Bart: A possible origin of terrestrial 60 year cycles

Posted: March 27, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Guest post from talkshop contributor ‘Bart’:

sun-earth-moon

We’ve all seen the ~60 year periodicity in the surface temperature data.
amo

Here is a potential cause.

The Earth’s rotation axis is nutating with a period of about 18.6 years. However, that is only part of the story. In actual fact, the nutation takes the form of an elliptical cone, as shown here.

EarthAxisResidual

The distance between the J2000 polar axis and the actual rotation axis looks like this.
EarthAxisResidualMagvTime

Its period is necessarily halved, to about 9.3 years.

Thus, the magnitude of the component of the magnetic moment of the Sun along the Earth’s rotation axis should have periods of about

T1 = 11*9.3/(11+9.3) = 5 years

T2 = 11*9.3/(11-9.3) = 60 years

Coincidence? Maybe. But, is there not a 5-ish year quasi-periodicity to the major temperature sets?

5yrcycles
Hard to say for sure, but there surely are several ups and downs which are in the neighborhood of 5 years.

Comments
  1. michael hart says:

    Bart, your photobucket links don’t work for me. “page does not exist”

  2. tallbloke says:

    Working here but I’ll edit in the graphics. Stand by.

  3. tallbloke says:

    So, 18.6yr is the Lunar declination cycle. 5 years is the average between biggish el Nino events, 11 years is the solar cycle, and 60 years is the average period of the major oceanic cycles.

    Elegant solution involving the bodies with the biggest tidal and energetic effects on the Earth.

    Looks good to me. 😎

  4. Bart says:

    Michael – I expect Rog will clean things up shortly, but there’s a bit of garbage in the paste. Get rid of the stuff after the & and you should be OK.

  5. tallbloke says:

    Fixed. My mistake. Should be all good now.

  6. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V007/TOASCJ130415001.pdf

    Finally, an N=4 standing wave-like pattern in the MSLP that circumnavigates the Southern Hemisphere every 18.6 years will naturally produce large extended regions of abnormal atmospheric pressure passing over the semi-permanent South Pacific sub-tropical high roughly once every ~ 4.5 years.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Michele: Yes, I think Ian Wilson will have something to say on this subject. Bart’s scheme is beautifully simple, I really hope it stands up to examination.

  8. Bart says:

    I perhaps was a little sloppy with language. Just to be sure there is no confusion, I have removed long term precessional motion of the Earth’s axis from the plots. That motion may contribute to longer term changes.

  9. Bart says:

    J Martin says:
    March 27, 2014 at 11:27 pm

    Interesting. At root level, this is an argument that the time of year and day in which ocean tides occur causes the observed cycle.

    You kind of have to assume that the declination period is more like 18.667 than 18.6. Otherwise, two cycles is as near an integer number of years as three. And, 5 cycles is a perfect integer. But, that’s probably OK, given the variabilty.

    Interaction with the solar cycle does, however, explain short term ~5 year cycling, which appears to me to be there, so that’s arguably an advantage.

    Both ideas are suggesting that variable solar input couples with lunar tidal forcing to produce varying degrees of heat retention. His solar variability is based on the time of year at which tidally forced oceans absorb or release it. Mine is based on the 11 year cycle.

    I can’t come up with a definite reason to prefer one or the other right now. We’ll give it some more thought and see what we can come up with.

  10. Sparks says:

    I’m gonna say this is wrong, not in bad way, a period of time over a 60 years may speed up or slow down relativistically, and we collect temperature value fluctuations on earth that are not consistent with complex planetary parameters.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Sparks: The solar cycle period isn’t constant, and El Ninos can also be precipitated by big volcanoes. So we would expect there to be a number of factors confounding any quasi-cyclic period to do with climate. The Sun and Moon are very likely playing a big part in the underlying beat.

  12. tallbloke says:

    JM: “Chiefio came up with a 56 year lunar derived cycle.”

