Prolific solar-planetary scientist and long-time talkshop friend Nicola Scafetta has a new paper published in Physica A entitled ‘Global temperatures and sunspot numbers. Are they related? Yes, but non linearly. A reply to Gil-Alana et al. (2014)’ which comments on Gil-Alana et al 2014; a paper purporting to dismiss any correlation between solar activity and terrestrial surface temperature. Nicola gently points out the limitations of their methods and patiently explains how the astronomical-solar signal can be found in the data. Here is Figure 3 to whet your appetite:
Fig. 3. (A) Annually solved HadCRUT3 global surface temperature record [34] from 1850 to 2013. (B) Power spectrum density functions calculated using the MEM method (using M = N/2 = 82) and the MTM periodogram f (p) [35,36]: the calculations were made with the SSA–MTM Toolkit. Several spectral peaks (e.g.: at about 9.1, 10.4, 20 and 60 yr) are statistically significant above the 95% confidence level, and their solar, lunar and astronomical origin is explained in the literature (e.g.: Scafetta [10,32,33,25]).
Fig. 5. (A) Comparison between a proxy of solar activity (blue) and a proxy of temperature (δ18O) from Dongge cave, China, (green) representing changes of the Asian climate during the Holocene. The two records are evidently well correlated. (B) Comparison between the global mean tropospheric temperatures (blue) and the galactic cosmic ray record (red), which is modulated by the solar magnetic activity. The panel shows the match achieved after removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and also a linear trend from the temperature record: the finding is consistent with Refs. [11,19]. (C) Observed temperatures versus the SCL121 solar cycle length model. (D) Annual-mean equator to pole gradient over the entire Northern Hemisphere (blue) and its smoothed 10-year running mean (dash blue) versus the estimated total solar irradiance (red) of Hoyt and Schatten [16] (red, with up dates by [44]) from 1850 to 2010. (E) Comparison of the Belukha (Siberia) temperature reconstruction with solar activity proxies. (F) Temperature reconstruction for the Central Alps over the last two millennia, obtained from the δ18O composition of a speleothem from Spannagel Cave versus the variations of cosmic rays (∇14C) and CO2 over this period. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) Source: (A) adapted from Steinhilber et al. [47]; (B) adapted from Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [31]; (C) adapted from Thejil and Lassen [39], cf. with Thejil [23]; (D) adapted from Soon and Legates [26]; (E) adapted from Eichler et al. [14]; (F) adapted from Kirkby [17].
![Fig. 6. Advanced modeling. (A) The semi-empirical astronomical model for reconstructing the global surface temperature (HadCRUT4, black) proposed by Scafetta [33, figure 25]. The model (red and blue curves) is made of two components depicted in the bottom: (1) the gray curve is the estimate of the anthropogenic plus volcano components made by properly attenuating the CMIP5 general circulation model ensemble mean simulation by a factor β ≈ 0.5; (2) the green curve is the estimate of the natural harmonic variability made of the 6 specific solar–astronomical harmonics from the decadal to the millennial scale. Eq. 13 is in Scafetta [33] where a reader can find details about the proposed model. (B) Detail the semi-empirical astronomical model proposed by Scafetta [37]. The red curve shows the original global surface temperature record published in Scafetta [37]. The blue curve shows the same global surface temperature updated to the most current available month. The back curve within the cyan area is the semi-empirical astronomical model forecast (since 2000) that clearly outperforms the IPCC 2007 CMIP3 general circulation model projections (green area). The yellow curve is the harmonic component alone without the anthropogenic component. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)](https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/scafetta-2014b-fig6.png)
Fig. 6. Advanced modeling. (A) The semi-empirical astronomical model for reconstructing the global surface temperature (HadCRUT4, black) proposed by Scafetta [33, figure 25]. The model (red and blue curves) is made of two components depicted in the bottom: (1) the gray curve is the estimate of the anthropogenic plus volcano components made by properly attenuating the CMIP5 general circulation model ensemble mean simulation by a factor β ≈ 0.5; (2) the green curve is the estimate of the natural harmonic variability made of the 6 specific solar–astronomical harmonics from the decadal to the millennial scale. Eq. 13 is in Scafetta [33] where a reader can find details about the proposed model. (B) Detail the semi-empirical astronomical model proposed by Scafetta [37]. The red curve shows the original global surface temperature record published in Scafetta [37]. The blue curve shows the same global surface temperature updated to the most current available month. The back curve within the cyan area is the semi-empirical astronomical model forecast (since 2000) that clearly outperforms the IPCC 2007 CMIP3 general circulation model projections (green area). The yellow curve is the harmonic component alone without the anthropogenic component. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Nicola concludes with this statement:
In conclusion, the claim that the global surface temperature record is a fractional random signal fundamentally different from the harmonic nature of the astronomical signals is not supported by the data and careful analysis. The global surface temperature record appears to be made of natural specific oscillations with a likely solar/astronomical origin plus a noncyclical anthropogenic contribution during the last decades. Indeed, because the boundary condition of the climate system is regulated also by astronomical harmonic forcings, the astronomical frequencies need to be part of the climate signal in the same way the tidal oscillations are regulated by soli-lunar harmonics.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Nice work Nicola. 🙂
Congratulations Nicola on getting another paper into print supporting the possibility of an outside influence on the Earth’s climate.
Nicola may be be able to fill us in on the details but I note that the MEM power spectral density plot has peaks that are near to 20.3 and 62.0 Perigee/Syzygy lunar tidal cycles and the 9.3 year half Draconic cycle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is the rationale for a quasi 9.0 year lunar tidal cycle:
A. Time taken for Phases of the Moon to realign with the Seasons:
If a spring tide occurs on a given day of the year, 3.796 tropical years will pass before another spring tide
occurs on the same day of the year. This occurs because:
(0.5 synodic months)/(12.5 synodic months – tropical yr) = (14.7652944 days/3.890171 days) = 3.796 yrs.
In addition, it can be shown that multiples of half of the lunar synodic cycle (Msf) are almost exactly equal to whole multiples of a year, for 4.0 years, 4.0 + 4.0 = 8.0 years, 4.0 + 4.0 + 3.0 = 11.0 years, 4.0 + 4.0 + 3.0 + 4.0 = 15.0 years, and 4.0 + 4.0 + 3.0 + 4.0 + 4.0 = 19.0 years.
Hence, spring tides that occur on roughly the same day of the year follow a 4:4:3:4:4 year spacing pattern (with an average spacing of (4 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 4)/5 = 3.8 years), with the pattern repeating itself after a period of almost exactly 19 years. The 19.0 year period is known as the Metonic cycle. This cycle results from the fact that 235 Synodic months = 6939.688381 days = 19.000238 Tropical years.
B. Time taken for the Nodes of the lunar orbit to realign with the seasons:
If a lunar node aligns with the Sun on a given day of the year, 6.410 years will pass before another
lunar node aligns with the Sun on roughly the same day of the year. This occurs because:
(0.5 draconic months)/(13.5 draconic months – tropical yr) = (13.606110 days/2.122791 days) =6.410 yrs.
