Paul Vaughan has suggested we hold a discussion on bi-decadal climatic variation, which exhibits quasi-cyclic patterns in various datasets. To get the ball rolling, Paul has kindly given some time to producing some very interesting plots which he has introduced across a few recent threads. This posts puts these in one place and acts as an invitation to those interested in a focussed discussion on the topic.
The Bidecadal Oscillation
Is it caused by the solar Hale Cycle as suggested by Tim Channon or is it caused by the velocity of the sun with respect to the solar system barycenter as suggested by Nicola Scafetta?
http://s18.postimg.org/74uty1eix/Bidecadal_SST_Sun_Velocity_Hale_Cycle.png
…Or is it caused by something closer to home?
New:
http://s9.postimg.org/3ufpdksrj/Bidecadal_ERSSTv3b2_Osculating_EMn_SSB.png
• Bidecadal ERSSTv3b2 (°C)
• Absolute Deviation of Osculating Length of Earth-Moon Year with respect to Solar System Barycenter (days)
(There’s a connection with Earth’s Chandler wobble — details forthcoming.)
_________________________________
I’m also going to include a plot Paul posted in the co2 thread, as I think there is something in it which may help us decide the answer to the question posed above. I’ll elucidate my thoughts on this in comments.
Finally, a more detailed look at the Sunspot Integral Paul and I have independently worked on. Here, Paul has extended it back to pre Dalton Minimum and compared the result to Mann’s 09 temperature proxy reconstruction results.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
So far everything I’ve seen indicates SSTs follow solar activity, solar flux, very closely. This makes sense when considering the UV portion of the solar spectrum, which varies with solar flux activity, is the most energetic portion of sunlight entering the ocean surface to the greatest depth. While to some it may not seem like much overall energy, all one needs to do to verify this for themselves is to closely compare the coincidence of higher evaporation and subsequent atmospheric water vapor, humidity, heat index over land, and storm activity – every day for a lengthy period, with daily solar activity.
Pressed for time now but there is data available to back this up. Great plots Paul!
Dr. Roy Spencer had a pertinent thought yesterday: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/09/are-record-ocean-surface-temperatures-due-to-record-low-wind-speeds/
My thought is overall wind speeds are also an effect of solar output, well illustrated by Paul.
Supplementary — for those reviewing the cases previously made:
• Figure 8 p.468 [pdf p.16] (8a=bidecadal; 8b=decadal):
Scafetta, Nicola (2013). Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hindcast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs. Energy & Environment 24(3&4), 455-496.
Click to access Scafetta_EE_2013.pdf
• Figure 8 ( https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/image-130.png )
Channon, Tim (2013). Met Office Hadcrut 4: solar linkage.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/met-office-hadcrut-4-solar-linkage/
—
Graph typo alerts:
• “Celsius” (not “Celcius”)
• “-Global Mean Sea Level Pressure” (not “Global Mean Sea Level Pressure” — note the negative sign in the typo correction)
Mann+ (2009) context:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/met-office-hadsst3-crutem3-hadcrut3-questions-over-gridded-coverage/comment-page-1/#comment-88554
—
Note: The beat of the high frequency component (on the osculating year length graph) with the terrestrial year matches the Chandler wobble. Is everyone ready to discuss this? I’m only going to bother sharing some notes and calculations if there’s sufficient interest.
Paul, Stuart and I are definitely interested in the Chandler wobble connection, as it’s been showing up in our calcs on Earth-Moon and JVE too. More on this soon. We think it’s related to QBO too.
One more graph typo alert:
• “Principal” (not “Principle”)
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/paul-vaughan-wind-and-sun-correlation-since-1880/
(Notes in that thread on D-O, de Vries, & SAM tie in here.)
TB: Everything’s coupled and the puzzle pieces are now falling into place fast, so let’s multitask. Here’s a question for RJ Salvador:
J-S:
(29.447498)*(11.862615) / (29.447498 – 11.862615)
= 19.86503587 years
V-E:
(1)*(0.61519726) / (1 – 0.61519726)
= 1.598734094 years
V-E subharmonic nearest J-S:
12*(1.598734094)
= 19.18480913 years
harmonic mean:
(19.86503587)*(19.18480913) / ( (19.86503587 + 19.18480913) / 2 )
= 19.51899791 years
RJ: Will it work in your sunspot model?
Clarification for other readers:
I’m not suggesting this is the terrestrial bidecadal (~20 year) climate oscillation period. Rather, I’m laying some groundwork here to help focus careful attention on inner solar system motion relative to outer solar system motion.
Certainly to within +/- ENSO, Sun_SSB-speed phase-coherence with ~20 year SST can safely be considered tight — and this statement extends to the new metric I’ve introduced, which is controlled by the same celestial factors.
LNC = 18.612948 years
LAC = 8.847358 years
harmonic mean of LAC & nearest LNC harmonic:
(9.306474)*(8.847358) / ( (9.306474 + 8.847358) / 2 )
= 9.071110408 years
harmonic mean of LNC & nearest LAC subharmonic:
(18.612948)*(17.694716) / ( (18.612948 + 17.694716) / 2 )
= 18.14222082 years
beat with J-S:
(19.86503587)*(18.14222082) / (19.86503587 – 18.14222082)
= 209.1901084 years
harmonic mean with J-S:
(19.86503587)*(18.14222082) / ( (19.86503587 + 18.14222082) / 2 )
= 18.96458196 years
~=19 years
The harmonics are tightly coherent with QBO & Chandler:
18.96458196 years
9.482290979 years
4.74114549 years
2.370572745 years = 28.44687294 months
1.185286372 years = 432.9165904 days
(Reminder: Ian Wilson has pointed to 9.5 years in the past.)
QBO aligns with the terrestrial year at 19 years and with the terrestrial half-year (solstices/equinoxes) at 9.5 years.
