Nicola Scafetta: Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles

Posted: October 9, 2013 by Rog Tallbloke in Analysis, Astrophysics, climate, Cycles, Dataset, Forecasting, solar system dynamics

Congratulations to Dr Nicola Scafetta, who has just had another major paper published in the high-impact journal Earth-Science Reviews. In email, Nicola tells me:

This paper contains a detailed analysis of all CMIP5 models used by the IPCC, and demonstrates that they do not well reproduce the decadal and multidecadal patterns since 1850 (not just the temperature standstill since 2000, the failure is nearly total). The paper extensively discusses my astronomical based model since the Medieval Warm Period and demonstrates its far better performance than the CMIP5 models.

Fig. 1. [A] Power spectra of the HadCRUT4 GST (1850–2012) (black) and of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere GSTs using the Maximum entropy Method (MEM); red boxes represents major astronomical oscillations associated to a decadal soli–lunar tidal cycle (about 9.1 years), and to the major heliospheric harmonics associated to Jupiter and Saturn gravitational and electromagnetic effects and to solar cycles (about 10–12, 15, 19–22, 59–63 years)

Fig. 25 (click for larger) Fig. 27 (click for larger)

Earth-Science Reviews
Volume 126, November 2013, Pages 321–357
Power spectra of global surface temperature (GST) records (available since 1850) reveal major periodicities at about 9.1, 10–11, 19–22 and 59–62 years. Equivalent oscillations are found in numerous multisecular paleoclimatic records. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) general circulation models (GCMs), to be used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2013), are analyzed and found not able to reconstruct this variability. In particular, from 2000 to 2013.5 a GST plateau is observed while the GCMs predicted a warming rate of about 2 °C/century. In contrast, the hypothesis that the climate is regulated by specific natural oscillations more accurately fits the GST records at multiple time scales.

For example, a quasi 60-year natural oscillation simultaneously explains the 1850–1880, 1910–1940 and 1970–2000 warming periods, the 1880–1910 and 1940–1970 cooling periods and the post 2000 GST plateau. This hypothesis implies that about 50% of the ~0.5 °C global surface warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was due to natural oscillations of the climate system, not to anthropogenic forcing as modeled by the CMIP3 and CMIP5 GCMs. Consequently, the climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling should be reduced by half, for example from the 2.0–4.5 °C range (as claimed by the IPCC, 2007) to1.0–2.3 °Cwith a likely median of ~1.5 °C instead of ~3.0 °C. Also modern paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions showing a larger preindustrial variability than the hockey-stick shaped temperature reconstructions developed in early 2000 imply a weaker anthropogenic effect and a stronger solar contribution to climatic changes. The observed natural oscillations could be driven by astronomical forcings. The ~9.1 year oscillation appears to be a combination of long soli–lunar tidal oscillations, while quasi 10–11, 20 and 60 year oscillations are typically found among major solar and heliospheric oscillations driven mostly by Jupiter and Saturn movements. Solar models based on heliospheric oscillations also predict quasi secular (e.g. ~115 years) and millennial (e.g. ~983 years) solar oscillations,which hindcast observed climatic oscillations during the Holocene. Herein I propose a semi-empirical climate model made of six specific astronomical
oscillations as constructors of the natural climate variability spanning from the decadal to the millennial scales plus a 50% attenuated radiative warming component deduced from the GCM mean simulation as a measure of the anthropogenic and volcano contributions to climatic changes. The semi-empirical model reconstructs the 1850–2013 GST patterns significantly better than any CMIP5 GCM simulation. Under the same CMIP5 anthropogenic emission scenarios, the model projects a possible 2000–2100 average warming ranging from about 0.3 °C to 1.8 °C. This range is significantly below the original CMIP5 GCM ensemble mean projections spanning from about 1 °C to 4 °C.
Future research should investigate space-climate coupling mechanisms in order to develop more advanced analytical and semiempirical climate models. The HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4, UAHMSU, RSS MSU, GISS and NCDC GST reconstructions and 162 CMIP5 GCM GST simulations from 48 alternative models are analyzed.

  1. USteiner says:

    It is really hard work going through the paper. But in the sole graph presented here I stumbled about one fact: Why is the 30 year period visible in the harmonic, and well represented both in NH GST *and* SH GST, yet not in the GST, supposedly something like the sum of NH and SH?

  2. Roger, thank you for the post.

    I was thinking that for your readers it may be more useful to show at least figure 27. May it be added?

  3. Also figure 25, may be interesting.

    May it be possible to show both figure 25 and 27?

  4. tchannon says:

    I came across the paper a few days ago, looked large but hadn’t got around to discussing it with Rog… saved me the trouble. (grin)

    25 and 27, I’ll have a look. Seems fair enough but dragging out two large graphics in a suitable form for blog posts is non-trivial. Compromises are necessary such as not taking too much space on the front page when articles are in closed mode. Looks like a frame/table job.

    Probably do something later on.

  5. tchannon says:

    Done, hope that is a fair compromise. Rog/Talkshop tends to major on planetary so leave that as the first image. What follows is hand added graphic captions and manually handing 4 images, a table by hand, then reformat the quoted by hand online to shrink space a little. Could be slightly wider, have to take a guess early on with what will fit. If we ever change blog theme it has to be compatible.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Tim.

    This is a major paper which takes the climate establishment head-on.
    They have been ignoring the reality of cyclic climate oscillations for too long, aided and abetted by the ignorance peddled as wisdom on ‘the most widely read climate discussion website in the world’.

    Nicola Scafetta has been a champion for properly conducted scientific investigation, which doesn’t ignore things we can’t yet explain fully. He is showing what we all know about what we don’t know, and doing it in a way major journals can no longer ignore. The strong ability of models using planetary frequencies to successfully hindcast longterm climate indices is unparalleled by any other method.

    Bravo Nicola!

  7. mkelly says:

    Well this is not going to make Willis happy.

  8. tallbloke says:

    I think Willis’ unhappiness is currently directed elsewhere:

    On Roy Spencer’s thread, Janice Moore sums up the position well I think.

    To balance things up, I also think Roy Spencer is as guilty as Willis of ignoring fairly put questions. Like this one for example:

    Rog Tallbloke says:
    October 9, 2013 at 3:10 PM
    Roy, do you think radiative-convective models of the climate have convection sufficiently well coupled within the model for them to have any value in predicting climate response to an increase in co2?
    (H/T Ned Nikolov)

  9. Tim and Tallbloke,

    thank you for adding the figures.

    I note that Anthony posted on Wyatt and Curry’s recent paper. Just a comment

    Wyatt and Curry’s paper is surely interesting. It clarifies how several subsystems of the Earth are linked to each other. And it confirms my (numerous) studies published since 2010 that “the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s” because of the quasi 60-year natural cycle.
    See also the figures above.