    There are several Lunar cycles. The 56 year ‘standstill’ is also associated with the ~18.6yr declination cycle. The ~18.06yr nodal precession cycle is another major parameter. The third is the precession of the line of apse. Interestingly, the nine of nodes precesses in the opposite direction to the line of apse. The lines cross every 3 years. (Thanks chaeremon).

  13. tallbloke says:

    Bart: You kind of have to assume that the declination period is more like 18.667 than 18.6. Otherwise, two cycles is as near an integer number of years as three.

    Chiefio came up with a paper that puts it at 18.613, so from min to max declination (either North or South) = 9.3065

    x6=55.839 (Equatorial PDO)
    x7=65.146 (Mid Atlantic AMO)
    x8=74.452 (See Yndestad’s work on the north Atlantic long tidal cycle)

    And Roy Martin found the long term solar cycle average to be 11.03.

    We know the Moon’s orbit and the solar cycle is affected by the gas giant planets in various ways:
    9.3065 x 11.03 / (11.03 – 9.3065) = 59.559
    3 x Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions of 19.858 = 59.574

    Looks near enough for farmwork to me.

    Additionally,
    6 x 9.3065 = 55.839 = PDO
    7 x 9.3065 = 65.146 = AMO
    The mean of these two is:
    60.49
    And one beat cycle of those two periods is:
    65.1455 * 55.839 / (65.1455 + 55.839) = 30.067 : The half period of the 60 year cycle.

    and one of the beat cycles of the Jupiter-Saturn tidal period (1/2 synodic) is:
    1 / ((1 / 9.93) – (1 / 11.86 (Jupiter orbital)) = 61
    Another using the full J-S synodic period is:
    1 / ((1 / 19.86) – (1 / 29.45 (Saturn orbital)) = 61

    Time for breakfast 😎

  14. P.A.Semi says:

    I also think, that if there is some 60-year cycle, it well may be due to a main resonance cycle of Jupiter/Saturn (5 Jupiter and 2 Saturn years to meet at almost same place. The 3 successive conjunctions are tracing a triangle, that only slowly rotates…)

  15. tallbloke says:

    Semi: I strongly agree with you. Nicola Scafetta also noted that this 60 year occurrence has been known since ancient times.

    These observations of Olympiodorus (c. 495–570), from his Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias

    “In speaking of the revolutions of Jupiter and Saturn, the Neoplatonist philosopher Olympiodorus has written:3
    ‘That of Jupiter … is effected in twelve years. And . . . that of Saturn … is completed in thirty years. The stars, therefore, are not conjoined with each other in their revolutions except rarely. Thus, for instance, the sphere of Saturn and the sphere of Jupiter are conjoined with each other in their revolutions, in sixty years.

    For if the sphere of Jupiter comes from the same to the same in twelve years, but that of Saturn in thirty years, it is evident that when Jupiter has made five, Saturn will have made two revolutions: for twice thirty is sixty, and so likewise is twelve times five; so that their revolutions will be conjoined in sixty years.”

  16. On cycle of 56 years …

    McMinn, D., 1995. Financial Crises & The 56 Year Cycle. Twin Palms Publishing. 103p.
    McMinn, D., 2002. 9/56 Year Cycle: Financial Crises.
    http://www.davidmcminn.com/pages/fcnum56.htm
    McMinn, D., 2011a. 9/56 Year Cycle: Californian Earthquakes. New Concepts In Global Tectonics
    Newsletter, no. 58. p. 33-44.
    McMinn, D., 2011b. 9/56 Year Cycle: Record Earthquakes. New Concepts In Global Tectonics
    Newsletter, no. 59. p. 88-104.
    McMinn, D., 2011c. 9/56 Year Cycle: Earthquakes in Selected Countries. New Concepts in Global
    Tectonics Newsletter, no. 60, p. 9-37.
    McMinn, D., 2012a. 9/56 Year Cycle: Earthquakes in Peru, The Philippines and Selected US States.
    New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 62, p. 23-30.
    McMinn, D., 2012b. Financial Cycles: A Key to Deciphering Seismic Cycles? New Concepts in
    Global Tectonics Newsletter. No 63. p 15-36. June.