Jupiter Saturn conjunctions:
(19.86503587) / 2
= 9.932517933 years
beat with nearest subharmonic of terrestrial year:
(10)*(9.932517933) / (10 – 9.932517933)
= 1471.875173 years
(9.932517933)*(9.482290979) / (9.932517933 – 9.482290979)
= 209.1901084
D-O subharmonic nearest de Vries:
(1471.875173) / 7
= 210.2678818 years
(210.2678818)*(209.1901084) / (210.2678818 – 209.1901084)
= 40811.88064 years
~=41 ka (kiloyears)
Attention climate “scientists”: If you carefully check how 9.071110408 years & 9.482290979 years beat with JEV (11.06964992 years), you’re going to get some stunning insight into the temporal pattern of (volcanic) stratospheric aerosol optical depth. Nicola Scafetta’s decadal graph (mentioned above) gives a very strong hint. Alert, capable parties will quickly achieve (a) a more precise figure than Nicola’s 10.2 years and (b) higher r^2. I may or may not comment further on this. It depends on the level of discussion that does or does not arise.
Regards
Addendum:
The high frequency component (with J-S envelope) on the osculating year length graph is 0.54243476 years.
Note the beat with the terrestrial year:
(1)*(0.54243476) / (1 – 0.54243476)
= 1.1854807 years = 432.9875671 days
If climate “scientists” can’t explain the celestial origins of the QBO, maybe we shouldn’t be listening to them about anything.
Paul, this is great stuff, which is confirming figures Stuart and I have arrived at from a different direction. The jigsaw is a multi-dimensioned lattice of interlocking timings. I’ll need to spend time on putting together a post to show how our stuff interlocks with yours. I won’t clog this thread with bits and pieces for now.
I will make an observation regarding your SCD vs SLP plot though. There is an apparent ~30yr oscillation in SLP, and I think this relates to the ~60yr oscillation in LOD observed in the longer term reconstructions. This may conceivably be due to the period covering the transition between sign reversal and the transition between accelerating and decelerating rate of change being 15 years. I would expect effective changes in ocean currents to occur at both these junctures.
Guys,
I’ve come up with a new psychological term that is appropriate here: the Discombobulation Factor.
The DF is the basis of my previous Trenberth Events: when news significantly conflicts with one’s important understandings, a person is “discombobulated”, a term of the vernacular. Cognitve distress ensues. The reaction – not in those of a truly skeptical philosophy that says that truth is an oiled pig always about to get away – is to dismiss the preferred evidence in any way possible, AND THEN to forget the whole episode.
Climate changes because orbital periods of Jupiter are this-and-that? Stupid! But then again, I don’t really remember you saying anything about “orbits” …
I live professionally with this every day. We hsng on to this civilization by our fingernails.
Hale? Look how far out of phase it is. Any explanations anyone?
Ian Wilson on bidecadal NPI (points to J-S — Remember?):
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.ca/2013/07/is-this-planetary-signature-in-our.html
(22.13929985)*(19.51899791) / (22.13929985 – 19.51899791)
= 164.9187606 years
Make sense Ian? (See my question for RJ.)
(9.932517933)*(9.071110408) / ( (9.932517933 + 9.071110408) / 2 )
= 9.482290979 years
(9.932517933)*(9.071110408) / (9.932517933 – 9.071110408)
= 104.5950542 years
52.2975271
26.14876355
13.07438177
(11.06964992)*(9.482290979) / (11.06964992 – 9.482290979)
= 66.12596479 years
(22.13929985)*(18.96458196) / (22.13929985 – 18.96458196)
= 132.2519296
(22.13929985)*(18.96458196) / (22.13929985 + 18.96458196)
= 10.21466947 years
(11.06964992)*(9.482290979) / ( (11.06964992 + 9.482290979) / 2 )
= 10.21466947 years
(10.21466947)*(9.071110408) / (10.21466947 – 9.071110408)
= 81.0263307 years
Make sense Nicola? (TIP: Compare very carefully with stratospheric volcanoes….)
There’s doesn’t look to be serious interest &/or availability, so I’m leaning towards delaying the volcano illustrations until timing’s more ripe….
TB: Give HadSLP2r an EOF spin at KNMI Climate Explorer. You’ll hit NAM first try. There’s coherence among all the fields. Everything’s coupled. The tach informs about how hard the coupled system is driving for equilibrium.
Another possibility is given by this post:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/the-astro-climate-model.html
Paul, thanks, I’ll head in that direction and grab some data for a closer look.
Ian, I tend to agree, with the caveat that Stuart and I have evidence of synch between all gas giants conjunction patterns, the varying solar windspeed and changes in the LOD’s of the inner planets. That’s a nice post, very clear and concise. Maybe too concise for some, so I think it’s worth linking the post we did here where I showed that your Lunar-Enso link is reinforced by my Solar ENSO link: El Nino tends to be initiated as the solar cycle starts to decline steeply and initiated again at solar minimum as it ‘bottom’s out, as illustrated in red below Ian’s Blue Nino 3.4 curve with Lunar apse/node alignments marked above.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/are-the-sun-and-moon-both-acting-on-el-nino-events/
There’s a strong volcanic link in there that might tempt Paul to tell us more about his findings too. 🙂
Sorry there was a flaw in the last post.
I think that what you and Stuart are saying is not that far removed from what I am saying. If there is a (as yet to be clearly defined) synchronization between the level of solar activity and Peak lunar tides caused by:
Jovian Planetary Orbital Periods ————–> Solar Activity
Jovian Planetary Orbital periods —————> Lunar Tides
What you are showing in the above graph would be a direct consequence.
Paul,
You are going to have to define some of the terms that you have used before people will be able to follow and fully understand the important message that you are trying to get across.
For example here are two meanings for osculating:
osculate – verb
1. MATHEMATICS
(of a curve or surface) touch (another curve or surface) so as to have a common tangent at the point of contact. “the plots have been drawn using osculating orbital elements”
2.HUMOROUS
kiss.
The article is interesting. However, there is no reason to believe that only one cycle characterizes the 20-year time scale.
In my papers I have often stressed that the 18.6 lunar cycle, the ~20-year solar wobbling cycle and the ~22-year Hale cycle are likely simultaneously present.
A future paper will figure it out.