Unfortunately, when a lunar node realigns with the Sun on roughly the same day of the year, the Moon is no longer at the same lunar phase. In order to have a lunar node realign with the Sun on the same day of the year, and for the Moon to return to the same phase (e.g. New/Full Moon) as well, it would take a period of time set by the beat period between 3.796 and 6.410 years i.e. 9.308 years. This means that if a New Moon takes place when one of the lunar nodes points at the Sun, 9.31 years later, a Full Moon will occur when a lunar node points at the Sun. Thus, the spacing between draconic spring tides is 9.31 years, a period equal to half of the 18.61336 year Draconic lunar cycle (= 9.307 years).
Technically speaking, Draconic spring tides do not fall exactly on the same day of the annual seasonal cycle. However, they do take place within +5/-4 days either side of a given date (with an average absolute difference of only ~2.6 days), so they can be considered to be quasi-peak seasonal tides that take place on roughly the same day of the year, once every 9 or 10 years.
C. Time taken for the Perigee of the lunar orbit to realign with these seasons:
If a lunar perigee aligns with the Sun on a given day of the year, 2.043 years will pass before lunar apogee aligns with the Sun on the same day of the year. This occurs because:
(0.5 anomalistic months)/(13.5 anomalistic months – tropical yr)=(13.777275 days/6.7442337 days)= 2.043 yrs.
Unfortunately, when a lunar apogee realigns with the Sun on the same day of the year, the Moon is no longer at the same lunar phase. In order to have lunar apogee realign with the Sun on the same day of the year, and for the Moon to return to the same phase as well (so that the opposite lunar phase occurs at lunar perigee), it would take a period set by the beat period between 3.796 and 2.043 years = 4.424 years.
This period of time is one half of the 8.8506 year lunar apse cycle (= 4.425 tropical years). These enhanced spring tides qualify as quasi-seasonal peak tides for the simple reason that they re-occur on
roughly the same day of the year once every 4 or 5 years, in a sequence that repeats itself every 31 years e.g. (5 + 5 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 4 + 4)/7 = 4.429 years.
The reason for the 31.00686 year repetition period is the fact that 383.5 synodic lunar months = 11324.980825 days is almost exactly equal to 411.0 anomalistic lunar months = 11324.92000 days. The difference between these two cycles is very small, amounting to only 1.46 hours over the 31 years. There is also another near coincidence in that 27.5 anomalistic lunar years = 11324.071832 days, ensuring that if a New Moon occurs at closest perigee, 31 Tropical years later, at almost exactly the same time of the year, a Full Moon will occur at closest perigee.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, on decadal time scales you have:
a) A New or Full Moon re-align with the Lunar nodes and with the seasons every 9 or 10 years.
b) A New or Full Moon re-align with the perigee of the lunar orbit and with the seasons every 4 or 5 years.
Hence, it wouldn’t be surprising if the long-term average was ~ 9 years.
57 (19 x 3) times the 31.00686 year repetition period (see IW’s comment above) = 1767.3762y
89 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions = 1767.47y
That’s the period described by Hans Jelbring in a PRP paper thus:
‘It is quite possible that this cycle is the Grand Cycle of our Solar System.’
‘The Jupiter–Saturn commensurability’ [see section 4.5]
Click to access prp-1-143-2013.pdf
89 J-S does look good. The problem is that the position of the J-S conjunction only moves 2.7 degrees of longitude past 240 degrees and for 89 J-S to be the full cycle it’d have to be 4.044 degrees. This is a puzzle I haven’t found the answer to.
It’s notable that 3×2.7 = 2×4.05 though
Roger
thank you very much.
Ian comments are interesting. I will think about.
My points
The problem with so many postings over this site is there is a lack of understanding of noise in the climate system, thresholds in the climate system ,lag times in the climate system and that the climate system is non linear and never in the same state.
Therefore my point (which i have made many time previously) is DO NOT EXPECT an x change in the climate from given x changes in items that control the climate. This I have preached but with little fanfare.
Why- look read below.
The initial state of the global climate.
a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.
b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.
The upshot being GIVEN solar variability IS NOT going to have the same given climatic impact.
.
. Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account.
Upshot being a given grand solar minimum period is not always going to have the same climatic impact.
This is why solar/climate correlations are hard to come by UNLESS the state of solar activity goes from a very active state to a very prolonged quiet state which is what has happened during year 2005.
So the nonsense that post Dalton no definitive solar /climate correlations exist just supports my notions of what I just expressed.
Further because of these points no climate model or method is going to work in predicting a specific climatic outcome. .
At best all that will be accomplished are general trends in the climate of the earth. Climate cycles a tool but not the definitive predictor . To many unknowns and one can spin anything to make it look much more convincing then it really is.
My prediction the temp. response will be lower because solar activity went from very active conditions in general prior to 2005 to very quiet conditions in general post 2005. That simple.
How much of a change will take place in the climate will depend upon the degree of magnitude change of solar activity and duration of time of the change in solar activity , this current prolonged solar minimum results in.
I have listed my solar criteria I will post it again.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C,(my guess) with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
And 240*3 = 360 * 2
http://iceagenow.info/2014/07/ice-ages-triggered-solar-activity-video/
A good listen. I subscribe to this view highly.
OB: Hmmmm. I almost see it…
The global surface temperature record appears to be made of natural specific oscillations with a likely solar/astronomical origin plus a noncyclical anthropogenic contribution during the last decades
I disagree 100% with the part of the statement which says plus a noncyclical anthropogenic contribution during the last decades.
There has been zero anthropogenic contribution and this fact will be realized as we proceed later into this current decade.
Past history shows this to be the case when climate variations were far greater then the begin .8 c rise over the last 100 years which by the way correlates to a vey large increase in solar magnetic activity during that same time span.
Sunspot data I don’t even use since it is so subjective and so many different sets of data exist.
I much rather use the AP index, or solar flux to get true values of what is going on with the sun.
Salvatore: I think Nicola might be referring to the adjustments to the data made by the anthropes over at NCDC… 😉
OB: I’ve sussed it. The 89 J-S is only 2/3 of the full cycle of precession. so the full cycle must be around 2660 years. Half of which is 1330.
TB: it’s a 99.87% match using your figures, by my reckoning. Sneeze and it’s 100% 😉
[…] Nicola Scafetta: Global temperatures and sunspot numbers. Are they … […]
OB: Not so fast. It’s kind of tricky. 1767 is 240 degrees but we need to do 720 altogether for the ‘full precession’. So rather than 1.5×1767, it’s 3×1767. But I reckon it doesn’t matter so much which ‘star point’ of the three is back at the start position. The oddity is that after 89 J-S, both J&S have done full sidereal orbits, but the precession is 240 degrees, not 360, so they are not at ‘full orbits’. I’m still trying to get my head round it.