    However, their work misses the major physical issue because it misses to explain the origin of the pattern itself. The key problem refers to this sentence “The AMO sets the signal’s tempo”. The paper does not tell us what is making the AMO to oscillate in the first place with a quasi 60-year cycle.

    As extensively demonstrated in the scientific literature (in particular my papers) this oscillation correlates with solar/astronomical oscillations. Thus is very likely of astronomical origin.

    To know more on the topic visit my web-site:

    It would have been appropriate to reference the solar-based papers. Also Soon wrote much on the topic.

  10. tallbloke says:

    Nicola, I’d like to discuss your current thinking on the celestial origin of the ~60 year signal. If this is linked to the J-S synodic cycle, it appears on the face to involve a role for galactic orientation. Other possibilities can also be considered.

    I am moving towards the view that there is a strong harmonic resonance factor involved. This may be connected with the fluid dynamics of spinning spheres covered with fluid oceans of one kind or another. Earth has water. The Sun has plasma, Venus has a ‘supercritical’ CO2 ocean under high pressure.

    The Sun’s equatorial and polar rotation rates are in a 3:2 relationship. There is also a 3:4 relationship I will be writing to you about soon. The Earth’s oceanic cycles produce beach ridges around Hudson Bay and Siberian shores at 44-45 year intervals (Rhodes Fairbridge), and the AMO/PDO has a 60-66 year quasi-periodic cyclicity. These two period pairs are close to a 3:2 ratio between 44 and 66 and a 3:4 ratio between 45 and 60. An interesting observation is that at the half period of the AMO/PDO around 30-33 years, the 30 years is in 2:3 ration with 45 and the 33 years is in 3:4 ratio with 44. Then if we half the 44-45 year period too, we get 22 years in 2:3 ratio with 33 and 22.5 in 3:4 ratio with 30. The Hale cycle lies halfway between 22 and 22.5.

    I think the Sun is driving the Earth’s 60-66 year cycles via a harmonic resonance which naturally occurs because of the interaction of the J-S frequency along with the inner solar system frequency at around 44.7 years, and the double JEV cycle. This idea brings more complexity to the model, but I think it adds value in introducing a plausible amplification mechanism due to resonance factors.

  11. Roger,

    I too talk about resonances. The position of the planets is not random. They form where resonances are formed to focus the masses. Thus, the periods of the planets are linked to each other. Then everything should work according the frequencies emerging from these resonances.

    The ~60-year oscillation may have several origins. It may be linked to the orientation of the J-S synodic cycle and or in the beat tidal cycle between the 11.86 J orbital cycle and 9.93 J-S spring cycle.

    The 43-45 year oscillation is also a planetary cycle discussed in my papers. See the aurora paper with Willson.

  12. tallbloke says:

    Nicola, it’s good to see our thought developing along similar lines. I saw you gave the Z-Axis a mention in the aurora paper too.
    The specific issue of resonance is an interesting question. It is recognised by mainstream astronomers that 2:1 resonance can be powerful enough to eject bodies from orbits. The Cassini gap in Saturn’s rings is there because anything in there would be in resonance with several other moon’s orbital periods, and not just 2:1 ratios.

    The mathematics of orbital resonance theory states that the period of the disturbing force needs to match (or be in a simple whole number ratio to) the period of the disturbed body. When it is, the power of the disturbing force can rise without limit, but in reality, the disturbed body will alter it’s orbit as the power rises and so escape the gaining energy before it becomes catastrophically destructive. I think this is why quite a few of the planetary relationships we have been examining show near but not exact whole number relationships with other nearby synodic timings.

    But there will still be a transfer of energy, because the body is finding a balance point between the orbit it would naturally fall into, and the power of the disturbing force pushing it away from that orbit. I think this maybe why we are finding curiously precise spin-orbit relationships too.

  13. J.Seifert says:

    I am pleased that the astronomical 60 year cycle gets increasing recognition, with PDO and
    AMO as its result, along with a 60 year stepwise temp evolution…..
    And this is a positive development…. Remember the fiercest cycle fighters Anthony, Willis and Leif together about 6 months ago? Time will come soon when they have to paddle backwards.
    This 60 year cycle is clearly caused by solar motion into the z-axis during the SIM movement.
    When the Sun leaves the proper ecliptic plane up or down into the Z-axis in a 60 year lapse, a lower gravitation from the out-of-eclipse position increases the Sun-planets distances…thus lowering insolation on Earth and cooling down the PDO mode…..The mechanism is pretty clear…JS

  14. Geoff Sharp says:

    This 60 year cycle is clearly caused by solar motion into the z-axis during the SIM movement.

    Before he passed Carl Smith plotted the solar Z axis movements of the Sun. I am not sure I see a 60 year cycle? I am not sure there is anything to gain from the Z axis over the longer term?

  15. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: I am not sure I see a 60 year cycle?

    Hi Geoff. I disagree with Joachim’s conceptual analysis, but 60 year pattern are evident in the z-axis. How clear they are depends on the period you choose to smooth the data over, I prefer to use a period which is in a resonant ratio with the period under examination. However, even the annual? data you provided shows a very clear 60 year signal:

    I am not sure there is anything to gain from the Z axis over the longer term?

    This looks more like an opinion than a question. So far as I see it, the Z-axis motion is part of the data we can use in diagnostics of the oscillations of solar system dynamics. It’s worth remembering that whereas any gravitational effect of the X-Y axis variation is reversed every 13 days as the Sun revolves on it’s axis, the outer planets stay above or below the solar equatorial plane for years at a time. J-6, S-15, U-42, N-83. So although the magnitude of the acceleration is small, it persists for a long time in the same direction in the Sun’s reference frame.

  16. Geoff Sharp says:

    Wishful thinking I think Rog, your lines are different lengths and at different angles. The so called Jose cycle is obvious in the short term data (which would not exist over the longer term) but there is also no sign of any grand minima action.

    Cyclomania and Numerology might be fun for some, but in reality it does not exist in the real world of solar system dynamics.

  17. A simple question here.
    Is it gravitational forces of sun / Jupiter/Saturn that shift the AMO /PDO sea level anomalies,
    Their position in the solar system relative to the earth?
    Tidal bulging like the moon has on the tides?

    downwelling /upwelling? The cold shaped horse shoe anomaly in the north pacific?

    When you say Saturn, Jupiter, Sun cause the 60 yr cycle of AMO/PDO . Are they in alignment or something?

    What position is Saturn/ Jupiter during the negative phase of the PDO. Which is on curently in the pacific

    THe AMO is stil positive and they are curently not in phase. How do you reconcile the cause of each cycle (AMO/PDO) when they are sometimes out of phase..