Hi Ian. Absolutely. What Stuart and I discovered is that not only is there are relationship between orbital rates, but also between spin rates in the major solar system bodies (most clearly seen in the Jovians), and also between those spin rate ratios and diameter ratios (of jovian pairs). We haven’t yet made the breakthrough, but I have a hunch we’ll be able to reduce our obs to a formula in due course.
The implication is that the interplanetary magnetic field interacts with magnetic planetary cores/magnetospheres and the solar wind to drive the planets as homopolar motors. The mass and density, and hence diameter that the planets present to the solar wind are all therefore related to spin and orbital rates.
These relationships are not so clear in the inner solar system where the smaller planets are affected more strongly by their neighbours, principally the Sun and Jupiter. The differential rotation of the various latitudinal bands on the solar surface are also involved in this set of interactions, and that’s where your tidal/torquing theory comes in too.
Nicola: thanks for dropping by, even if you’re going to keep your cards close to your chest. 😉
I for one, agree with your ‘all of the above’ take on this. Evidently Ian does too.
“The implication is that the interplanetary magnetic field interacts with magnetic planetary cores/magnetospheres and the solar wind to drive the planets as homopolar motors. ”
…is part of the EU paradigm as well. As I described it to LS during the past winter, which IIRC earned me a “nonsense” response:
The solar wind acts as the wires, and the Earth the magnet.
I have confidence you guys are going to completely nail this in due time.
The ~20 year solar wobbling cycle: first time hearing of this.
Bob W: The ~20 yr ‘solar wobble’ refers to the motion of the Sun WRT the barycentre of the solar system, which is caused by the successive conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn. This cycle is subject to a longer period ‘wobble’ (Jose cyce) induced by the outer Jovian pair, Uranus and Neptune, which averages around 179 years over the longer term.
The EU paradigm is of interest, but we took a conscious decision here to proceed from ‘known and accepted’, see where it failed to explain observed patterns, and only then tentatively propose electro-dynamic hypotheses. If there is a convergence, I’m happy with that, because it arises out of a natural confluence rather than a ‘forced fit’.
At a quick glance the low points in the last graph of temperature with CO2 removed appear to co-incide with droughts in Australia. The official federation drought covered the period 1895 to 1903 and was followed by droughts in 1911 to 1916.&1918 to 1920. In many parts the drought was most severe in 1902 but in my part of south east Queensland the lowest rainfall on record occurred in 1905. There were also severe droughts around 1815 and mid 1860’s. More recently there were droughts 1958 to 1968 , 1972-1981, 1991-1995 and 2002 to 2007 (in our area ended in 2008). I recall a paper ( Dr Stewart Franks Muli-decadel Climate Variabilty) that indicated that floods occur with a combination of SOI (positive) and IPO (negative) and droughts the opposite ie SOI neg and IPO pos.
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.
CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.
I maintain these 4 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains very meridional giving rise to more persistence in weather patterns and perhaps more extremes .
Where I part with the parties on this web-site is the many cycles you all come up with do not hold up that well over long periods of time. I think my last two paragraphs in the above address why this is so which is not being appreciated or taken into account. This is why all the climate forecast put forth are at best an estimate. In addition the earth’s magnetic field is a big player in this much more so then lunar which is completely over looked.
Other then that I have some common ground with what is trying to be conveyed by everyone for what it is worth.
To clarify the climate is non linear and has thresholds which will obscure all cycles and has done so many times.
Also the beginning state of the climate is not being addressed nor the ocean/land arrangements in my opinion which will cause completely different climatic outcomes from given cycles or any item that may or may not effect the climate.
My position is in the general picture in the scheme of things for the climate I am with many of the postings but not when it comes to the details. I don’t know if that comes through or not. Why would anyone care but I just thought I would express that.
Nevertheless I want to try to convey where I stand on this subject as much as possible.
Salvatore: I agree with much of what you say. We can only do our best with our hypotheses to make predictions and see how well they turn out. Our successful prediction made in 2008 of the low solar cycle 24 and the future prediction of a deep solar grand minimum is looking likely to be vindicated. How much difference it will make to surface temperature remains to be seen.
TB: known and accepted – understood. In a sense that is the position I’ve been in this year in working out the details of my ideas. So I am working as you are on knowns and accepted ideas.
Of course if we exclusively deal with “accepted” science, science doesn’t progress, it stagnates. So that makes trying to establish new ideas and paradigms more of a challenge. Your PRP series was more than what some “establishment” types could “accept” even though the evidence is in your favor, IMO. All anyone can do is try harder.
As someone who never submitted a science paper anywhere for peer review, I find it amazing how difficult it is for those who do to get past that “acceptance” hurdle, even after the paper is published (warmist climate “science” papers seem to get by too easily IMO).
EU proponents are well aware of all these issues, and they are being as responsible as you are in establishing lines of evidence for all claims. I can attest to that after attending and speaking at the EU2014 conference, where the theme was “All About Evidence”.
That said, best of luck with what you guys are doing.
Salvatore, we are pretty much on the same wavelength, in phase too. Those here and elsewhere working on the cycles approach I think will eventually converge on the best answer possible given what is “known”, but even then the answer may still involve some error. I don’t expect perfection.
“Accepted” science today is that the Sun’s irradiance doesn’t change enough to affect surface and ocean temperatures, and that some natural Earthly variations and/or Mann-made are solely responsible for the observed weather/climate changes. Overcoming that hurdle is pretty much what I’m working on, as you know, in conjunction with the Sun’s particle effects on our weather and climate, including lunar effects.
I am grateful there are at least a handful of open-minded inquisitive people out there like you and the Talkshoppers who aren’t ready to accept accepted science on face value, given the evidence.
I’m planning application of spatiotemporal wavelets to explore the spatial evolution of decadal & bidecadal climate oscillations in time. In concept this is simple, but tedious algorithm development will be harshly obstructed by inadequate free time.
Ian & Others,
There’s a limit to the synchronization. It can be used for classification diagnostics. It’s precisely defined by SCD. SCD measures the aberrations from perfect synchronization. (The other cycles are straight lines in phase space.) ALL beats move with SCD. Do you understand?