OB: It’s a tricky one. What’s happening is that J-S are doing a Michael Jackson ‘walking backwards while walking forwards’ moon-walk number. That’s how you end up with a full number of orbits at 89 J-S despite the 240 degrees of precession in 1767 years.
Go to 48 seconds in this clip to see it in actionNah, watch it fro the start. Is that Slash playing guitar at the start??Nicely done Roger!
Are folk starting to get cycles/time as different than time? The whole universe is cyclic but likely never to repeat. Nice to have something to scratch ones head (or other parts) about. What a wonderful planet!
“As I have blogged about before, there is a correlation between the SSM/I cloud water and the CERES net radiative flux variations, so the recent elevated cloud water amounts lead to less sunlight entering the oceans, which is consistent with the recent hiatus in warming.”
Changes in UV radiation of 6 to 8%, and cosmic radiation by more than 5% (only neutrons) in long cycles are sufficient for the gradual cooling of the oceans.
Salvatore: I think Nicola might be referring to the adjustments to the data made by the anthropes over at NCDC… 😉
I hope that is the case. thanks
How much longer can governments continue wasting our money in the belief that CO2 is a major climate driver?
@ gallopingcamel
Reported today: the UK answer to your ‘How much longer’ question.
‘MPs have endorsed the findings of a UN climate panel that says humans are the dominant cause of global warming.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28531091
There was some ‘bickering’ about that though, says the report. Great 😉
“the IPCC’s conclusions should be accepted by policymakers.”
Their main conclusion is that the surface temperature may rise between 1.2 and 4C by 2100 at a confidence level of only 90%, with no central ‘best estimate’ such as appeared in previous reports.
And the taxpayer is expected to hand over many billions of their hard earned wages on the basis of this highly uncertain conclusion?
The latest science not included in the report indicates a lower climate sensitivity and a bigger role for the long term (around 60 year) ocean oscillations than previously considered. If the negative phase of those oceanic oscillations is now being recognised as being mainly responsible for the lack of any surface warming trend since 1997, then logic dictates that the positive phase of those oscillations was likely responsible for much of the warming from 1976-2006
Nicola’s model includes the 60yr oscillation and is bang on course.
Thank you Roger, I do not often comment but I commend all here for swimming against the current and using maths in science in the correct manner. The harmony of the spheres such as you seek will confound the so called experts and will lead to a better understanding of our solar system, the sun our galaxy and the universe. Many scientists in other fields are starting to buck the system against the status quo, the failure of main stream science is slowly becoming an embarrassment to many.
Good luck to Nicola his reasoning seems to be a more possible possibility than the AGW crap.
TB says: ‘If the negative phase of those oceanic oscillations is now being recognised as being mainly responsible for the lack of any surface warming trend since 1997, then logic dictates that the positive phase of those oscillations was likely responsible for much of the warming from 1976-2006’
All of which dictates logically that man-made additions to trace gases like CO2 have had little to no overall effect on either cooling or warming in the time period in question.
Re: Sun spots are Not linear.
Nicola. I would like to ask your opinion on this power spectra graph by Leif
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/WavesAndHarmonics#6023212869537804018
The graph shows periods of a sort of linear trend from 50 -1024 yrs
The geometrical shape of this power spectra graph interests me as there is a symmetry that is not random
Leif from his power sunspot graph above has the maximum power peak/ max cycle at 1024 yrs?
How do you interpret this graph?
Click to access Comment-Planetary-Peaks.pdf
My personal research on sunspots indicates the relationship between global temp and sunspots occurs in schwabbe triplets for the 66 yr cycle and schwabbes of 10 = 108 yr (re Vukcevics fast and slow sun phases )
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SCHWABETRIPLETS#6026582322047792642
Current research draft
http://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/schwabbe-triplets-and-earths-climate/
The relationship is linear/ in phase with global temp, if your select the correct point in time
The last group of schwabe triplets was cycle 21,22 and 23 ( global warming)
The inflection point in global temp change is governed by the end of the schwabe triplet.
and one of the connections with planetary
“The Jupiter /Saturn 60.9 beat is positioned regularly on the 3rd schwabe of the schwabe triplet. There is a delay of a few years before global temp inflection point for max or min is reached.
When J/S beat is max(peak) , so is the global temp cycle approaching max( +/- 5-12 yr)
When the J/S beat is (trough), the global temperature cycle approaches minimum ( +/- 5-12 yr)
I have no doubt this J/S beat is a major component in the timing of the Schwabe triplet and ~66 yr global temp’ cycle
We have started the next schwabe triplet ( cycle 24,25,26)
——————————————————————–
We are currently also on the last of the 10 schwabe set
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SOLARSYSTEMAndClimate#6015491995579189778
————————–
I would love to see your calculations if plotted against the schwabe triplets( AMO /global temp cycle) and the schwabe tenplets( fast sun /slow sun)
If you have time Dr Scaffeta l would appreciate your review of my findings one day in the future
http://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/schwabbe-triplets-and-earths-climate/
In early August, the first signs of autumn in northern Europe.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/08/03/0000Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-29.17,57.98,481
The disturbing condition the Gulf Stream.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/07/12/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=-29.17,57.98,481
OB: That depends on the slope of the underlying curve and the departures from sine-wave and several other things.
TB: 1940-1975 also had overall cooling – looks like the ‘down’ part of the sine wave?
Look at the HADCET graph for England: 3 or 4 ‘waves of cooling’ in the last 240 years comparable in size to the solitary big wave of warming, which is obviously over now – per the graph.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
weathercycles: ‘Leif from his power sunspot graph above has the maximum power peak/ max cycle at 1024 yrs?’
Six Uranus-Neptune conjunctions = 1028.33 years average.(3085/3)
See also LOD thread (and Paul Vaughan’s reply)
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/length-of-day-ancient-eclipse-obs-and-modern-analysis-indicate-cycles-at-planetary-frequencies/comment-page-1/#comment-84766
Ren: “In early August, the first signs of autumn in northern Europe”
My friends in eastern Canada also are complaining of cold nights for the time of year. The body feels what the averages as yet do not report. It could be another very cold winter.
Rick: I’m predicting much snow for the UK this winter
This winter for the N.H. could be brutal.
Why
1. warm water in N.E. Pacific just like last year.
2. warm water around s. Greenland.
BOTH FAVOR BLOCKING.
Neg. Qbo
Low Solar
Neutral Enso
These favor blocking.
Watch volcanic activity
weathercycles says: about Leif’s sunspot model
Syn. SSN = ABS(COS(π/10.81*t)*COS(π/1024*t)) (1)
Leif shows that such a function produces several peaks observed in the solar system and in the sun and associated planetary model
The problem is that then Leif concludes that such a finding would disprove the planetary theory.
Leif is very funny, as many readers of this blog knows.
Let us analyze Leif Model.
First, he uses a basic 10.81 period that actually is a beat harmonics between the 9.93 Jupiter-Saturn spring tide period and the 11.86 year Jupiter orbital period (taken from my papers):
2/(1/9.93+1/11.86)=10.81
He then uses a modulation of 1024 year.