    Awesome work Dr Scafetta. My first look in at cycles was one of your papers and l have been hooked ever since.. I never read the IPCC anymore
    Cycle research is the go…

  18. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: your lines are different lengths and at different angles.

    Since the planets don’t ever repeat the same patterns exactly, that’s why they are at different angles, and so the lines have to be different lengths on a graphical representation of planetary movement to fit a constant linear interval. Pythagoras could tell you that. You can see the Jose cycle length further back and forward through time with minor differences due to the changing U-N to J-S relationship on a longer term plot. Still comes out at around 179 on the long run though. I showed the Jose cycle length in the peak to peak interval, but you can see it in your plot twice in the minima too: 1701-1880-2059

    “wishful thinking”

    What’s up? Fed up because I still haven’t got around to grappling with formatting your pdf for wordpress yet? It’s pretty late down there in oz isn’t it? :)

  19. tallbloke says:

    WC: No. There isn’t a simple correlation between J-S synodic and the ocean cycles. See my comment on resonance above. In reality, there are a multitude of periods either side of 60 years which go in and out of phase, leaving a chaotically oscillating quasi-period of around 55-66 years as a ‘standing’ wave as they pass through.

  20. J.Seifert says:

    Rog, your Z-axis graph shows a good 60 year cycle by the meandering away of the Sun to
    positions of -0.04 (rectangular distance away from the 0.00 ecliptic plane)…..Even Geoff would see it with the right specs on his nose…..And this is our 60 year cycle, which influences the incoming solar radiation on Earth!
    How that? By producing certain slack in gravity, which emanates from this unfavourable -0.04 degree position, thus loosening the grip onto the Sun´s planets by a tiny fraction…..The full gravity of the Sun acts in the 0.00 ecliptic plane only (the + or – 0.04 position leads to a looser grip onto planets with slightly longer distances between Sun – planets in a 60 year cycle, thus producing quasi-60 year cycles in PDO and AMO water temps…..
    In order to understand this argument, just theoretically move the Sun lets say 50 mio km more into
    the Z-axis direction: It follows that the grip of the Sun onto her planets emanating from this new oblique position would be substantially less ….. It follows: If the SBC had a diameter of lets say 50 or 100 mio km, then the planets would circumvent the Sun in alternating closer or wider orbits.
    Rog, your Z-axis graph would indicate not only a meandering away of -0.04, but to -50.0 or -100.0…..and this in turn would enhance or slacken the grip onto the Sun´s planets, resulting in alternating planetary orbits in closer or in looser shape within this 60 year cycle…. JS

  21. Geoff Sharp says:

    Take it easy Rog, I am attempting to pass on some knowledge from my own research.

    The solar system does not repeat, the J/S conjunctions are perhaps the only reliable beat that remains constant, everything else moves on and diverges. There are other beats, but they are perhaps not important.

    The Z axis graph shows nothing that aligns with climate oscillations or grand minima periods, remember the 60 yer cycle has a 30 year up and down trend, so your lines have little meaning.

    Follow the PDO cycle from 1900 and you can see the Z axis has no correlation.

    My experience tells me that using maths will not solve the mystery’s of the solar system. The numbers tell us that every period is different and cannot be used as a constant, the planets never return to the same position. This is the guide to enlightenment.

    Your reluctance to promote my science is off little concern, you are not the first blog that misses the opportunity. You like WUWT will not be benefiting from my knowledge.

  22. tallbloke says:

    Accurate measurements of TSI over the last 30 years say you are wrong. They show that Earth’s orbit closely follows an elliptical path around the Sun-Earth barycentre, which is very close to the solar centre. I plotted the deviation caused by Jupiter, and it is around 8000 miles, on an orbit of 186 million miles diameter. That’s 0.004%. However, there is a variation in the Earth-Jupiter closest approach distance caused by primarily by Saturn’s synodic conjunction with Jupiter, but also affected by the positions of Uranus and Neptune. This has the subtle effect of causing Earth’s length of day to change by a few milliseconds on a multi-decadal basis (in a 60 year cycle). How much this small variation affects the ocean circulation is an open, and interesting question. I tried some calcs, and found significant amounts of cold upwelling would be caused at continental boundaries as the oceans momentum sloshed it against them. So there are potentially important mechanisms in play, but we need to be very careful not to jump to conclusions as to what the principal mechanism is.

  23. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: Your reluctance to promote my science is off little concern, you are not the first blog that misses the opportunity. You like WUWT will not be benefiting from my knowledge.

    Take it easy Geoff, I will be posting about your science, just had a busy time and other stuff intervening.

    The numbers tell us that every period is different and cannot be used as a constant, the planets never return to the same position. This is the guide to enlightenment.

    I think the key to understanding is considering why it is that although the patterns the cycling planets form never exactly repeat, there are nonetheless observed convergences at quasi-cyclic periodicities such as 44.7, 60, 179, 208, 2224, 2403 and beyond. I think it’s because although the individual cyclic periods close to these focal points go out of phase with the main oscillation, there are always more coming into phase too. This sets up a ‘standing wave’ at around the period in question.

    For example with the 60 year period, it can vary between around 55 and 75 years. But the variation isn’t ‘chaotic’, if you study the phases of the various contributors carefully, you can find out why one ‘cycle’ is shorter or longer than another. I think your own observations have some merit, but I also think there’s a lot of other things going on which contribute too, which you haven’t considered or have disregarded.

    So far as the z-axis stuff is concerned, I think you need to consider the difference between a realtime sinusoidal oscillation, and an inertially damped (and therefore lagged) response to a quasi-cyclic skewed-distribution (sawtooth) input. The quasi-periodic occurrence of grand minima, which are your area of primary interest, are separate to these other quasi-cyclic fluctuations, and depend on different aspects of the physics underlying the interactions between planets and Sun. Your Uranus-Neptune hypothesis has merit there for consideration, but it doesn’t explain the rest of the picture in my opinion.

  24. pochas says:

    The 180 year Jose cycle (which I believe deserves more attention) encompasses 18 -10 year cycles but only 16 actual cycles. The 60 year cycle is the first odd harmonic of the Jose cycle. The ‘trefoil’ portion has exactly 5 -10 year cycles during which solar activity progressively builds, followed by several more active cycles and then a chaotic period which we now seem to be entering. Thus the 60 year cycle may be apparent during and immediately following the trefoil (and in frequency analysis), but less so or even absent later in the cycle during the phase catastrophe, only to reappear during the next trefoil. Thus the 60 year cycle may be apparent in frequency analysis but be periodically missing in real time. Dr Scafetta, you should recognize this possibility.

  25. tallbloke says:

    Pochas: Interesting comment, thanks.