The size of the warm pool is a function of the sunspot integral. I strongly recommend adding SAM to your diagram. It’s the biggest thing happening. AMO & ENSO are just oscillations about a central limit. SAM is the central limit.
Insolation gradients drive the kinetic energy monster in the sky that mixes the ocean water vertically. The surface is a thin interface between higher heat capacity below and higher kinetic energy above.
Ignorance of external bounds on latitudinal-gradient-(i.e. wind)-driven vertical mixing (includes welling, evaporation/precipitation, ice transport, etc.) is a serious obstacle to more sensible conceptualization.
Recommended Reading:
Davis, B.A.S.; & Brewer, S. (2011). A unified approach to Orbital, Solar and Lunar forcing based on Earth’s Latitudinal Insolation/Temperature Gradient. Quaternary Science Reviews 30(15-16), 1861-1874.
Davis, B.A.S.; & Brewer, S. (2009). Orbital forcing and role of the Latitudinal Insolation/Temperature Gradient. Climate Dynamics 32, 143-165.
Click to access 72e7e51a6448a2e1d7.pdf
(Access Tip: Try copying/pasting that into a new browser tab if simple clicking leads to a redirect (to something other than the pdf) — I’ve tried this work-around successfully.)
Davis, B.; Mauri, A; Kaplan, J.; & Brewer, S. (2009). [Poster] Which orbital forcing caused the mid-Holocene thermal optimum?
Click to access pub_2009_Thermal_optimum2poster.pdf
—
Best Regards
Salvatore: SCD is not a stationary cycle.
Nicola,
(10.21466947)*(9.071110408) / (10.21466947 – 9.071110408)
= 81.0263307 years
That’s my answer to the decadal challenge you put forward.
(See calculations above — inquire if unclear.)
It improves the fit.
Ian & Nicola: Be aware that you can also get 9.07 via VE …so there’s the lunar synchronization with the solar system. Could it be that LNC & LAC have some degree of freedom to drift (diverge in period) so long as their harmonic mean remains roughly phase-locked to VE 9.07?
TB:
Other framework features worth noting:
beat with nearest subharmonic of terrestrial year:
(18.14222082)*(18) / (18.14222082 – 18)
= 2296.147541 years
(2296.147541)*(1471.875173) / ( (2296.147541 + 1471.875173) / 2 )
= 1793.854664 years
Maybe I should point this out explicitly.
(Often I find these things aren’t as obvious to people as I expect they should be.)
(1.185)*(1) / (1.185 – 1) = 6.4
doubling:
1.185
2.37
4.74
9.48
18.96
9.07
18.14
(9.932517933)*(4.74) / (9.932517933 – 4.74)
= 9.066918133 ~= 9.07 (beat)
(9.932517933)*(4.74) / ( (9.932517933 + 4.74) / 2 )
~= 6.4 (harmonic mean)
(19.86503587)*(18.13383627) / (19.86503587 – 18.13383627)
~= 208
Ian asked for specifics.
Set NASA Horizons ( http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi ) as follows:
=
Ephemeris Type : ELEMENTS
Target Body : Earth-Moon Barycenter [EMB] [3]
Center : Solar System Barycenter (SSB) [500@0]
Time Span : Start=1580-01-01, Stop=2120-01-01, Step=1 MO
Table Settings : CSV format=YES
Display/Output : plain text
=
Sample of resulting output:
=
*******************************************************************************
Revised: Jul 31, 2013 Earth Barycenter 3
Dynamical point:
—————
The common point about which the Earth and Moon revolve (center of mass). This
is approximately 4671 km from the center of the Earth, or about 3/4 of the way
to the surface. See 399 for Earth center, or 301 for Moon center ephemeris.
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
Ephemeris / WWW_USER Sat Aug 16 22:41:15 2014 Pasadena, USA / Horizons
*******************************************************************************
Target body name: Earth-Moon Barycenter (3) {source: DE-0431LE-0431}
Center body name: Solar System Barycenter (0) {source: DE-0431LE-0431}
Center-site name: BODY CENTER
*******************************************************************************
Start time : A.D. 1580-Jan-01 00:00:00.0000 CT
Stop time : A.D. 2120-Jan-01 00:00:00.0000 CT
Step-size : 1 calendar months
*******************************************************************************
Center geodetic : 0.00000000,0.00000000,0.0000000 {E-lon(deg),Lat(deg),Alt(km)}
Center cylindric: 0.00000000,0.00000000,0.0000000 {E-lon(deg),Dxy(km),Dz(km)}
Center radii : (undefined)
System GM : 2.9630657582893773E-04 au^3/d^2
Output units : AU-D, deg, Julian day number (Tp)
Output format : 10
Reference frame : ICRF/J2000.0
Output type : GEOMETRIC osculating elements
Coordinate systm: Ecliptic and Mean Equinox of Reference Epoch
*******************************************************************************
JDCT , , EC, QR, IN, OM, W, Tp, N, MA, TA, A, AD, PR
*******************************************************************************
$$SOE
$$EOE
*******************************************************************************
Coordinate system description:
Ecliptic and Mean Equinox of Reference Epoch
Reference epoch: J2000.0
xy-plane: plane of the Earth’s orbit at the reference epoch
x-axis : out along ascending node of instantaneous plane of the Earth’s
orbit and the Earth’s mean equator at the reference epoch
z-axis : perpendicular to the xy-plane in the directional (+ or -) sense
of Earth’s north pole at the reference epoch.
Symbol meaning [1 au=149597870.700 km, 1 day=86400.0 s]:
JDCT Epoch Julian Date, Coordinate Time
EC Eccentricity, e
QR Periapsis distance, q (AU)
IN Inclination w.r.t xy-plane, i (degrees)
OM Longitude of Ascending Node, OMEGA, (degrees)
W Argument of Perifocus, w (degrees)
Tp Time of periapsis (Julian day number)
N Mean motion, n (degrees/day)
MA Mean anomaly, M (degrees)
TA True anomaly, nu (degrees)
A Semi-major axis, a (AU)
AD Apoapsis distance (AU)
PR Sidereal orbit period (day)
Geometric states/elements have no aberration corrections applied.
