depends on the digits after the decimal point, und it must be said that the value is not constant over long time range.

    You can mail your data to

    V.

  99. Volker Doormann says:

    @Chaeremon

    sorry lost: You can mail your data to doormann.org at t-online.de

  100. tchannon says:

    “I use ephemeris data ”

    Beware Nyquist.

    The information is an approximation, in effect lossy data compressed.

    An effect of the discrete nature is chopper multiplication mixing as a non-linearity.

    A “60 year” will seem to be in this information but if reworked at a much finer time resolution this vanishes. IMO the coarsest you can get away with is 10 day sampling.

    Local modulating processes in solar bodies are possible, a different subject.

  101. Chaeremon says:

    @tchannon

    I do not disagree in general, only with many the details. Numerical integration is approximating the position (etc) of observable objects, and it starts (is initialized) with reality alienated, fudged mean values (just try to point to e.g. 1 lunation of the last 100 years which was technically perfect measured to 29.530589 days).

    Nevertheless, since there is nothing else the observations are compared target/actual to computations, and the achieved accuracy is documented. Miss-matched observations are taken as negative feedback and as hindsight correction (e.g. some leap second) to the whole framework–at least so in astronomy for the moving bodies in our solar system. Alas, the hindsight correction is that of Claudius Ptolemy which everybody (and his dog) is allegedly avoiding as too primitive ‘science’. And if something doesn’t move observably in our universe, everybody’s entitled to the wildest (etc) speculations.

    Quite another subject: there is nothing but mathematical theology Matheology in 10 day sampling. Judge yourself:

    (7 apple units + 3 orange units) / (10 self-deceptive units) = 1 reality alienated, fudged, unit.

    Neither the 10 non-units nor the 1 non-unit you find with perfectly comparable unit weight (or density, strength, gradient, volume, etc) in nature. Non-units are proportionate only by belief (a.k.a. consensus) and absolutely constant “usable in maths” only by unprovable authority. There you have an unremovable root of ape men’s (!) ideology-tainted debates in Matheology, up-to and including the Matheology of cosmology …

  102. lgl says:

    Ulric

    “There is no 60yr cycle produced by Jupiter and Saturn alone”

    There is, kind of. Ju/Sa line up in the same quadrant every ~60 yrs
    Accelerating the Earth close to perihelion versus aphelion maybe works differently.

  103. Roger Andrews says:

    An afterthought, FWIW:

    Scafetta’s abstract states: “Global surface temperature records (e.g. HadCRUT4) since 1850 are characterized by climatic oscillations synchronous with specific solar, planetary and lunar harmonics superimposed on a background warming modulation.”

    The global relative sea level record since 1900 shows a similar pattern:

  104. oldbrew says:

    Paul Vaughan says: July 19, 2013 at 6:29 pm (Edit)

    ‘More precise figures for anyone attempting to independently work ahead of schedule:

    2298.160281
    1499.158824’

    The ratio of these numbers is 152:233, difference 81 (3² * 3²). Accurate to 1 in 20000.
    233 is a Fibonacci number.