  26. pochas says:
    October 11, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    60-year cycle … but be periodically missing in real time.


    If you look at my solar model (figure 24) the 60-year cycle beats with other cycles. As a consequence is it quite strong during specific periods e.g. 1850-2150 and weaker during other periods.

    So, I think that the model take into account the variability that you noted

  27. pochas says:

    Nicola, can we look forward to finding a full copy of this paper on your website?

  28. tallbloke says:

    Try the link at the top of the post

  29. Periods of order and chaos..

    Bifurcation theory?

    Fractals etc

    As a number of cycles ALIGN constructively or destructively… organisation and order rule

    As a number of key cycles shift out of phase , a period of apparent chaos rules

    The chaos emerges due to a particular pattern of constructive / destructive interference

    The saw tooth wave pattern is probably a good example of this and is seen in the Z axis graph above

    and in many climate cycle analysis

    I think maths is the solution to understanding the climate cycles.

    Maths can even measure and predict these chaos/order bifurcations

    I am not so convinced we are in a period of chaos currently

    4 cycles descending in unison currently (qian and Lu 2010) since around 2002 is constructive interference in the negative direction. ( global cooling)

    Maybe 10 cycles in unison descending gives an ice age.

    So 4 cycles in unison dampen the sunspot cycle by reducing chaos? A Dalton/Maunder minimum?

    Is global warming and high sunspot activity associated with chaos and disturbance to sun as planets undergo a bifurcation cycle .

    and is periods of order such as now ..(Archibalds steep drop in global temp predicted) related to order and less perturbation of the sun and low to no sunspots

    If forces are balanced in the solar system . Does the sun hold its breath?

    Some planetary positions are conducive to chaos and some planetary positions related to order

    If so.. It would be necessary to consider the whole system at any given point in time , rather than individual planets as a point in time

    Mapping solar system patterns perhaps

  30. tallbloke says:

    WC: Yes, but I think you may have it the wrong way round. Read some Charvatova. It is when the Sun’s motion wrt the barycentre is orderly (trefoil pattern) that solar activity increases, and temperatures rise on Earth. When the motion is more chaotic, the sun’s activity level drops and we get lower temperatures.

    For a practical kitchen experiment analogy, if you swirl a cup of coffee in an orderly, well timed way, you get an increasing amplitude wave moving round the cup which accelerates and increases the centrifugal force throwing the energy outwards. When you then swirl the cup chaotically, the harmonic motion breaks down and the wave decelerates and becomes obliterated by destructive resonances, and the circular motion (angular velocity) diminishes.

    Observationally, the sun is more active when the latitudinal bands accelerate, and vice versa. So it seems that differential angular momentum effects across the body of the Sun can affect its activity levels, even though it is supposed, by currently accepted theory, to be in freefall.

    The extent to which current theory accepts it is not in freefall is equal to the tidal effects of the planets, which current mainstream theory deems to be too small to make a difference.

    Welcome to the puzzle.

    Ian WIlson with his tidal/torque theory and Nicola Scafetta with his luminosity amplification mechanism proposal are trying to provide an answer which fit the observations. One of the main difficulties is devising practical experiments which can test their hypotheses. Prediction is the main way forward, which is why we are concentrating on building models which can make them.

  31. pochas says:

    I’m a little troubled by the question of whether the interactions of a group of bodies which is mediated by an inverse square law can be adequately described by a sum of sine waves. My feeling is that such an analysis must be considered a tentative approximation. But it does seem to work.

  32. tallbloke says:

    Pochas: Yes, I understand your reservations. Maybe one of the reasons it seems to work is because the more a system is inertially damped, the more it’s response to stimulus will tend towards a sine wave.

  33. J.Seifert says:

    Rog, you say above:
    “”Accurate measurements of TSI over the last 30 years say you are wrong. They show that Earth’s orbit closely follows an elliptical path around the Sun-Earth barycentre, which is very close to the solar centre……..””
    The TSI cannot be measured, only theoretically calculated, because this value means a total Sun output, received on a theoretical 1 sqm black surface pad, placed in a 150 Mio km distance from the Sun……Our planet is constantly somewhere in space between 147-152 Mio km from the Sun…..The fixed 150 Mio km TSI-value EXCLUDES the Earth´s orbit and says nothing about the Earth orbit nor about gravity, nor an elliptic path, nor distance to Earth…….
    The actual MEASURED values are NOT the TSI, but irradiation values, received on satellites and their truely measured values lie between 1407 and 1318 Watts/sqm…..thus ample room
    for a higher or lower insolation [INcoming SOlar radiaTION] variation, due to changing distances
    This Colorado institute provides the daily measured satellite irradiation result sheet (between 1407-1318 in the center column of their sheet, along with their CALCULATED 150 Mio distance TSI-values, left column of their sheet.) The TSI then settles somewhere
    halfway between the max and min values around 1365, or 1361 W/m2, depending on your selected calculation method.
    A stiff ring curvilinear elliptical Earth orbit is wrong…therefore, we have to focus on planetary oscillations, which produce climatic effects, and Nick Scafetta is on a (one of various, I am onto another) good path.

  34. tallbloke says:

    The Sun-Earth distance varies predictably in accordance with its elliptical orbit, and the TSI (which refers to a location at the top of the atmosphere) varies predictably in concordance with this orbital path. The Earth orbits the Sun-Earth Barycentre, at the same time the Sun is ‘orbiting’ the solar system barycentre ( or more correctly following the resultant of all the gravitational force vectors acting on it). The Sun-Earth distance is a function of that ellipse, and is not affected by what Jupiter and Saturn are up to by more than around 8000km, which makes almost no difference to TSI.

    The Earth is not ‘lost in space’ somewhere between its Perihelion and Aphelion as you imply. We know where it is, to high precision. How else do you think we are able to predict the onset of the transit of Venus across the face of the Sun to within seconds? That calculation is based on the JPL ephemerides, which are based on equations of motion which are based on barycentric orbits of the planet’s individual Sun-Planet barycentres.

    But you don’t have to accept it from me, Nicola Scafetta is a member of the ACRIM team. Hopefully he’ll back me up.

  35. As Roger says,

    the earth does not see the sun wobbling but in minimal part. The reason is simple, the same Jovian planetary forces that make the sun wobbling also act on the earth making it wobbling together with the sun.

    The issue can be studied in details.

  36. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Nicola. That’s an interesting way of putting it too, I’ll have a think about that. I had assumed that the inner planets followed the Sun because they were comparatively close to it, feeling a large effect from its gravitational force. Consider the situation where Jupiter and Saturn come to conjunction, with Earth between. The Sun retreats further back from the solar system barycentre to counteract the combined masses of J&S, and the Earth moves towards the Sun by an equal distance, (minus 8000km due to Jupiters direct gravitational pull on Earth), increasing the Earth-Jupiter distance while it follows the Sun.