Computations by …
Solar System Dynamics Group, Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Information: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/
Connect : telnet://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov:6775 (via browser)
telnet ssd.jpl.nasa.gov 6775 (via command-line)
Author : Jon.Giorgini@jpl.nasa.gov
*******************************************************************************
=
Subtract 1 year from the PR column (the last column) and take the absolute value.
Yes this site more then any other is on the correct path. Thanks for the feedback and understanding what I was trying to convey.
Paul one of the areas I have yet to see you mention is the role of the earths magnetic field strength on the climate.
Do you think it plays a role?
Salvatore, if time permits I’ll dig out some strategic Linda Hinnov quotes. You may recall that Ian Wilson chose not to (immediately at least) address the related, serious questions I raised on the sun-wind thread. I hope Ian will eventually address those questions. They are difficult questions and I suspect it could take months to prepare to answer competently & confidently. If this response seems unrelated to your question, we may have (amicably) arrived at a serious misunderstanding, in which case I can suggest carefully reviewing the very specific sections of Linda Hinnov’s papers to which I pointed.
Salvatore, to save you in-page search effort, here’s a direct link to where I introduced the question: “Ian, I would appreciate strategic commentary from you about something I read in Linda Hinnov’s article […]” I later corrected a link:
“Ian, I accidentally linked to the references section of Laskar+(2004) above. Try this hub to choose between full article html & pdf: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2004/46/aa1335/aa1335.html . Strategic commentary from an astrophysicist (such as Ian Wilson) on figures 13b & 14 — & the related issues outlined by Hinnov — might be helpful.” Regards.
I sincerely hope everyone is carefully considering the important issues raised by Linda Hinnov. There’s something about insolation gradients, surface water distribution (including ice), & core-mantle dynamics that’s being modeled fundamentally wrong.
We’ve looked at Earth-Moon relative to SSB.
Now: Earth-Moon relative to Sun:
All aberrations on that frame are defined by SCD. In my comments to RJ & Ian above I defined the frame. (Alert: We discussed this frame in the past, but at that time we got the beat calculations slightly wrong.)
To be carefully considered in conjunction with the issue raised by Linda Hinnov:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osculating_orbit#Perturbations
Click to access 19930009773.pdf
TB says: ‘I have a hunch we’ll be able to reduce our obs to a formula in due course’
Using a home-made formula of density x spin rate the following ratios emerged for the main planetary pairs (ratio with % accuracy in brackets):
Mercury:Venus 4:1 (99.92%)
Earth:Mars 11:15 (99.93%)
Jupiter:Saturn 5:9 (99.87%)
Uranus:Neptune 5:6 (99.64%)
Also:
Saturn-Uranus 3:1 (99.77%)
Jupiter-Uranus 5:3 (99.9%)
Whether that leads anywhere is an open question.
As usual Mars is the odd one out 😉
————
This free paper might be relevant.
‘Influence of the Schwabe/Hale solar cycles
on climate change during the Maunder Minimum’
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7277700&fileId=S1743921309993048
‘The mean length of Schwabe cycle had been ~14 years during the Maunder Minimum, while it was ~9 years during the early Medieval Maximum Period. We have also found that climate proxy record shows cyclic variations similar to stretching/shortening Schwabe/Hale solar cycles in time, suggesting that both Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are playing important role in climate change.’
OB: Promisingly small numbers in those near accurate ratios. 🙂
Thanks for the paper, would you like to post that?
[…] tallbloke on The principal cause of bi-deca… […]
Here it is:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/influence-of-the-schwabehale-solar-cycles-on-climate-change-during-the-maunder-minimum/
“beat with nearest subharmonic of terrestrial year:
(10)*(9.932517933) / (10 – 9.932517933)
= 1471.875173 years”
Just to note that as any year will do, there will actually be 10 beats with the year in 1471.9 years so period is really 147.19 years.
Ray, bidecadal rhythm hinges on decadal aggregation and on the 1470 year NSJ framework J-S is tightest to the decade so it sets the lowest common alignment (from among J-N, S-N, & J-S) with the terrestrial year. I may be falsely assuming that a lot of things are obvious to readers when they are not. I suppose that viewed from a naive perspective, the nuanced properties of 1470 might look quite profound when illuminated. Your comment has caused me to stop to realize that people may need the 1470 message spelled out in even more tedious detail before it will sink in, but my natural inclination when confronted with a choice between spending time on communication or further exploration (given a harshly limited supply of free time) is toward the latter. Usually the constraints on my time force me to be content with just letting whoever’s able follow, but I’ll give this some careful thought and maybe add some minimal notes &/or illustrations over the coming days. I have new bidecadal results too, so maybe I’ll roll them into the package. I thought this thread was dead since participation had dropped off, but maybe not….
50 Saturn orbits = 1473y
41 Saturn-Neptune = 1470.63y
lot more going on than just that OB — may have time to add notes/illustrations in a few days.
good thing Ray spoke up — made me realize how badly the calculation could be misunderstood.
Paul,
I take it that the osculating orbit of the Earth-Moon system about the Barycentre is really just a fancy way of referring to the motion of the Earth-Moon centre-of-mass about the Solar system’s Barycentre?
Thank you for a very fascinating post Paul. I have copied the references to Lasker and Hinnov, as well as those in your earlier Wind post. The Hinnov paper is enough to keep me off the streets for at least a year on its own, so it may take a little while for me to assimilate the full gist of your arguments.
By the way, there is no figure 14 in Hinnov or have I just misinterpreted your comment.
“[…] a bidecadal rhythm in drought is a persistent feature of the past millennium.”