And finally he uses the ABS function to generate its sub-harmonics.
What Leif did not explicitly note was that his chosen basic frequencies contain the planetary harmonics. For example, 60*17 =1020 etc.
So his model was artificially constructed to get the planetary harmonics.
But how is it possible to simulate the planetary harmonics using such a simple formula? The answer is that the solar system is highly synchronized and all planetary harmonic form a quasi-harmonic sequence.
See here for more details:
Scafetta, N., 2014. The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system. In the Special Issue “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”, Pattern Recognition in Physics 2, 1-19.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/1/2014/prp-2-1-2014.html
Nicola and Rog,
I draw your attention this paragraph from Keeling and Whorf (1997):
“Here we present evidence that global temperature has fluctuated quasi-decadally since 1855, except for an interruption between about 1900 and 1945, thus supporting previous claims of failures of weather phenomena to maintain a correlation with the sunspot cycle near 1920. This interruption, although difficult to explain by a sunspot mechanism, does not rule out a tidal mechanism, because the astronomically driven
tide raising forces since 1855 have exhibited strong 9-year periodicity only when quasi-decadal periodicity was evident in temperature data. Furthermore, unlike the perplexing shift in the phase of quasi-decadal temperature fluctuations with the sunspot cycle between the 19th and 20th centuries, there was no such shift in phase with respect to tidal forcing.”
and I ask you to look at figure 14 of:
Click to access TOASCJ130415001.pdf
The first reference suggest a hiatus in the relation between sunspot number and world mean temperature between 1900 and 1945 centered on ~1922.
The second reference (i.e. figure 14) suggests a natural hiatus in the lunar tidal alignments between ~1918 and 1964, that is shifted in forward in time by ~18 years from the Keeling and Whorf hiatus.
Ian Wilson
There should be a 8.85-9.3 year oscillation due to the moon. I talk about it extensively in my paper.
This oscillation interfere with the solar cycle signature. The two cycles interfere destructively during the period 1920-1940. So, the signal appeared as vanishing. But this is not correct.
see Figure 8B in
Scafetta N., 2013. Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs. Energy & Environment 24(3-4), 455–496.
Click to access Scafetta_EE_2013.pdf
Copernicus Publications wishes to distance itself from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice of not blaming CO2 for Gorebil Warbiling, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP.
Weathercycles:
In addition to Nicola’s comments, I will add that the LS synthetic model is based on an incorrect assumption. The model multiplies the cosines of the frequencies 10.81 and 1024 where it is far more likely that the waves that interact in the sun are the results of summations as we usually think of waves interacting, with constructive and destructive interference. The 1024 year frequency manifests from the interaction of more fundamental frequencies driven by the planets.
Using the identity, cos(u)*cos(v)=(cos(u-v)+cos(u+v))/2
The LS model can be changed into an interacting additive model.
The frequencies 10.92533 and 10.69707 reproduce the results of the LS model exactly because of the identity relationship.
But now change one of these fundamental frequencies slightly and the model produces a completely different pattern. If 10.69707 is changed by just 1 % to 10.80405 the model morphs into a completely different shape. The planets drive these basic frequencies through modulation.
To maintain the manifestation of the longer frequencies with the summation model requires certainty and the statement:
“It doesn’t really matter what the period of the ‘solar’ modulation is.” is wrong.
[…] Fonte : https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/nicola-scafetta-global-temperatures-and-sunspot-numbers-ar… […]
Reblogging on Nia :
http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/2014/07/29/nicola-scafetta-le-temperature-globali-e-il-numero-di-macchie-solari-sono-correlate-si-ma-non-in-modo-lineare/
I have a question for Nicola.
Do you remember ?
http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/2014/01/16/il-dott-nicola-scafetta-cita-un-articolo-di-un-nostro-utente-in-una-sua-nuova-carta-scientifica/comment-page-1/#comment-119660
Is the next your article on the Jupiter-Venus and earth (triad) in progress ?
GO Fibonacci. If you cannot find one, you are not trying!
Significant changes since 2000.
Specific humidity: 300 hPa, 500 hPa, 700 hPa, 925 hPa.
Absolute humidity is the total amount of water vapour present in a given volume of air. It does not take temperature into consideration. Absolute humidity in the atmosphere ranges from near zero to roughly 30 grams per cubic meter when the air is saturated at 30 °C.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
The increase in humidity at the level of clouds, the decrease in the upper troposphere.
Absolute humidity in the atmosphere ranges from near zero to roughly 30 grams per cubic meter when the air is saturated at 30 °C.
OK at altitude, at -30 °C. and at whatever volume, how many grams are left at saturation? Where did the other grams go? Where did the latent heat at 2500 J/gm go?
[…] https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/nicola-scafetta-global-temperatures-and-sunspot-numbers-ar… […]
Thanks Dr Scafetta for your response. I will read your paper as suggested
Re: the basic schwabe cycle
your comment
“First, he ( leif )uses a basic 10.81 period that actually is a beat harmonics between the 9.93 Jupiter-Saturn spring tide period and the 11.86 year Jupiter orbital period (taken from my papers):
2/(1/9.93+1/11.86)=10.81”
Are you saying the basic schwabe of mean length 10.81 yr is actually primarily caused by
the beat harmonics between the 9.93 Jupiter-Saturn spring tide period and the 11.86 year Jupiter orbital period ?
Why is the 66 yr power spectral peak the strongest in the temperature record?
This is 6 schwabes. = one up ( 3 schwabes) ,AND one down (3 schwabes)phase of the AMO , which is one cool and one warm phase ..which ~ cancels out ?
What exactly is the power spectral band showing?
Thanks for your response Salvatore
I wish my maths was better
I see on your multiple model there are there is a 1,000 yr cycle which has a peak max at ~2000
and with your additive model a cycle of 2067 yr which also peaks constructively in the 1900’s?
I am a bit confused about synthetic cycles and real cycles?
Is it ‘real’ that both the additive and multiply models constructively overlay to produce a constructive decline until 2400?
or are saying the solar system harmonics have a natural shift that changes the pattern over time and hence repetition never occurs exactly?
Apologies for my lacking here.
WC: You might find this post I made back in August 2011 helpful:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/
The 10.81yr period is not the Schwabe cycle length.
Nicola says in his 2012 paper that this is a fundamental internal oscillation period generated internally by the Sun.
I doubt it myself. I think it’s the outcome of the J-S relationship. As I wrote back then:
“This is in fact equivalent to Bart’s third formula for ‘necessarily apparent periods’; T1*T2/(T2+T1)
i.e. 23.72 (twice Jupiters orbital period) times 19.85 (the J-S synodic period) all divided by 23.72 plus 19.85, which equals 10.806.”
and
“Kepler’s third law states: The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
So for the orbits of Jupiter(11.86 years) and Saturn(29.46 years) we find that the squares (multiplication by itself) of the orbital periods are 140.67 and 867.3. The cube roots of these values are 5.2 and 9.54. The ratio of these values (one divided by the other) is 0.545. Jupiter’s orbit is a little over half the size of Saturn’s.