  37. tchannon says:

    J.Seifert, is I think being taken out of intended context.

    The TSI values given are computed, altered to remove whatever the dataset authors decide to remove. This is at least satellite motion and earth orbital.

    I add, SORCE publish the literal at-earth-distance and I cannot detect any residual earth orbital signal except for the expected one. However, that might be hiding something else, don’t know.


    It is also correct the instruments are of inadequate accuracy, a metrology problem.
    (I won’t go into this here)


    JS’s last item, I’m not sure what he means.

    I don’t think any of this this has a material effect on the paper at the top here. (except the last item, no idea)

  38. tallbloke says:

    Tim: The instruments are of adequate accuracy to determine that the Earth orbits the Sun-Earth barycentre, not the solar system barycentre, that’s for sure. We’re talking large number of watts difference here.

    Joachim’s intended context is a claim that the Sun’s motion in the z-axis is enough to make a big difference to TSI. It isn’t. The Sun moves around 80,000km north or south of the plane of invariance, which would make a vanishingly small difference to the TSI at Earth, if the Earth stayed close to the plane of invariance while all the Jovians moved south or north of it. But it doesn’t. As Nicola says, Earth gets affected too.

    In fact, the plane of invariance is just a convenient fiction used by astronomers as the average plane of the solar system to use as a fixed reference. The plane the planets actually orbit in varies somewhat with the changing disposition of the gas giants. But there are effects, due to inertial lag, one of them being the small changes in Earth’s length of day, due to the spin orbit coupling my submitted paper demonstrates.

    And that does have climate effects, which is what I was trying to explain to Joachim. It’s not just planetary effects on solar variation which cause Earth’s climate changes. That’s why I’m telling Judy Curry and Marcia Wyatt they have their LOD curve upside down.

    LOD changes don’t trail along after their ‘Stadium Wave’, they’re leading it from the front as a causal agent.

  39. tchannon says:

    Okay, he is worried about z-axis, very much doubt that changes TSI, other things maybe.

    Stadium wave, Mexican wave, make no sense, look like an astrology chart or wind rose kind of.
    I was ignoring them.

    Mexican hat is used technically, often about 2D kernel shape.

  40. Geoff Sharp says:

    tallbloke says:
    October 12, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    WC: Yes, but I think you may have it the wrong way round. Read some Charvatova. It is when the Sun’s motion wrt the barycentre is orderly (trefoil pattern) that solar activity increases, and temperatures rise on Earth. When the motion is more chaotic, the sun’s activity level drops and we get lower temperatures.

    This statement I think is incorrect and the exact point where Charvatova got it wrong and failed to be fully recognized by science.

    The trefoil pattern is most undisturbed when Uranus and Neptune are opposite, this is when AM is at its lowest and also coincides with SMALL cycles.

    When U/N are together the disordered single orbits occur when Jupiter joins and Saturn is opposite, this is the top of the wave and also the time of HIGHER cycles when Grand Minima are not involved.

    Charvatova got this part backwards and also failed to recognize the individual solar orbits that caused her long range (over several decades) diagrams to appear disordered. This misunderstanding caused her to predict in 2007 an SSN of 140 for SC24 and a cycle max timing of 2010. This shows she had little understanding of how the single disordered orbit affect solar cycles, I cant believe she didnt see the disordered orbit that occurs right at the start of SC24.

    My discovery of the exact planet position that causes solar slowdown along with identifying each individual orbits impact on the cycle came from Carl’s Graph. I think if Charvatova had dug deeper or used Carl’s Graph she would have seen the error of her ways.

  41. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, some of what you’re saying I agree with, and some of it I don’t. Some planetary effects on solar activity are almost instantaneous, and some aren’t. This is the cause of some of the disagreement between planetary-solar theorists I think. Charvatova’s AM effect is not instantaneous, due to inertia. It’s like swinging that cup of coffee, it takes time for the ordered trefoil motion to build the wave, and the wave persists for some time after the ordered trefoil motion ends, except in circumstances where U&N cause the barycentre to swing quite suddenly to the opposite side of the solar core and cause a reversal. Again, you can simulate this with the swirling cup. If you suddenly do a small reverse circle at just the right moment as the wave comes round, you can kill it almost stone dead in an instant. This is where your insight into the alignments of U-N and J-S at the cusp of grand minima comes into play. As you correctly point out, Grand minima are not neatly cyclic like other signals in the proxy records seem to be.

  42. tallbloke says:

    ignoring Judy Curry’s work is neither polite, not sensible. She has missed some important stuff though. But we can hardly blame her for not being an astrophysicist as well as a top grade oceanologist.

  43. Geoff Sharp says:

    But Rog, you didn’t address my criticism of Charvatovas’ science, the same science you used in an answer previously.

    Do you still think the trefoil pattern over several decades is conducive to higher solar cycles?

  44. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: I did address this in my reply.
    “Charvatova’s AM effect is not instantaneous, due to inertia. It’s like swinging that cup of coffee, it takes time for the ordered trefoil motion to build the wave, and the wave persists for some time after the ordered trefoil motion ends, except in circumstances where U&N cause the barycentre to swing quite suddenly to the opposite side of the solar core and [can] cause a [sudden] reversal [if well timed].”

    In the case of the C20th, Charvatova’s harmonious trefoil motion ran from the early to past the middle, and the high solar activity built from prewar and petered out at the end. The lag is around 24-30 years, which is also what I found with the Z-axis smoothed data which matches the LOD changes. The Sun is a big beast, and AM changes take time to have effect. Electromagnetic forces on the other hand, are pretty much instantaneous in their effect. Tidal force effects fall between. This is what has caused confusion and disagreement between researchers in this field IMO.

  45. Geoff Sharp says:

    Rog, there is no delay when it comes to the disordered orbit. The effect is instantaneous. Can you give links/evidence to this lag effect?

    The Sun went through a step change in 2005/6, the data is very clear.

    If there was a lag SC24 would be double the present reading.

  46. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, Am I typing Swahili or are you just not bothering to read?

    “except in circumstances where U&N cause the barycentre to swing quite suddenly to the opposite side of the solar core and [can] cause a [sudden] reversal [if well timed]. Again, you can simulate this with the swirling cup. If you suddenly do a small reverse circle at just the right moment as the wave comes round, you can kill it almost stone dead in an instant. This is where your insight into the alignments of U-N and J-S at the cusp of grand minima comes into play.”