  17. vukcevic says:

    nicola scafetta says:
    July 27, 2011 at 3:27 pm (WUWT)

    Craig and Tallbloke,
    ………
    About Vuk’s idea concerning the Jupiter Saturn conjunctions towards the forward moving part of the heliopause, as I said it is an interesting idea that may well fit another idea that I add to explain the phenomenon. But I cannot talk about it now. Hopefully, we will have another occasion to discuss it extensively.

    The above makes any sense (as governed by laws of physics) if the interaction between the galactic and heliospheric magnetic fields has an effect on the internal structure of the heliospheric electromagnetic events, hence leaving its imprint on the solar activity.
    However, this is very little to do with various aspects of Newtonian mechanics (except orbital position of two largest magnetospheres) and it is all to do with the electromagnetic forces factors (which sadly are mostly ignored, see my comment: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/mccracken-beer-steinhilber-evidence-for-planetary-forcing-of-the-cosmic-ray-intensity-and-solar-activity-throughout-the-past-9400-years/comment-page-1/#comment-74850 )

  18. tallbloke says:

    Vuk: There are several possibilities for why every 3rd J-S conjunction might be more geo-effective. Your EM ideas are one possibility. It might also be the case that the latitude is important, i.e. the position relative to the solar equatorial plane.

  19. A C Osborn says:

    Rog, I posted about Chefio’s paper on suggestions on the 29th Jan and also a related paper by Clive Best on the 5th February.
    You should have a look at Clive’s 4 related papers as well
    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5537
    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5545
    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5572
    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5674

  20. Isn’t 9.3 one of scafetta’s majot power spectral peaks ?

    9.3 + 9.3 = 18.6

  21. Bart says:

    There is always a possibility for a reinforcing resonance which amplifies things, but I just cannot make myself consider that planetary cycles can have a significant impact. The tidal influences are just so tiny. Something to do with the Sun-Earth-Moon system is far more likely to bear fruit, IMHO.

  22. tallbloke says:

    WC: 9.93 not 9.3 IIRC

    Bart: the gas giants have had a hand in entraining the Moon into the cycles it exhibits. The Moon’s proximity to Earth amplifies the effect of the Gas giants. But there is empirical evidence that other planets which don’t have large moons (or any moons) experience changes in rate of spin which are not explained by current theory. So I think it’s unwise to discount the direct effect of the planets carrying the largest angular momenta in the solar system.

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    “11*9.3/(11-9.3) = 60”

    That’s what Piers Corbyn has been saying all along. I checked it years ago. It fails cointegration diagnostics, whereas the more generalized approach passes.

  24. tallbloke says:

    Paul Vaughan: “cointegration diagnostics”

    What were you cointegrating when you performed a diagnosis?

  25. Bart says:

    With an almost arbitrary phase factor due to unknown response time, I expect you could get it to cointegrate. I don’t think a particularly constrained test could really prove things one way or the other.

  26. tallbloke says:

    Bart: I agree. But I invite you to consider the precise match between the J-S triple and the beat period of the declination cycle half period and average solar cycle length.

  27. The number of Aubrey Holes at Stonehenge? = 56
    According to Hawkins this represents an elipse cycle where the average of 18.6 years is better seens as 18 +19 +19

  28. Chaeremon says:

    @Adrian Kerton: [OT] in my research Gerald Hawkins is 50% correct. The other 50% need a narrational basis which is obvious but denied by academics.

    The citizen Druids in the villages understood and practiced the 3 years solar-lunar cycle (37 lunations) scheme at the elementary school level. For them, the Stonehenge centre was the University level. The citizen scientists also knew observational coordinates from their parents and grandparents, which they attempted to complete at the University level: at Stonehenge.