As Jupiter passes Saturn at conjunction it then takes just under 20 years for Jupiter to catch up with Saturn again. We can calculate this using a law discovered by Kepler’s mentor Copernicus:
The Synodic period is given by the inverse of the inverse of the orbital period of the slower moving body minus the inverse of the orbital period of the faster moving body:
Synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn is 1/(1/11.86 – 1/29.46)=19.852 years
We can then multiply that result by the orbital distance ratio of 0.545 we calculated to obtain 10.819”
Thanks OB.
another interesting find by yourself
“Six Uranus-Neptune conjunctions = 1028.33 years average.(3085/3)”
Over to the expert on Uranus/Neptune for this one
Geoff sharp and Landscheidt minimum
An accurate? ( if there is such a thing) power spectra out to 10,000 yr would be good thing
Any alternatives to Leif’s solution?
1024 is a binary number
is there binary in the solar system? like there is phi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_numeral_system
fraction… decimal…………..binary
1/14 —- 0.0714285714285… 0.0001001001… 1/16 + 1/128 + 1/1024 . . .
1/15 …….0.0666… 0.00010001… 1/16 + 1/256 . . .
1/16…….. 0.0625 or 0.0624999… 0.0001 or 0.0000111… 1/32 + 1/64 + 1/128 . . .
Thanks TB.for your explanation ..I will read your link
Amazing stuff!
“Synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn is 1/(1/11.86 – 1/29.46)=19.852 years
We can then multiply that result by the orbital distance ratio of 0.545 we calculated to obtain..
…… 10.819″ =
mean schwabe lengthI find the match with Dr Scafetta’s 10.8yr as intriguing!
There’s no going to sleep in this forum!!
Soooo….
At what positions are Jupiter and Saturn at Schwabe max and schwabe minimum
or alternatively
Where are their ( J , S) positions on the increasing sunspot slope ( phase of about 10.8 / 2 = 5.4 yr) and where are they ( J , S ) on the turn off the sunspots slope. Down phase of the schwabe?
In other words what J , S configuration turns on the sun spots for ~ 5.4 yrs in the schwabe cycle?
WC: THE 10.81 YEAR OSCILLATION IS NOT, REPEAT NOT, THE SCHWABE CYCLE LENGTH. Sorry to shout but you ignored this in my previous comment.
Nor is the phase relationship of J-S with the solar cycle constant. However there are patterns which indicate there is a strong relationship. For example, Vuk found this relationship between the angle dividing longitudes of J & S at solar minimum, as measured along the parker spiral (bottom plot)
Timo Niroma demonstrated that the average Schwabe cycle length of around 11.07 yrs is rarely seen in actual solar cycle length. They cluster most often near 10.38 and 11.9 years. These are JEV cycle and Jupiter orbital periodicities.
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2014 at 12:01 pm
…..
twice Jupiters (2 x 11.862) orbital period and 19.859 years are indeed governing the polar field (sunspot) waveform approximations (as shown at the front page of my website , as far as I know not employed prior to my publication in January 2003.
I discussed these numbers with NASA-JPL astrophysicist and solar scientist Dr. Joan Feynman (yes, sister of R.F.) in 2003, she was not aware of any paper or hypothesis previously using such numbers, and offered advice on publication.
P.s.
TB thanks for drawing attention to the Parker spiral graph.
Some time ago, I went with J-S angle back to 1700, expanding and confirming previous finding:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/J-S-a.htm
It may be of interest to note that at times of notable minima::
– collapse of the even cycles’ angle around 1800 and possibly around next minimum (expected to occur around 2020)
– for the odd cycles, the angle change-over took place around 1900
Additional numbers (above the coloured dots) give times of the minima as derived from the monthly non-smoothed SSN.
Of course gravitational forces are of the essence, controlling orbital factors, but the above separate alignment of the even and odd cycles suggests to me that the magnetic (Hale) 22 year not the SS 11 year cycle is the primary property of the solar activity.
It has been noted that the anti-solar group at the WUWT is resolutely avoiding getting anywhere near Hale cycle in the climate data.
To counter the attitude I posted this:
Chasing dimensionless sunspot number is a waist of time. Sunspot cycles have a distinct magnetic polarity (opposite) on each of two solar hemispheres.
Dr. S will say that they cancel each other, but that is not the case for the open solar magnetic flux impacting the Earth. .
Two magnetic polarities are separated by the heliospheric current sheet (HCS), thus the Earth sees only one at any time.
How much time the earth spends in each polarity is determined by the tilt angle of the HCS, which is considerably different between even and odd cycles.
All Earth’s electrically conducting (from wires to ocean currents) and electrically charged (from clouds to ionosphere) systems differentiate between two solar magnetic polarities.
For example when the Earth is swept by the HCS all geomagnetic stations record sharp magnetic spike of one or the other polarity depending on the direction of the crossing.
As a consequence, the 22 year cycle is present in both land and ocean temperatures. Here is the NOAA’s L&O temperature anomaly and its spec, with the 22 year component the most prominent one.
How does it work? That is much harder to answer; for a test we cannot turn it off, but according to (my) extrapolation there is a remote possibility that the sun just may do us a favour and switch it off for ~ 10-11 years (starting about 2020)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
Apologies to Dr. Scafetta, intention was not to take over the thread, thus I shall not post further unless a specific question is asked.
Nicola,
Thank you for you reference to figure 8B in your EE_2013 paper. In this paper you show that the fourier filtering of GST within the period band between 8 years and 12 years compares well with the regression model from 1870 to 2012, i.e. f (t) = h9.1 (t) + h10.2 (t).
By adopting the following four major constituent climatic oscillation, regression against GST permits to obtain average optimal empirical harmonics:
h9.1 (t) = 0.044 · cos(2π(t – 1997.8)/9.1)
h10.2 (t) = 0.030 · cos(2π(t – 2001.5)/10.2)
h21 (t) = 0.051 · cos(2π(t – 2004.7)/21)
h61 (t) = 0.107 · cos(2π(t – 2003.14)/61)
My point is that it is also possible (given the errors involved) for:
9.1 years____= 1/2 x 18.031 years____18.031 years = 16 Full Moon Cycles = Saros Cycle
10.2 years___= 1/2 x 20.2937 years___20.2937 years = 18 Full Moon Cycles = Perigee/Syzygy cycle
21 years_____= 20.2937 years
61 years ____= 62.0085 years_______62.0085 years = 55 Full Moon Cycles = Perigee/Syzygy cycle
[(3 x 20.2937 years) + 1.1274 years (=one FMC)] = 62.0085 years
In other words, the Lunar tides could explain all of the periods in your regression model.
Sorry, link missing in the above :
Here is the NOAA’s L&O temperature anomaly and its spec
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NOAAspec.htm
with the 22 year component……..
vukcevic says:
Here is the NOAA’s L&O temperature anomaly and its spec
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NOAAspec.htm
with the 22 year component……..