    The reason for the difference in lag time is that propagation of a steadily applied force (Charvatova’s harmonious motion consisting of smooth 20 year long swings) from the outside inwards takes a lot longer than the propagation of the disturbing force (barycentre reversal – 2 years – tight radius – swift action) from the inside outwards. How quickly it then becomes apparent in the Schwabe cycle and how big and long lasting an effect it has depends on the phasing of the cycle (where the wave is at) when the reversal occurs, as you’ve previously stated.

  47. Geoff Sharp says:

    Perhaps not Swahili, but certainly gibberish.

    If you could answer standard scientific questioning.

    You say (as Charvatova) that the trefoil pattern promotes higher cycles, can you provide evidence?

    There are no lag factor in planetary alignments in regard to grand minima, unless you can provide more evidence?

  48. tallbloke says:

    OK Geoff, you assert that what I’m saying is gibberish, but you don’t back up that assertion with any argument as to why you think it’s gibberish. You are just responding with questions I’ve already provided answers to (twice).

    I’m trying to give you the benefit of my insight as someone with a degree level qualification in fluid dynamics, a solid theoretical grounding in classical mechanics, and a decade of experience in the design, testing and operation of centrifugal pumps; i.e. real stuff that actually spins round and exhibits inertia (with the consequent lag to and smoothing of changes in input), resonance, turbulent flow and counter-surges etc. Analogies are always imperfect, but so far as they go, I think mine elucidate the concepts involved in what we’re studying reasonably well. You are welcome to disagree, but argument by assertion doesn’t fly at the Talkshop. If you make a reasoned argument to counter what I’ve said I’ll respond.

  49. TB.. A question .Excuse my ignorance on the physics of the sun
    From your graph above

    as the SSB z axis goes into the negative the earth cools?

    Why is positive SSB warming ? and why is negative SSB cooling?

    What does SSB do to the earth?

    and what is SSB?

  50. tallbloke says:

    WC: SSB stands for ‘Solar System Barycentre’ It’s the calculated point that the solar system as a whole revolves around. It doesn’t weigh anything, it doesn’t exert any gravitational force, and no single object apart from the Sun has it as the focus of its orbit. (even then it isn’t ‘orbited’ by the Sun in the normal sense, the Sun moves in reaction to all the planets positions simultaneously and since the planets and Sun together define the SSB. the Sun goes round it). It’s just a shorthand for the sum of the disposition of the masses at any given moment in time, and naturally it changes all the time as the planets move at different orbital rates around their (almost exactly) barycentric orbits relative to the Sun.

    The Sun moves relative to the SSB in a complex curve which is determined by the positions of the planets (mostly by the gas giants). Depending on where Uranus and Neptune are relative to each other and the Sun (approximately in opposition to each other), there are roughly 50 year periods every roughly 180 years when the Sun’s motion relative to the SSB goes into a phase of repetitive, fairly evenly spaced loops caused by the Jupiter-Saturn synodic cycle. This is what Charvatova characterised as ‘harmonious motion’. Once the pattern becomes established and overcomes the inertial lag in the Sun after roughly 25 years or so, solar cycles increase in magnitude and shorten in length, and the Earth warms.

    As Uranus approaches Neptune the motion becomes more disordered and after a lag period, the Sun’s activity drops again, as cycles lengthen and diminish in magnitude. However, after certain gas giant configurations occur, there are quite sudden drops in solar activity with little lag, and this is what Geoff and I are arguing about (I’d like to be able to say discussing). These configurations are when the SSB skims the solar surface (X-Y plane) for more than a few years (Theodor Landscheidt), and when the SSB moves behind the solar core and causes a reversal of direction in the solar orbital path in a small tight loop (X-Y plane) during a short period of time (Landscheidt again). Geoff has been working on refining Landscheidts general observations of the Sun-SSB relative motion and linking them back to specific configurations of Uranus and Neptune relative to Jupiter and Saturn which he theorises are the precursors to sudden solar slowdowns as at grand minima such as the Maunder and Dalton minima. He’s done some interesting work here and I don’t take that away from him. His paper was published a few months ago, he can provide the link.

    Regarding your question about the Z-Axis. I think it may have something to do with the polarity of sunspots and the connection with Earth’s magnetosphere. Southward (magnetically speaking) reconnection inputs more energy into Earth’s ionosphere, and the sunspot magnetic asymmetry seems to be linked to the Z-axis disposition of planetary masses. This is a discovery I made after studying the pioneering Z-axis work done by Ray Tomes back in the ’80′s, which the late Carl Smith (Geoff’s friend) contributed some graphical work to when it was discussed at another forum some years ago.

  51. This thread makes me glad I’m only concerned about the Earth’s climate system response AFTER the sun has changed its behaviour.

    However there is one aspect to all this that perhaps needs to be made clearer.

    We seem to be considering:

    i) Planetary / solar system effects on the sun causing solar variability which then affects Earth’s atmosphere from the top down.

    ii) A lagging bottom up oceanic response to earlier top down solar effects.

    iii) Planetary / solar system effects directly on the Earth’s fluids causing climate variability separately from the solar changes.

    I’d appreciate it if those aspects could be more clearly separated in the discussions.

    The first involves a top down solar effect on the upper atmosphere whereas the other two involve a bottom up oceanic effect on the lower atmosphere.

    That still all fits with my overarching concept that the climate system configuration at any given moment is always the net outcome of the opposing forces and that changes in the climate system configuration (jets and climate zones) are always a negative system response to any combination of forcing elements that seeks to make system energy content diverge from that set by mass, gravity and ToA insolation.

  52. tallbloke says:

    Stephen: I’d appreciate it if those aspects could be more clearly separated in the discussions.

    I’d appreciate it even more if they could be more clearly separated in the data. ;)

  53. J.Seifert says:

    Rog, your quote:
    “”Joachim’s intended context is a claim that the Sun’s motion in the z-axis is enough to make a big difference to TSI. It isn’t……””
    Rog, as I explained in detail, the TSI-value is NOT measured… is calculated for a FIXED distance Sun-Earth of 150 Mio km !
    Therefore, all Z-axis motions of the Sun cannot “make differences to TSI”! The TSI is FIXED for
    a FIXED 150 Mio km distance ….. and all Sun´s and planetary motions are COMPLETELY ELIMINATED from the TSI-value..
    Imagine: If the EArth would orbit on the Mars orbit….the TSI value would stay at 1361/1365 W/m2,
    BECAUSE its calculation IS FOR A FIXED DISTANCE OF 150 Mio km, and NOT considering the real much larger Mars orbit….
    The reason for eliminating all effects of movements and variations in Sun-Earth distances is the
    goal to detect the clean original solar output with output changes due to sunspots, solar winds etc. pp., and for this the value eliminates the influence of orbital distances…..
    This is all very basic….regards JS

  54. tallbloke says:

    Joachim, whatever the TSI is converted to in order to see the Sun’s variation, the actual measurements are what they are. And they tell us what the Earth does and does not orbit, because they vary smoothly on an annual cycle consistent with the theoretical Earth orbit as calculated by JPL. Nicola may be able to confirm whether or not the ACRIM team uses JPL’s ephemerides to convert their actual readings to the TSI data calculated for the average 150m km Earth-Sun distance.