    How do you build a marketing aid, like Stonehenge, which demonstrates to potential Druid students that the 57-th year is very special? Every citizen scientist already knew that a) in the 57-year the stellar position of the moon is in the last year for which accuracy has been observed on the long temporal distances. And b) at the universe level the study is about: what next?

    The answer came from oldbrew in another thread. He suggested 57 years – 1 lunation = 55 x S-E (Saturn Earth), that is: the stellar position of Saturn signals the coming end of the 57 years. For me that is: no 57-th stone, a clear message.

    Then I confirmed 705 – 1 = 704 lunations (= 57 years – 1 lunation) is eclipse distance, that also means: during the 57-th year are 2 eclipse seasons from which a new 57 years interval can be started. This cannot have gone unnoticed by the Druid scientists, was perhaps substantial for display on the ancient curriculum at Stonehenge.

  29. Bart.. Great findings BTW.
    some questions that arise
    Is the deviation in the earths axis large enough to alter the temp’ record?
    What is the physical principle that would do that? Is this phenomena some sought of chandler wobble? but an earth version?
    Does this affect length of earth day?
    Does this axial anomaly effect max solar intensity at equator.?

    As the earth belongs to a solar system. I think it unlikely that any variable acts independently
    For this reason l have faith in the findings of scaffeta and TB’s crew.

    How uncanny that your maths and equations for this axis phenomena are also found in the planetary theory.

    The Newtonian force theory says for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction

    There is one sun and 9 planets and many moons. ALL the bodies/masses in the system exhibit this pull and tug phenomena.

    Maybe l should brush up and understand what causes the earths axis to wobble

  30. Paul Vaughan says:

    What I mean by “generalized approach” appears to have been misunderstood. It’s a catch-all that includes all internal terrestrial cycles (including lunisolar, including 9.3).

    The sun governs the multidecadal spatiotemporal attractor. Lunisolar factors (most notably QBO = 2.37) do high-amplitude stirring that strongly affects surface cross-section samples & aggregates, but the sun is the driver.

    Let’s not confuse the roles of stir-stick & heater. With an uneven heat distribution, of course there’s going to be a stir-stick signal, but that doesn’t make the stir-stick the driver. It’s a key mixer for sure, but it’s not the driver.

    I suspect we’re hung up on semantics here. In an analogy with a car, lunisolar factors are like a differential that allows an uneven spatial allocation, but the total amount of stuff available to be split by differential allocation is governed by the sun.

    I suspect we’re not technically in disagreement, even though we appear to be weathering some temporary misunderstandings. What matters is how we understand each other in the long run.

    TB, along with concise background info, I have preliminary multidecadal sun-climate wave map-animations near-ready for broadcast if you’re willing to volunteer a medium. Clarification: These are animations of what Marcia Wyatt calls the “stadium wave”. There’s the usual caveat: If you can’t accept the message as-is, I’ll need to use a different communication channel.

    Regards

  31. tallbloke says:

    Hi Paul:
    I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that the Sun provides the energy, and the Moon (and major planets) do the stirring, wobbling and rate-of-spin change stuff.

    I’ll happily post your animations, thanks for bringing them to the talkshop.

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB, let’s also acknowledge that the sun is doing some of the “rate-of-spin change stuff” via insolation gradients. I suspected we were only caught up in semantics-related misunderstandings and that we would soon rise above this. Thank you. I’ll send you & Tim some files (that unfortunately will require some minor assembly).

  33. tallbloke says:

    Paul: I agree, and the confounding is difficult to disentangle, due to the intimate connections and the feedbacks induced.
    Send us your files when you’re ready. No hurry, and we know only too well how hard it is to do all this stuff on a voluntary basis!

  34. Bart says:

    weathercycles says:
    March 29, 2014 at 11:37 am

    “What is the physical principle that would do that? Is this phenomena some sought of chandler wobble?”