• from section “4.4. Periodicity in the reconstruction” :
Drought duration and frequency in the U.S. Corn Belt during the last millennium (AD 992–2004)
Click to access 2011_Stambaugh_drought.pdf
Pacific bidecadal rhythm previously highlighted by Ian Wilson:
—
Ian:
Figure 14 of Laskar+ (2004):
“Figure 14: Evolution of the obliquity of the Earth in degrees, from -250 to +250 Myr. The grey zone is the actual obliquity, while the black curve is the averaged value of the obliquity over 0.5 Myr time intervals. The dotted line is a straight line fitted to the average obliquity in the past.”
Figure 13 of Laskar+ (2004):
” Figure 13: a) Evolution of length of the day for the Earth, in hours, from -250 to +250 Myr. b) Residuals with the fit of the averaged solution with the polynomial expression (41).”
Laskar+ (2004). A long-term numerical solution for the insolation quantities of the Earth. A&A 428, 261-285.
HTML: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2004/46/aa1335/aa1335.html
PDF: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2004/46/aa1335.pdf
—
Ian: It’s not enough to just look at Sun & SSB.
Alignments with the terrestrial year are key.
further notes/illustrations on decadal fluid aggregation, bidecadal rhythm, & 1470 year Neptune-Saturn-Jupiter-Earth timing framework (including alignments with spatially asymmetric terrestrial year) forthcoming
also: I have new results on multidecadal JEV osculating elements
Conventional modelers make fundamentally flawed assumptions about crust flex/flow spatiotemporal pattern, corrupting modeled obliquity/oblateness coupling. Recognize that we’re not just shining a light on climate evolution. We’re cracking the code of plate tectonics. More generally this is about Earth as a whole. That includes the boundary conditions that constrain terrestrial spatiotemporal pattern evolution.
Paul I agree with your approach for the big general picture trend for the climate but not in the details and the small but significant climate fluctuations of the climate within the big general trend for the climate.
Salvatore, I realize it’s politically inconvenient that we don’t start at the end. The patient journey of exploration & discovery takes rare free time. Some of the things shown can be taken to the bank (e.g. SCD, sunspot integral, & solar-terrestrial weave). Others are steps — some of them solid (some of them risky) — on an exploratory path. According to the solar-climate thought police, the exploratory path is strictly forbidden and you must not travel it. Can you agree with that?
Nice graphic PV. This type of connection looks like a useful way forward.
There are other close J-S / S-N / J-N alignments with Earth year at 2224y, 2403y and their sum i.e. 4627y.
(At these points Uranus also comes into play)
Other things that fit on the 1470 year frame:
• U
• QBO
• Chandler
• high frequency component of osculating terrestrial year-length with respect to SSB
• low frequency envelope of osculating terrestrial year-length with respect to SSB
• U, J-N, J-S, & S-N beats with terrestrial year subharmonics (this might look stunningly profound to those who don’t understand intuitively firsthand why it is so)
—
There’s a tie-in with JEV — details later maybe (possibly contingent on the level of interest in the very specific Linda Hinnov article sections to which I’ve directed Ian Wilson’s attention).
Regards
OB (September 26, 2014 at 7:55 pm) wrote:
“There are other close J-S / S-N / J-N alignments with Earth year at 2224y, 2403y and their sum i.e. 4627y.
(At these points Uranus also comes into play)”
Let’s be very careful here.
There are no alignments with the terrestrial year at these times.
Ray & I had a similar misunderstanding above. Ray’s calculation does not require the same time of the terrestrial year. It only requires the same phase-difference, which is allowed to occur at any time of year.
Apples & oranges each have their own merit, but they’re not the same thing.
By introducing a more stringent requirement — acknowledging north-south terrestrial asymmetry — the 1470 year framework appears (with a vengeance).
Best Regards
OK, by ‘close’ I meant within about 0.1y of an exact number of years.
Btw if Chandler fits then Venus-Mercury should too, and it does:
3714 x 0.3958y = 1470.0012y
OB, can you clarify your source of orbital elements?
Seidelmann (1992): http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par
OB: The intervals you listed are nowhere near aligned with the terrestrial year according to Seidelmann (1992). The root of our misunderstanding is almost certainly definitions. If you clarify the source of your orbital elements, I can immediately (and effortlessly) resolve our apparent differences.
Best Regards
Sorry PV, I was commenting on another site.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html
OB: More than one period is listed for some bodies at the pages to which you linked. Can you make a list of the periods you use? I can then run my calculations (which are automated) and see how your perspective is differing from that prescribed by Seidelmann (1992).
Look familiar?
PV: I use the ‘Sidereal orbit period (days)’ figure and calculate the synodic period from that:
(Planet A * Planet B) / (Planet A – Planet B) where Planet A has the longer orbit period.
E.g. Jupiter = 4332.589 days, Saturn = 10759.22 days
I looked at one of Ian Wilson’s Talkshop posts:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/ian-wilson-do-periodic-peaks-in-the-planetary-tidal-forces-acting-upon-the-sun-influence-the-sunspot-cycle/
Quote: ‘JS = Synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn = 19.859 yrs’
That’s what I get to 3 d.p. but the Seidelmann figure is 19.865y
(NB there is an earlier typo in that post under ‘DATA VALUES USED’ where he says 19.959 but ignore that. In the calculations he always uses 19.859)
At 3 d.p. my results are the same as his J and S figures:
‘J = 11.862 years S = 29.457 years’ (from the same IW link)
http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/press/news/news05/2511ice.html
The 1470 year climate cycle is by no means a given.
Over the last 10,000 years, a pronounced cycle of 1470 years consequently does not appear in climate data any more.
Last sentence from above article which for me creates doubt.
My point is rather then there being 1470 year climate cycle the opportunity for a 1470 year cycle may be present if given other x factors are the same. However other x factors can cancel out this potential cycle as has been the case over the past 10000 years.
SDP: ‘Over the last 10,000 years, a pronounced cycle of 1470 years consequently does not appear in climate data any more.’
Yes, but another Rahmstorf paper says:
‘The so-called ‘‘little ice age’’ of the 16th –18th century may be the most recent cold phase of this cycle. The origin of the ‘‘mystery 1,500 year cycle’’ is thus one of the key issues in climatology that needs to be explained.’