  55. Rog said:

    “I’d appreciate it even more if they could be more clearly separated in the data. ;)”

    Fair point.

    So much for ‘settled science’ :)

  56. tchannon says:

    Clarifying TSI, is a coda to a new Talkshop article here demonstrating agreement on TSI and computed distance.

    I’d not been watching the SORCE saga as closely as I had intended, story nearly got away.

  57. yes, Roger.

    ACRIM uses JPL’s ephemerides to convert their actual readings to the TSI data at 1AU.

  58. Geoff Sharp says:

    There is a lot of confusion going on here Rog, let me try to straighten out a few points.

    There is no solar lag when it comes to the path of the Sun around the SSB. The effect of the disordered orbit that only occurs at the AMP event (Angular Momentum Perturbation) is instant and is seen directly in the sunspot record at 1790, 1830, 1970 and 2010, there is no 25-30 year lag. The only lag that is in effect is if the AMP event occurs just before a cycle starts as seen in 1790, but we are talking about a couple of years not 30.

    Landscheidt was aware of the AMP event which he called a PTC event (Perturbed Torque Curve) but he DID NOT associate this event with any form of solar grand minimum. Instead he said it was responsible for changes at EARTH only which included changes to stock markets, war, fish stocks and ENSO. Landscheidt clearly used negative extrema in torque and the planet position of Jupiter opposite the other 3 gas giants as his grand minima position, he was 20 years out as we see today by using the wrong planetary configuration. I was lucky enough to stumble on the correct planetary configuration of J/U/N together and S opposing (AMP event) and the doors opened from there, this all stemmed from Carl’s Graph.

    AM in my opinion drives the overall modulation of solar cycles when grand minima is not involved. When U/N are opposing AM is at its lowest and the trefoil pattern rules, there is no lag as the cycles at this time are low but as U/N start to come together AM increases along with the cycle modulation up to a point until an AMP event occurs near the top of the AM wave and depending on the position of Saturn we get a single cycle or two cycles heavily reduced. There is no need or evidence for a 30 year lag factor. You are observing a build up of AM over the 30 year period.

    This is all clearly covered in my paper and the theory has been available online since 2008. It has never been discussed in detail at the Talkshop and hence why today we still see confusion.

    The paper is now published at the International Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics (3rd Sept) which is an open access journal with no paywall. If anyone is interested it can be downloaded at:

  59. tallbloke says:

    Nicola, thanks for your confirmation.

    Geoff: Thanks for your interpretation of the phenomena and paper link.

    Goodnight all.

  60. J.Seifert says:

    Rog, Nicola says, quote:

    “”ACRIM uses JPL’s ephemerides to convert their actual readings [[from between 1318 to 1408]] to the TSI data [[only calculated number]] at [[for a ]] 1AU [[FIXED]] distance.””

    The daily measured values are the CENTER column of the:
    “”””www.LISIRD-LASP Interactive Solar Irradiance Datacenter……””” where you can go
    onto “Total Solar Irradiance”….and then by going to “download”, you will get the true measurements.
    This center column measurements include in their variations BOTH the solar output variations PLUS the daily Sun-Earth distance variation. — Unfortunately, the system broke down for a couple of days (see your actual post).
    And, see the Nicola quote: ..”…the measurements are JPL-calculated for a assumed FIXED DISTANCE of 1 AU (149 Mio km plus small fare)”, but according to my knowledge, not to 1 AU but to a straigthforward artificial rounded 150 Mio km distance. Nicola should know this.
    Therefore, the TSI-value of fixed 150 Mio km DOES NOT SHOW variations in the orbit, but orbital
    variations were TAKEN OUT on purpose, in order to get the pure SOLAR OUTPUT CHANGES….

    I believe, I need to repeat this a millions times until this gets clear…Slowly but surely I hope….JS

  61. Scute says:

    WUWT seem to have let Nicola back in from the cold or at least let him sit in the porch. From the weekly news roundup:

    “Nicola Scafetta has a paper suggesting that a model based on the movement of the planets (planetary orbital oscillations) better explains climate variation than the General Circulation Models used by the UN IPCC. On her web site, Jo Nova has a good presentation of the paper and a number of useful comments. The descriptive power of the model may be just a statistical artifact, but it may promote useful discussion.”

    (Scroll to ‘Other mechanisms’).

  62. tallbloke says:

    Joachim: but according to my knowledge, not to 1 AU but to a straigthforward artificial rounded 150 Mio km distance. Nicola should know this.


    For the record:
    The best current (2009) estimate of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) for the value of the astronomical unit in meters is A = 149 597 870 700m, based on a comparison of JPL and IAA–RAS ephemerides.

    As it happens, the average of Earth’s average perihelion and aphelion distances is very close to 150m km.

  63. tallbloke says:

    Scute: Anthony doesn’t write that roundup, it’s from Ken Haapala at SEPP.

  64. Hopefully your research papers Dr Scafetta will encourage IPCC climate modellers to take your advice and incorporate cyclic parameters.. Your tenacity to persistently tackle the big guns of the IPCC movement is inspiring and l enjoyed reading your latest paper.

    Thanks TB for your detailed response to my question.!!! for us readers at the ‘starting gate’ of this complex topic

    Dr Scaffeta mentions the speed of the sun at various positions of the barycentre in his report

    Is the speed of the sun related to global temperature? Is that rotational speed or directional speed?

    I have read that somewhere that Jupiter /Saturn cannot cause ocean tides on the earth like the moon does?
    Is this true?

    Hey . Interesting re your coffee cup analogies
    Today l was heating my milk in a small saucepan on the stove with gas flame without stirring
    I observed in the centre of the milk , 4 distinct annular nodes
    similar to the polar atmospheric nodes of troughs and crests..LOL

  65. tallbloke says:

    WC: The tidal effects of the other planets on Earth are tiny. But there is something else going on which causes the spin-orbit coupling. What it is will become clearer in a couple of months time when a collection of papers is published.

    Solar orbital (motion about barycentre) velocity: about 40km/h on average.
    Solar angular velocity at the surface varies with latitude. Around 24.5 days at the equator for one sidereal rotation, about 36 days at the poles. The interior of the sun is thought to revolve at around the Carrington period. A little over 27 days as seen form Earth.