At WUWT avoiding answers. You can see that a complete cycle is exactly 22 years.
Vuk: many thanks for the update. Interesting. I fully acknowledge your early recognition of the periods concerned. And don’t worry about contributing your ideas to this thread, it’s open house here.
VUK -latest post very interesting.
How much time the earth spends in each polarity is determined by the tilt angle of the HCS, which is considerably different between even and odd cycles
Question do you think it matters which polarity the earth spends it’s time in? Or does it matter just on how much time the earth spends in each polarity in total regardless of the polarity itself?
Ren both the north and south polarity fields are the same , both neg. is this not very unusual?
Salvatore: the southward component reconnects with the northern magnetosphere. Vuk may remember better than I do the discussion we had with Svagaard about one of the geomag indices (k index?) Which shows correlations from the soithward readings only.
The Ole Svagaard was rather a dammit about the “solar wind does not reverse direction along the ecliptic plane!” while the point I was trying to make was the polarity of the incoming flux at the solar poles switches in polarity like a long term (22 year Hale cycle period Alternating Current) where the magnetic flux alternates which poles it inducts into the sun and the solar wind on the ecliptic plane is the flux out at all times.
I think this is due to interactions between the greater Galactic fields and the distribution of the solar system mass around the SS barycenter on the Z axis. It may be the homopolar generator effects of the tilt angles of the outer planets planes, being modified as they are closer or further from the GC than the sun, increasing the total accelerating torque they feel (when between the sun and the GC,) in their angular momentum in all three axis. This modulation shows up in the earth’s LOD patterns due to homopolar gen effects.
Richard, interesting thoughts, thanks. Did you see the new comments on your page?
not yet, going now.
Google translate is your friend if you’re not a fluent Spanish speaker
Hi Salvatore, here is my take on it:
The Earth is always under the influence of the interplanetary magnetic field. When the leading edge is magnetized north it connects into the earth’s magnetosphere.
Heliospheric current sheet is very narrow, transition is a matter of minutes or mostly hour or two. With CMEs the same principle applies, but effect may last day or two, even longer, CMEs are far stronger and faster than solar wind and push it out of the way.
Magnetic polarities + & – (read/blue periphery lines), HCS (white line) and a CME (multi-coloured moving magnetic cloud) are best observed from the middle animation in this link .
NASA’s statistical analysis shows that in the even solar cycles the sun’s originated MF’s north polarity leading edge is prevailing, while opposite is the case in the odd cycles.
In addition the Earth’s core produces it’s own magnetic decadal riple, closely associated with changes in the LOD. Both of these affect strength and behaviour of the ionosphere.
Recent NASA’s observations have conclusively shown that there is an electric link between ‘equatorial electrojet’ (an intense ionospheric electric current flowing on the dayside eastwards, along the geo magnetic-equator) and the equatorial thunderstorms. For the moment, it is thought that it is unidirectional from clouds to ionosphere, possible bidirectional effect is not excluded, but currently no evidence is found.
Most of the solar energy input is in the Equatorial region (day time) and even minor effect of the ‘electrojet’ on the cloudiness (formation of storm clouds) might provide required mechanism for the sun-climate 22 year (Hale cycle) link.
If so, than the LOD- SSN link may be explained by Indian monsoon shifting hundreds of Giga tons of water from the equatorial region to 25 degrees north into the Himalayas. As it happens the previously mentioned Earth’s core ripple is found to be, along with the ENSO, monsoon’s dominant periodicity.
The above is the reason for saying: “Chasing dimensionless sunspot number is a waste of time”.
David Evans is only partially correct, the 11 year cycle may be suppressed, but only by its own change of magnetic polarity, no factor X required.
Strong electric bias in my ideas is most likely result of the ‘occupational’ deviation.
.
@ Vukcevic
Electric charge is worth the mention you give it.
‘Believe it or not, the Earth behaves like an enormous electric circuit. The atmosphere is actually a weak conductor and if there were no sources of charge, its existing electric charge would diffuse away in about 10 minutes.’
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/q768.html
thanks.
Vukcevic says:
“Chasing dimensionless sunspot number is a waste of time”.
David Evans is only partially correct, the 11 year cycle may be suppressed, but only by its own change of magnetic polarity, no factor X required.
Strong electric bias in my ideas is most likely result of the ‘occupational’ deviation.”
I believe in your intuition. It is a pity that other researchers do not appreciate that.
Apologies for my annoying ignorance TB in searching for the cause of the creation of sunspots in the up phase of the basic schwabe unit
OK..
so from the graph you posted of Vuks’ angle displacement of J_S .
I can see the role of the Jupiter__Saturn magnetosphere angle displacement in the HALE cycle which appears to be completely in phase. Astonishing!!
but the schwabe cycle only partially evident there with one schwabe = one phase of the angle displacement .. Related to SC length perhaps but not the creation of sunspots in the 5.4 upward phase of the schwabe .
——————
Further to Vuk’s findings on angle displacement…HOWEVER
I have done some work tonight
I have taken Vukcevics graph of the time series of the displacement
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/J-S-a.htm
and plotted it against Vuk’s fast sun/slow sun model
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SOLARSYSTEMAndClimate#6013158959237948706
( the fast sun = 10 sequential schwabes…the slow sun equals 10 schwabes )
This is a quasi 100-120 yr solar cycle of 10 schwabes of various lengths
It has minimums and maximums and the timing is seen here
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/TIMESERIESAndTrends#6016583234843255026
and posted /found in my research here
http://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/schwabbe-triplets-and-earths-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-1266
Here is some notes from my findings tonight
“Vukcevic has constructed the magnetic angle displacement of Jupiter and Saturn. I noted that l could see his fast /slow sun model here which occurs in groups of 10 schwabes .
Of note is that the angle displacement is ….higher ..in the …even cycles… during the fast ~100 yr phase!!
and vice versa in the ~100yr slow phase ”
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SCHWABETRIPLETS#6042197015831829122
I will leave VUK to explain what he means by a fast and slow sun phase..
Amplitude of sunspots in the ~100yr cycle l think
I probably should add
Re: Vuks comments above
quote
“It may be of interest to note that at times of notable minima::
– collapse of the even cycles’ angle around 1800 and possibly around next minimum (expected to occur around 2020)
– for the odd cycles, the angle change-over took place around 1900
Additional numbers (above the coloured dots) give times of the minima as derived from the monthly non-smoothed SSN.”
The collapse he refers to is the END of the 10 schwabe amplitude cycle of the order quasi-~100-120 yr
This is the inflection point or shift from fast to slow sun and vice versa
A regime shift
This could also be the deVries which would have a fast solar phase of ~104 yr and a slow phase of ~104 yr
A gear shift /Bi speed De Vries?