Click to access rahmstorf_grl_2003.pdf
The intro to the paper says:
‘An analysis of the GISP2 ice core
record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events
appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that
is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95%
confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over
at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an
origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within
the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in
period’ [bold added]
Even if the Little Ice Age was remnant of the 1470 year cycle where was it the other some 9500 years? And that temp sequence is weak 1600-1900) compared to times prior to 10000 years ago. This gives much credence to the idea that the ice dynamic/initial state of the climate was a big factor in the Pleistocene dramatic climate changes and probably is responsible for the 1470 year climate cycle being able to more or less take place during that particular period of time, but only that particular period of time.
Despite this we know cooling can take place at any time if not none of the inter- glacial periods would have ever ended which gives more credence to the x factors I have listed below, and less credence to some 1470 year climate cycle which did not end glacial or inter glacial episodes both which last much longer then 1470 years..
In any event the factors I point out below are the x factors I was alluding to in the above.
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.
CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains very meridional giving rise to more persistence in weather patterns and perhaps more extremes .
That is the problem (below ) it has to be manipulated to get it to work. I say the 1470 year climate cycle only provided an opportunity for the climate to change and this was due to the ice dynamic/oceanic circulation at that time which made the climate vulnerable to climate forcing items such as variable solar activity for an example.
1997]. Further statistical
analysis has shown that the ‘‘waiting times’’ between consecutive
DO events are most often close to 1,500 years, with
further preferred intervals around 3,000 and 4,500 years
[Alley et al., 2001a, 2001b]. This suggests that the events
are triggered by an underlying cycle of 1,500 year period,
but that sometimes a beat or two is skipped
The Rahmstorf paper pretty much rules out ‘internal’ mechanisms because the 1470 year period never ‘slips’ i.e. a delay in one cycle doesn’t cause all later cycles to be delayed (that’s my understanding at least).
‘The five most recent events, arguably the best-dated ones, have a standard deviation of only 32 years (2%). While the earlier estimate of ±20% [Schulz, 2002] is consistent with a solar cycle (the 11-year sunspot cycle varies in period by ±14%), a much higher precision would point more to an orbital cycle.’ [bold added]
Salvatore, we’re not going to advance our understanding of spatial pattern evolution by copying and pasting the same single generalized climate narrative into every specific discussion. If thought-policing is your game, I suggest wuwt &/or ce (where it’s encouraged by the hosts).
Regards
OB: If you can round up and list (all in one post) the periods you use for J, S, U, N, & V, I’ll make time to look at what appears from the perspective you’ve chosen.
I have a list of further contributions to add to this discussion (including new illustrations, new animations, article links, clarifications for Ray, Hinnov quotes for Ian, etc.), but lack of free time is going to force this to take weeks, so I have a question: Will anyone still be here 2 weeks from now? 3 weeks from now? If not then we learn once again that trying to rush a discussion over a 2 or 3 day period maybe isn’t compatible with doing careful exploration. Thoughts? What do we do about this?
This area (the 1470 year cycle) needs more exploration on my part . I will be looking into this over the coming months. This kind of thing takes time as has been said.
Have a look it this by Dr Richard Muller re Milankovitch:
‘an alternative model that we have proposed, which attributes the 100-kyr cycle to orbital inclination, passes all the spectral tests that the Milankovitch model fails’
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8329.full
——
PV – the thread can be kept open as long as there are comments in the pipeline, no problem.
J 4332.589 d
S 10759.22 d
U 30685.4 d
N 60189.0 d
V 224.701 d
Copied from NASA Planetary fact sheets: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html
Salvatore, this isn’t about temporal cycles. It’s about spatiotemporal aggregation criteria (and spatiotemporally turbulent aliasing). Only with sufficient awareness of circulatory topology and its governance by evolving spatial insolation pattern can this problem even be approached.
I’m certain people don’t even realize why I’m looking at the bidecadal cycle.
It’s certainly not (!) because 0.05 degrees C is important!
I’m using the temporal rhythm as a spatial diagnostic.
Newsflash: The spatial pattern on the surface of Earth is not uniform & unchanging.
Please: Spend some time learning how to “Make EOFs” at KNMI Climate Explorer so we don’t waste years of our lives trying to discuss temporal cycles in completely-derailing-ignorance of evolving spatial organization.
Thank you!
I mean no disrespect. This comment is motivated by devotion to efficiency.
I’ll be back later with an important link….
Best Regards
OB: I’ll also need your definition of the year (in days) to proceed with comparatison of perspectives.
comparison (typo in last comment)
OB: on 100ka, regardless of disputes among physicists about how it works, we know it exists empirically. (Beyond that: We need an efficient division of labor.)
—
20th century NH BDO (bidecadal oscillation):
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015%3C1064%3AMWFAIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
TIP: Pay attention to the spatial evolution of the temporal pattern (especially around the time of the Chandler wobble phase reversal). I’ll have follow-up on this weeks from now, including a new type of map animation I’ve never seen employed by climate “science”.
I just use 365.25 for the year. That gives a J-S period of 19.858877y (19.859 to 3 d.p.) using the NASA numbers.
I looked at the KNMI website but the terminology is a bit over my head, not being a stats expert.
oldbrew says:September 27, 2014 at 10:25 pm
“I just use 365.25 for the year. That gives a J-S period of 19.858877y (19.859 to 3 d.p.) using the NASA numbers. I looked at the KNMI website but the terminology is a bit over my head, not being a stats expert.”
Oldbrew please stop with your myopic POV. Please consider the inverse! Both the Fibonacci series and the Golden section ratio express only the mathematical relationship between any interval, and the inverse of that interval. This must work independent of direction of said interval.!
Most common is time vs frequency In any sequence of intervals. The triplet anywhere in (n) must be F(n) = 1. F(n-1) = x. F(n +1) = 1/x always! This is independent of any interval. Mass + delta mass(interval) must equal the frequency of delta mass, for anything called mass,or anything else.
[reply] see our Why Phi posts
OB, here’s what I observe using the less precise values you’re using:
With those J-S values 1470 is among the worst alignments with the terrestrial year, being misaligned by nearly 5.5 months. S-N is misaligned by ~4.5 months (also very bad). J-N is the only one close at under 1 month.