    The Chandler wobble is unforced nutation, which is much smaller than the forced nutation from the Moon.

    The physical principle is a bit hazy to me at this time. I would suspect variation in ocean tides leading to varying transport, accumulation and dissipation, of heat.

    LOD would be affected to some extent by the wobble. Probably very small (second order), but I could not say to what extent not having done any calculations.

    Max solar intensity at the equator would be affected, but I would expect that to be a second order effect.

    “How uncanny that your maths and equations for this axis phenomena are also found in the planetary theory.”

    Perhaps God (or, what/whom-ever) likes to present us with challenges, like different pathways through a maze, some of which dead end.

    “ALL the bodies/masses in the system exhibit this pull and tug phenomena.”

    But, those tugs are so very, very small. I suspect that, if there is any planetary influence, it would have to come from something more on the lines of periodically blocking cosmic rays from a particular direction. Or, something… As I said, I just cannot imagine a significant influence from that quarter. I could be wrong, and others have to choose what they want to focus on, but for me, that path most likely is a dead end.

  35. tallbloke says:

    Bart: The Chandler wobble is unforced nutation

    Maybe, or maybe not:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/ian-wilson-solar-system-timings-evolved-lunar-orbital-elements-linked-to-earths-chandler-wobble/

    But, those tugs are so very, very small. I suspect that, if there is any planetary influence, it would have to come from something more on the lines of periodically blocking cosmic rays from a particular direction. Or, something…

    Something like orbital resonance perhaps:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
    “A 2004 computer model by Alessandro Morbidelli of the Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur in Nice suggested that the formation of a 1:2 resonance between Jupiter and Saturn (due to interactions with planetesimals that caused them to migrate inward and outward, respectively) created a gravitational push that propelled both Uranus and Neptune into higher orbits, and in some scenarios caused them to switch places, which would have doubled Neptune’s distance from the Sun. The resultant expulsion of objects from the proto-Kuiper belt as Neptune moved outwards could explain the Late Heavy Bombardment 600 million years after the Solar System’s formation and the origin of Jupiter’s Trojan asteroids.[42] An outward migration of Neptune could also explain the current occupancy of some of its resonances (particularly the 2:5 resonance) within the Kuiper belt.”

    My own research suggests that resonance is a very real reason why the synchronicities which you ascribe to “God (or what/whomever)” occur.
    Resonance doesn’t have to apply large forces. Small forces applied regularly over long periods of time can do the job.
    http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/185/2013/prp-1-185-2013.pdf

  36. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke (March 29, 2014 at 4:38 pm) wrote:
    “[…] we know only too well how hard it is to do all this stuff on a voluntary basis!”

    Let us know if you can find some solar &/or climate “scientists” to do our jobs while we do theirs.

    – –

    Sun-Climate “Stadium Wave” Animation:
    I’ve sent you & Tim 6 files that assemble into 1 concise webpage.

    I deliberately didn’t describe the evolution of the wave in words. Rather, I’m curious to see what others notice:

    a) immediately when they first look at it,
    b) after they’ve had time to observe a bit more carefully,
    c) etc.

    Cheers

  37. Bart says:

    Roger – I was imprecise. The Chandler wobble is not really unforced. It is a natural mode of the system. As such, once excited, it will sustain itself for some amount of time without being forced but, for the long term, it requires persistent excitation to be sustained. However, the frequency of the wobble is intrinsic to the mass distribution of the Earth. It does not require an outside influence to set the frequency. It is like ringing a bell. You can strike it at whatever rate you like, but that only affects the beat frequency, and how hard you strike it will affect the volume. But, you will still get the same tone.

    A resonance is basically a means of storing energy by maintaining it in alternating forms with little dissipation to the outside. E.g., with the bell, alternating between kinetic energy of motion and potential energy of deforming the metal. So, for a resonance to have a significant effect on Earthly climate, the energy storage must occur at a location which has significant influence on the Earthly climate. That would generally be either on the Earth itself, within the orbital dynamics of the Sun or Moon affecting tides, or within the solar furnace affecting solar output. Any other resonance, where the energy storage is occurring at some location other than these primary drivers, I would expect to be essentially uncoupled from Earthly climate dynamics.