Cheers ..Night all !
andBTW
The 10 schwabe amplitude cycle has an up phase of ~55 yr and down phase of ~55yr
The De vries would have
2 full cycles of the 10 schwabe amplitude cycle = ~ 10.8 * 20 schwabes ( 10 fast /10 slow)= ~216 yr
Embedded nesting perhaps
food for thought
weathercycles says:
July 31, 2014 at 1:59 pm
I will leave VUK to explain what he means by a fast and slow sun phase..
Amplitude of sunspots in the ~100yr cycle l think.
Partially correct, since the ’slow sun’ has generally weaker cycles.
The idea was result of one of many exchanges with Dr.S, this one re ‘Gleissberg cycle’.
Solar gear is actualy related to the ‘spectral block periodicity’ of the principal component: ‘fast sun’ at ~10.4 and the ‘slow sun’ at ~11 years.
now added to the graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sg.htm
Looks as we may be entering another 100 years of ‘slow sun’
This paper on solar rotation says:
‘analysis of the temporal variations of the rotational cycle length shows an acceleration trend for the surface rotation rate from cycles 11 to 19, but a deceleration trend from the beginning of cycle 20 onward….It is inferred that the variation of the rotational cycle length may be related to the variation of sunspot activity in the long run.’
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/730/1/49/article;jsessionid=EDD93C3650F713A1913FA1D88C4EC201.c1
Graph from the paper:
OB: That needs a new article. I think it will be found to be consistent with the conclusions I’ve drawn from the work I’ve done on Ray Tomes Z-axis theory.
@oldbrew: Oh wow! unimaginable huge energy transport. intriguing, to say the least.
Chaeremon: If my hypothesis is near the mark, we are seeing spin-orbit coupling via the HCS. The standard gravitational perturbation theory cannot explain the six minute slowdowns in the spin rates of Saturn an Venus over the last two decades. The link between solar activity and spin rates is mysterious to solar physicists. The Sun has 99% of the solar system mass. The outer planets have 98% of its angular momentum.
Let’s get a new discussion going for this. Stand by.
The report goes a bit cautious at the end:
‘The relation between the rotation of the Sun and sunspot activity is complex; further study is needed in the future.’
Solar cycle length seems to be involved though.
See also this free paper by some of the same authors:
INTERNAL-CYCLE VARIATION OF SOLAR DIFFERENTIAL ROTATION (2013)
http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/206/2/15
They propose that:
‘Weak magnetic fields may more effectively reflect differentiation at low latitudes with high rotation rates than at high latitudes with low rotation rates, and strong magnetic fields may more effectively repress differentiation at relatively low latitudes than at high latitudes. The internal-cycle variation is inferred as the result of both the latitudinal migration of the surface torsional pattern and the repression of strong magnetic activity in differentiation.’
In the conclusions:
‘The differential rotation of the solar atmosphere has a periodical pattern of change.’
“further study is needed in the future”
Trans: “Keep funding us!”
In this case I’m in agreement 🙂
Rog, I’m curious if the spin-orbit connection can be described like the Magnus effect:
A [longish] while ago Miles Mathis wrote about repel in the orbit; I sent him the video (I think it was a similar one) but he was not impressed …
According to your model VUK…Fast sun phase ends at ~2020 with collapse of even cycle upward trend and regime shift into slow sun phase.
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SCHWABETRIPLETS#6042197015831829122
We are in schwabe 9 of the 10 schwabe gear cycle
Slow sun 1gear 100 year commences ~2020 -2100
Noting from the volcano correlation post . The frequency of large volcanoes doubles in the slow sun phase. ( post 2020)
—————————–
I wonder if the sun has more than 2 gears?. As looking back into 1400-1600–1600-1700( little ice age), one might describe the solar gear speed as VERY slow and wonder if the sun has an even faster speed than fast..
Looking at this diagram ( zoom out)
Inferred above is a 1000 yr cycle ( 1,000 to 2,000AD max -max peak)
Possible nested cycles as far as as l certain currently
1 * 1,000 scwabes = 1,000 yr cycle
10 * 10 schwabes amplitude cycle = 1,000yr
3 (schwabe ) * 333.3′ = 1,000 yr
3 ( schwabe) / 10 schwabes = 3.33
1000 schwabes / 3 schwabes = 333.3
2 * 100 yr gear phase = 200 yr De Vries
1,000 / 200 De vries = 5
200 De Vries / 3 schwabbes = 66.6′
Milankovitch 100,000 / 1,000 yr cycle( ie: 1,000 -2,000AD) = 100
Some binary there above
1, 10, 100, 1,000 , 100,000
Interesting that all these major cycles/cogs end, terminate/collapse abruptly forming a saw tooth wave form. Including the suns speed gears
Some notes from my work tonight. Correlating Vuks J_S angle displacement VS solar cycle length
No correlation between Solar cycle length and J _S angle at displacement solar minima
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SCHWABETRIPLETS#6042564721954681090
But a few interesting points
– Regime shift from slow to fast sun gear occurs in the ..middle… of a Hale cycle ( on an odd cycle in 1913)
Not sure if l have picked the correct point for termination of the slow phase ( 1913: end of cycle 14)
-Wondering if there is a correlation between lowered /declining amplitude of the Hale cycles J-S angle displacement in the fast sun phase and increased global warming phase from 1900 -2005
and vice versa
high amplitude cycling of the displacement angle… J-S 1800-1900 correlates with downward global temp cycle?
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/TIMESERIESAndTrends#6015825479220392178
-Evidence of the climate shift of 1975 at the end of SC 20 when J_S displacement is at its lowest amplitude and starts to crank again ( shift in pattern)
-RE: the correlation with research on the schwabe triplets..
Noted here
-At the end of the slow phase ( end of cycle 14) in 1913 was also near the minimum of an AMO phase also the end of schwabe triplet( 12,13,14)
-2008 is the end of cycle 23 , the end of schwabe triplet( 21,22, 23) and the commencement of the downward phase of the AMO
So there are some links
However the link to the 100 yr global temp phases ( 200 yrDe Vries ful cycle ) are initially far more encouraging
———
Re:funding
Have you applied for research grants Tallbloke team to fund your on going research?
WC: Have you applied for research grants Tallbloke team to fund your on going research?
No.
I conclude the HCS is a result of solar activity(the solar wind) not the other way around. In addition it does not matter which magnetic polarity of the sun the earth spends more time in .
I find no correlation between the time earth is in a particular polarity of the sun’s magnetic field and the intensities of CME’S and other geomagnetic activity
Salvatore: The rate of reconnection of Earth’s magnetosphere with the solar wind is more a matter of the solar wind’s polarity oscillations I agree. The new paper by Courtillot et al looks very promising for understanding the Earth’s response to the fluctuation of solar activity:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/new-paper-finds-another-potential-solar.html
In my own hypothesis, for the longer term solar trends, it matters more which side of the HCS the gas giants are than Earth’s passage through it.
thanks
That article misinterpreted “QBO”, which has a different meaning in solar & terrestrial contexts. I advise caution reading Hockey Schtick blog articles that suggest anything about terrestrial circulation. For example, I recall a recent article about Antarctic sea ice where the blog article author didn’t even appear to be aware of the Humboldt Current. With such gaping holes in basic awareness of circulation, we have no choice but to grit our teeth and filter what we read there. It’s a good source of leads, but some interpretive filtering is necessary. Lack of awareness of the basic topology of terrestrial circulation remains the biggest weakness (it’s actually fatal) in the climate skeptic community. This is especially problematic at wuwt, where the awareness lapse is sufficiently acute to afford the community leaders there opportunity to enforce mass delusion by merely substituting availability for competence & integrity. A policy against hyperactivity would be the easiest way to start correcting this abuse.