    Your pan of milk; let me guess, you were using a gas stove, and the pan support has four bars at right angles…

  66. tchannon says:

    Repeated plot from my own blog June 28th


    Figure 1, daily data.

    This historic work too takes into account earth distance, if simply[1], I merely figured out how to extract a plot from the archived experimental parameters, is not presented as TSI. Near as dammit straight line (consider the matter of scaling, deviation based on >1kW offset)

    I could point at the WRC[2] plot which runs to current-ish but that might be fiddled with, out of my control. (actually somewhat interesting if off topic, turbidity remains as ever both misunderstood and critical, worse, there is “mischief” around)

    1. Might be able to dig out the maths from 100 years ago, seen it
    2. World Radiation Centre, Zermatt

  67. tchannon says:

    Ooo… something has just occurred to me, above plot contains information I was seeking a few years ago which might be highly interesting in the present context. Barycentre / solar orbit major event is right there! It does show but similarly to other activity.

    Problem for me has been knowing there is slight evidence but not enough to speak out. Anything additional is useful.

    The implication now is no significant effect on TSI but it does do something.

    New blog article? Null result is as good as any in my book, actually important because it tends to put a warning note on the door for others to see before exploring a little used path.

    Date intentionally omitted.

  68. So do the planets positions accelerate or decelerate the suns orbital or angular velocity?

    TB: Both – see Ian Wilson’s posts and papers.

    Is the suns velocity slower or faster during a maunder minimum?

    TB: Rotional was much faster, according to very old texts:
    “By use of two old books: Rosa Ursina by Christoph Scheiner in 1630 and Selenographia by Johannes Hevelius in 1647, solar rotation could be estimated. Each book presented daily drawings of the sun nearly continuously for two years. Scheiner’s drawings were in 1625 and 1626. This book demonstrated a rotation similar to today. Hevelius’ drawings from 1642-1644 show a significant change. The equatorial rotation sped up by a full day. The poles sped up slightly, but not in proportion to the equatorial change. Eddy questions whether or not a change in the sun that provides a faster rotation is the perpetrator of the Maunder Minimum.”

    Is the speed of the sun related to its position on the barycentre path?

    TB: Yes

  69. Geoff Sharp says:

    Solar velocity is an interesting topic as it is almost in lock step to angular momentum. When the outer solar orbit travels furthest away from the SSB it coincides with larger solar cycles and the greatest velocity, U/N are always together when this occurs.

    The inner loop is the opposite and has the slowest velocity when the loop travels back to near the SSB, once again this can only occur when U/N are together. Maximum acceleration and deceleration coincide with the highest cycles (unless it follows a grand minima cycle).

    When the disordered orbit that occurs during grand minima comes along the whole pattern is broken, the Sun is expecting to decelerate but it tries to escape and accelerates into a mini outer orbit. The further the Sun escapes the greater the solar slowdown.

    The following diagram demonstrates:

    Velocity vs Angular Momentum:

    Nicola has done quite a lot of work in this area and noted a 60 year cycle in the Solar velocity charts. Solar velocity is quite possibly linked to the PDO cycle.

    There is also another rare form of outer loop that circles exactly around the SSB at the same radius distance. This loop has no velocity change and also coincides with solar slowdowns.

  70. Thanks for the detail ‘guys’
    Seems like a great deal of Newtonian mechanics here from what you describe

    Masses attracted to masses via gravity

    Some thoughts
    As the solar system gets relatively heavier on one side or quadrant with planetary masses, the sun accelerates toward the heavy side ( U and S together) ( J + S in conjunction)? and U and S move towards sun? Newtons law of gravity of masses

    If the vector velocity of the sun accelerates away from the centre of barycentre during a maunder event , the rotational velocity of the sun increases on the peripherey?
    Like an ice skater pulling their arms in on rotation. Does the suns diameter shrink and the suns density increase? Gravity increases?

    and this causes less sun spots?

    I suppose the result must be like convective stormsthat encounter high upper winds
    . They don’t like high winds at crucial layers and convection is sheared and storm potential dampened?
    Maybe sunspots stop because increased rotation prevents convection to the surface?
    or increased gravity of sun reduces solar storms ?


    Geoff said
    “Nicola has done quite a lot of work in this area and noted a 60 year cycle in the Solar velocity charts. Solar velocity is quite possibly linked to the PDO cycle.

    So as solar velocity increases , sun spots decline and the earths length of day shortens

    So as the suns velocity increases so does the earths velocity?

    As the sun moves away from Barycentre the earth follows?

    Earths winds increase and upwelling of cold water due to shift in momentum?

    Nicola .. Any chance you could provide a link to the research Geoff mentions on solar velocity and the PDO/AMO

    Being a fluid dynamics expert TB.. This stuff is right up your alley!

    Great blog TB.. and team..Can’t keep up though..!!

  71. tallbloke says:

    WC: It would take a long personal tutorial to answer your questions, which I can’t give you now. If you’re really interested in this stuff, search the blog for keywords like Wilson, Scafetta, Charvatova, Landscheidt, Barycentre etc using the facility provided on the left column.

    Then if you’re really-really interested, roll your sleeves up and go to JPL’s online ephemeris, download data, and join the fun. ;)

  72. R J Salvador says:

    There is a quasi 60 year cycle in the rate of change of sunspots from 1891 to 2012. I can only show this very crudely through the monthly 11 year percent average rate of change of sunspots.

    Perhaps TC with his more sophisticated techniques can show this better. The frequency does not exist from 1749 to 1891 but looks to have been shifting from 85 years towards 60 years over this time. I expect with the present slow down in sunspot formation and from all the other excellent information disclosed on this website and in this article that the quasi 60 year cycle will disappear again for sometime period.

    That the frequency shows as a first derivative of the sunspot data, I believe, fits with the theories here that this is a dynamic situation involving the SSB as stated by others. Also as a first derivative it is a crude proxy for the solar magnetic field. Because the frequency is changing over time, I see some very vocal scientists deny it exists in the solar record, but it is there.

    As for its effect on the earths climate, M.A. Vukcevic, who identifies a 60 yr geomagnetic cycle maybe right when he writes:”Phase relationship between SOLAR and the EARTH’s MAGNETIC VARIABILITY is of the fundamental importance, when in phase oceans warm, when out of phase oceans cool.
    Two magnetic signals combined (Geo-Solar cycle) closely correlate to the N. Hemisphere’s natural variability, both on decadal and multi-decadal scale.”

  73. ========================
    From your link RJS .
    This theory is new to me. Thanks for the tip..

    Dr. J. Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
    “One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds.

    This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously. “

  74. […] především je pustým šílenstvím ignorovat rezonanci s astronomickými cykly. O tomto článku vystavil příspěvek i Tallbloke’s […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s