    Note that a resonance does not have to be excited at the resonant frequency to resonate. Striking the bell at some frequency other than the resonant frequency still produces the tone. Even wind can make a bell resonate. Random excitation of a resonance is therefore a potential source for the ~60 year cycle. E.g., I have sometimes considered, what would the resonant slosh frequency of the oceans be? Actually, there are many. But, a strong one with a ~60 year natural frequency could be the source of the ~60 year climate cycle. Some credance to this point of view is given by the ~60 year periodicites observed in the AMO and PDO.

    I’m not sure if that helps. Unfortunately, I am preparing for some extended travel and any further interaction will necessarily be intermittent at best. Thanks for taking an interest and for the discussion.

  38. tallbloke says:

    Bart: thanks for your contributions here; always thought provoking and challenging. One place energy can be stored is in axial angular momentum. That’s why Venus has slowed by six minutes in the last 15years. Current theory is at a loss. But I think I know what is going on. The interplanetary magnetic field is a transmissive medium, and the effect of the solar wind on magnetospheres and planetary iron cores is to generate a back EMF which affects rotation rate when the speed/density of the solar wind changes.

    It may sound far fetched at the moment, but I think the observational evidence supports it. Read my papers if you have some quiet time on your trip. Cheers.

  39. J Martin says:

    Is Earth’s nutation a result of the moons variable up down orbit ?

  40. Bart said” I would suspect variation in ocean tides leading to varying transport, accumulation and dissipation, of heat.

    Agree with you totally Bart.

    The 60 yr cycle is a major climate cycle
    I recommend this link
    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

    scroll down to ‘sea level’

    There is no doubt BART that the sloshing in the ocean basins in linked to the 60 yr cycle

    this Chamber et al 2012 study shows this nicely and there are more to support

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL052885.shtml

    “We find that there is a significant oscillation with a period around 60-years in the majority of the tide gauges examined during the 20th Century, and that it appears in every ocean basin

    A strong physical variable here.

    Water banking up in the west pacific is correlated with a cooling phase of the 60 yr cycle
    Increasing la nina and global cooling

    the trades are known to increase sea level in the west.

    So one might ask..

    During the warm phase the sea level in the south west pacific drops and the so do the trade winds

    Water and wind sloshing to one side of an ocean basin and then relaxing

    So what drives the trade winds faster?

    So can the earths changing rotation axis change the surface wind speed across the equatorial latitudes?

    is the link direct or some sort of domino effect?

    like the following sequence

    reduced solar> changes to stratosphere to surface temperature profile both vertically and horizontally> changes wind patterns at all layers > changes to earths angular momentum index ( negative during Nina) > changes to the ocean currents strength and direction>changes to the earths wobble as the oceans and atmosphere shift mass>

    One thing l find interesting is that the east pacific has no 60 yr cycle
    It is a position on the earth that is unique. It has no anomaly
    quote from chambers
    ” The only sampled region with no apparent 60-year fluctuation is the Central/Eastern North Pacific”

    ENSO not only has a 3-5 yr beat but it is alaso subset of larger oscilations like the 60 yr cycle

    You note a 5 yr global temp oscillation
    It could prove fruitfull to compare that with south west pacific or Atlantic sea level oscilations
    ( the sloshing DOES have a frequency)

  41. tallbloke says:

    WC: If forces unaccounted for by the ‘gravity only’ theory of celestial mechanics can slow Venus down by six minutes in 15 years, I pretty sure they can slow Earth down (or speed it up) by 3 milliseconds in 30 years.

    I suspect the forces are electromagnetic (solar wind acting through interplanetary field on magnetosphere > ionophere > upper atmosphere > jet streams, and possibly the Earth’s iron core). So if it’s the wind piling up the water, this might be a viable answer to what lies behind multidecadal changes in the winds.