Nicola’s thought-provoking figure 8B can be refined — more on that down the road…
Regards
Paul Vaughan says: August 1, 2014 at 11:03 pm
Lack of awareness of the basic topology of terrestrial circulation remains the biggest weakness (it’s actually fatal) in the climate skeptic community.
Where is your evidence of any “lack of awareness” of anything in the climate skeptic community?
This is especially problematic at wuwt, where the awareness lapse is sufficiently acute to afford the community leaders there opportunity to enforce mass delusion by merely substituting availability for competence & integrity. A policy against hyperactivity would be the easiest way to start correcting this abuse.
So you equate the climate skeptic community, with the lukewarmers at wuwt. Think again Paul,
the skeptics are not that stupid. We would all appreciate more knowledge of your understanding of this particular “is”!
Dr Scafetta. I could not read your work asocited with this post re the pay wall but l did read your suggested reading
,
The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system
N. Scafetta
Click to access prp-2-1-2014.pdf
from
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/1/2014/prp-2-1-2014.html
I must say l was just in awe! Fabulous work!!!
Thanks so much for that wonderful compilation of knowledge.!! I Iearnt so much from that article
I liked everything about your paper and all made sense.
I also found your explanation of the cause of the schwabe cycle ..
A question perhaps
Does your 3 frequency model incorporate the larger 1,000yr cycle which peaked ~2000 may also be on a downward trend constructively with BOTH the 60 and 200 yr cycle
could produce a deeper minimum? (assuming zero AGW)
WC: We are subtle about linking paywalled papers, see the first comment on this thread.
The 983yr period arises out of planetary orbital rates.
Will Janoschka:
Erl Happ had a good handle on terrestrial circulatory topology, along with time & inclination to teach. He became unpopular and got chased out (at wuwt) for expressing his ideas about solar-terrestrial relations. The utility of his articles IMO was that (regardless of whether they otherwise had merit) they forced people to learn circulation.
Harry van Loon has a good handle on circulation, but he was chased away by the wuwt solar thought police.
John S. & Bill Illis have a good handle on circulation. (I scan the comments at CE for “john s.” and at wuwt for “Bill Illis”, ignoring all other comments.)
_
Here’s something for everyone to think about:
Hinnov, Linda A. (2013). Cyclostratigraphy and its revolutionizing applications in the earth and planetary sciences. Geological Society of America Bulletin 125(11-12), 1703-1734.
Click to access 73-Hinnov2013-Cyclostratigraphy%20and%20its%20revolutioning%20applications%20in%20the%20earth%20and%20planetary%20sciences.pdf
Regards
IW said:
61 years ____= 62.0085 years_______62.0085 years = 55 Full Moon Cycles = Perigee/Syzygy cycle
A 61-year period can also be derived from the motion of the J-S synodic in the solar system, using the degrees of angle quoted by Charvatova.
New:
Sunspot Integral = Wind (ICOADS)
Reminder: Sun & SAM (Southern Annular Mode)
more extensive illustration (including ENSO) forthcoming days-to-weeks from now
Paul V: Great stuff. I’ll feature it as a quickie post to get the juices flowing for the main course.
[…] Paul Vaughan on Nicola Scafetta: Global temper… […]
Oh . I see your point TB. Thanks for pointing that out
———————–
Tonight l have taken one of Dr Scafetta s (2014) power spectra graph and marked the schwabe grouping relationships l have noted from my personal studies of the schwabe groupings which are ( 1 , 2, 3, 6, 10) embedded in
longer time frames ( 10, 100, 1,000, 100,000).
6 schwabes @ 10.4 mean length( modern data length per scafetta) = 62.4yr
This is the AMO/global temp cycle that is seen with the naked eye in the global temp’ series without the use of mathematics
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SCHWABETRIPLETS#6043630338834948082
Had a play with a graph l found on Tallbloke today
It is a zoom in on global land and sea temps
——————–
RESULTS
————–
Intro..
Noticed a 3 yr Global temp cycle with an ~18 month phasein this graph
by
So wanted to
Overlay the above graph with the schwabe single , schwabe triplet , schwabe duo (hale cycles)
————-
Result
———–
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SCHWABETRIPLETS#6044429623622453010
MY OBS’ / NOTES
—————————
Here is a zoom in of global temp(land_ocean) showing cyclical behaviour.
from climatedatablog.wordpress
Eyeball estimate is 3 yr full cycle (max-max) and ~ 18 month phases
…ENSO?
Have cross correlated this with the solar cycles as per ‘list of solar cycles_wikopedia
I have also marked the Jupiter _Saturn beat peak at 1994
and the HALE cycle across schwabe no.22 and 23
———————
Points of interest
————————
-schwabe 22 = 3 peaks , 2 troughs ( during first phase of HALE cycle) and length is 9.7 yr
-Jupiter Saturn beat trough 1994 occurs 2 yrs before the end of schwabe 22 and 14 yrs before the end of schwabe triplet
-schwabe 23 = 3 peaks and 3 troughs ( during 2nd phase of the bi polar HALE cycle) cycle length was 11.7 yr
-The end of the schwabe triplet terminates at the trough of a ~3 yr max to max cycle
– THe shorter schwabe: no 22 , produced a higher frequency temp’ oscillation?
-The longer schwabe: no 23, in the 2nd half of the cycle produced longer frequency temp oscillations ?
Noting however that the 3 max peaks were preserved in the long and short cycle!! …..interesting
Does solar cycle length determine the frequency of global temperature oscillation ( ENSO?)?
and
if there is a ~3 yr global temp cycle embedded in a ~ 62.4 temp cycle( AMO)
62.4 / 3 = 20.8
20.8 ..global temp’ oscillations in one AMO/ ~62 yr global cycle
Scafetta has a power peak at 20.8
Hale’s observations revealed that the solar cycle is a magnetic cycle with an average duration of 22 years
——————————————————————————————————-
caveat
( this data shows global peaks and troughs that are different from what l have used in nthe past. Maybe differnt technique?)
THe max peak on my previous global temp graphs have been max at 2005 and min in 1975
so ..caution..
published this inquiry at my place
https://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/schwabbe-triplets-and-earths-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2069
cheers
@ WC ‘ Does solar cycle length determine the frequency of global temperature oscillation ( ENSO?)?’
It’s tricky due to time lags – may be down to interpretation aka opinion.