    On Venus, the winds up high in the atmosphere are very fast. Down near the surface they are slow (a few m/s), but pressed into contact with the rough terrain by 93bars of atmospheric pressure, and so are capable of transmitting a lot of force. Venus doesn’t have much of a magnetosphere either (due probably to a smaller iron core and slow rotation), so the core will be more permeated by the interplanetary field, which is excited and modulated by the varying solar wind.

    A bigger change in core rotation will induce great friction between the core and semi-liquid outer core. That will generate a lot of geothermal energy, which can’t escape to space easily due to the heavy thick atmosphere. This might explain why the surface of Venus is so hot, despite hardly any sunlight reaching it. It’s a better story than ‘back radiation’ from an enhanced greenhouse effect anyway.

  42. Thanks for that TB. and congratulations on your BLOG trophy. awesome

    Ah yes. I see you see a top down approach..but down through to the iron core

    Of course the main reason for changing wind speed is thermal gradients l believe
    and pressure gradients

    I see you avoided the sun in your sequence.? surprised really since your data on the sun and planets linked to climate cycles is impressive

    Whatever the true solution.I strongly believe a need to focus on SYSTEM dynamics

    Every variable in a well co-ordinated dance
    I don’t believe in the chaos theory but in the chaos leading to order theory .Bifurcations perhaps

    I know you hate too many questions . so maybe I will try one

    Are the gravitational laws intertwined with the electromagnetic laws
    Can one exist without the other?

  43. tallbloke says:

    WC: A very good question. Miles Mathis points out that Newton’s gravity equation takes the same form as Coulomb’s charge equation. He contends that they are both unified field laws containing both gravity and EM charge.

    By the way, I didn’t ‘avoid’ the sun in my summary, I took it for granted that people know my views on that.

  44. Ray Tomes says:

    You can combine 9.3 and 11 year cycles to get 5 and 60 year cycles. The 60 year cycle is a beat frequency and would be expected to show as a modulation of 9-11 year frequency. I would not expect any noticeable 5 year cycle from such interaction.

  45. Bart says:

    Ray Tomes says:
    April 5, 2014 at 12:34 am

    I suggest you plot it to see.

  46. tallbloke says:

    Nice plot Bart. I see what you mean about the ~5yr cycle now.

  47. Hey.Nice one

    So can see 12 cycles of /X 5yrs ( max peaks) = one 60 yr oscillation

    so if this is the mean

    The 5 yr cycles are ENSO
    and there are 12cycles of ENSO in the 60 yr cycle

    I like the numbers 9 and 11 and also phi is in the calculation

    they are common power spectral numbers in the record l believe

    Haven’t heard many talking about the 5 yr frequency? in the temp record

    Any other researchers?

    Looking good.. All related to wave science.. Gravitational/ electromagnetic

    Harmonics/ frequencies

    solar system clockwork

    totally predictable forecastable. climate trends likely

    and back to the hypothesis of this blog
    Is the nutation of the earths axis a cause of the temp frequency cycles or is it a resultant of some other cause

    to find this out Bart.. Is there a lag in your nutation to the sea level peak heights in the pacific basin?
    maybe superimpose your nutation graph over the temp record

    I think the AMO hugs closer to the global temp record than the Pacific ENSO index

    THe pacific basin and the Atlantic sloshing are not in phase exactly.
    l wonder how the axial nutation affects both basins

    Maybe a change in axis affect the pacific first because it had a larger equatorial component
    .

    .

  48. Bart says:

    An interesting comparison with the plot above. Not at all wildly dissimilar, are they?

    I have found it is even more interesting when you include things such as the fact that the “11 year” solar cycle is really dominated by components centered at 10, 10.8, and 11.8 years. Then, you start getting longer term, seemingly secular over-a-finite-time components which begin to resemble the apparent secular trend, as well.