More precise elements:
Seidelmann (1992): http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par
Global surface average time series alone tell almost nothing about what’s going on with climate. If you’re finding KNMI’s EOFs too much, I strongly recommend at least studying the patterns manually. KNMI is totally user-friendly for that. Just enter coordinates (for selected fields like HadSLP2r, ERSSTv3b2, etc.) in a form.
I’ve left acoustic theory loose ends with Ray and Hinnov “climate friction” loose ends with Ian. I’m not going to bother addressing those here & now unless they make another appearance.
It will be at least a few weeks before I get the bidecadal spatial pattern evolution animations to a presentable state. If this thread is dead at that time, I’ll probably post them elsewhere.
Best Regards
PV: the NASA fact sheets are from 2006 or later (‘based on ongoing research’) – Seidelmann is from 1992? (The last update shown is 2008)
What criteria determine which is more precise?
‘Most values listed in the factsheets are from the following sources:
IAU/IAG Working Group Report, 2006
Astronomical Almanac, 2000, 2001
Global Earth Physics, American Geophysical Union, 1995
Astrophysical Quantities, C.W. Allen, 1981, 2000
Recent journal articles and personal communications
Note that the values listed on the factsheets are not “official” values,
there is no single set of agreed upon values. They are based on ongoing
research and as such are under study and subject to change at any time.
Every effort has been made to present the most up-to-date information,
but care should be exercised when using these values.’ [bold added]
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/fact_notes.html
‘no single set of agreed upon values’ – looks like it’s a matter of opinion?
Both sets of figures are on NASA websites too.
OB: Osculating element summaries vary with aggregation criteria. I can suggest that you investigate this firsthand to enhance your perspective. It will be overkill to discuss this any further, so I’m dropping it here.
—
The authors never realized that trivial adjustment of a single wavelet parameter would overcome limitations they imagined (in reality no such limitations actually exist — it’s just a matter of awareness), but nonetheless they arrived at a laudable statement on which the whole climate discussion could hinge if stubborn distortion artists (e.g. thought police at wuwt & ce) would ever sober up and act with integrity (ain’t gonna happen obviously):
“However, the previous studies assumed a constant spatial structure of the BDO, and ignored the interesting spatial structure changes of the BDO […]”
PV: where if at all might elliptical orbits come into the equations i.e. variability in the planetary conjunction periods around a mean?
OB: See the osculating JEV graph I shared above as an example (mostly for fun, but suggestive of potentially more serious avenues, some of which are familiar to Nicola Scafetta). NASA Horizons outputs osculating elements if you’re inclined to explore further.
Prioritizing Focus:
The spatial pattern evolution message is much more important at this juncture.
Check this out:
‘According to the authors, conclusions about global temperature change cannot be reliably determined prior to the 1950’s due to the poor spatiotemporal coverage prior to the 1950’s and trends determined from the early HADCRU data are “meaningless” and “artificially flattened.” ‘
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/new-paper-finds-global-temperature-data.html
After describing certain problems they state:
‘Ji et al fail to address these spatial and temporal biases’
Solar Cycle: Magnetized March to Equator (NASA video: 13 seconds)
It’s certainly not (!) because 0.05 degrees C is important Paul says.
I can’t pigeon hole the climate to that degree if you can more power to you.
The difference between our approaches is you want everything to fit into a cycle and want to explain every single climate variation due to a cycle in contrast to myself. I think randomness plays a big role which can be moderated or enhanced by the cycles you suggest can account for ALL climate changes or variability.
I like what you are doing but I think randomness and thresholds of unknown quantities and origins have to be in the mix. Still I am reading the paper you sent on the Bidecadal Oscillation.
Also my approach is much more simple and straight forward for the average person to understand and it gives a definite climate forecast due to specific reasons in a clear straight forward manner.
I think the theme in any climate forecast is to make it as simple and clear cut as possible which I think I have accomplished right or wrong.
I am reading the paper on the BDO , I see nothing earth shattering or new when reading this. Interesting and learning some but nothing of real note.
Still it is a part of the climate puzzle which is a puzzle which no one including you Paul and myself are close to solving.
Salvatore, we’re not going to advance our understanding of spatial pattern evolution by copying and pasting the same single generalized climate narrative into every specific discussion. If thought-policing is your game, I suggest wuwt &/or ce (where it’s encouraged by the hosts).
Paul says which I understand.
This is an extremely hard subject to tackle . I am giving it my best with my limited ability compared to Paul still I argue my cause.
‘This is an extremely hard subject to tackle’
True. On the other hand there’s only one sun in our neighbourhood 😉
Salvatore Del Prete (September 29, 2014 at 4:45 pm) suggested:
“The difference between our approaches is you want everything to fit into a cycle and want to explain every single climate variation due to a cycle […]”
Unhelpful, severe misunderstanding. As I’ve said: I’m using the BDO as a spatial diagnostic.
Recommended Reading:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JCLI3062.1
PV says: ‘Attention climate “scientists”: If you carefully check how 9.071110408 years & 9.482290979 years beat with JEV (11.06964992 years)’
Elements of a 166 year cycle there?
Timo Niroma: ’14 Jovian years is 166.07 calendar years. Are 1645, 1810 and 1976 synchpoint years having between them 15 sunspot cycles equalling 14 Jovian years and beginning a new phase in the Sun?’
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html
(see 1.1.3)
13 J-N and 12 J-U are both around 166y.
Neptune orbit is 1 year less, 2 Uranus is 2 years more.
JEV fits too, as does JNE.
K2pblog also refers to an ‘unnamed 166 year cycle’ but says nothing about it.
http://ktwop.com/2012/03/10/solar-cycles-and-the-landscheidt-minimum/
Here there’s a Landscheidt graph of a 166-year cycle:
http://www.abd.org.uk/freezelock.htm
‘The recent Gleissberg cycle maximum around 1984 is the first in a long sequence of maxima connected with zero phases in the 166-year cycle, four of which are marked by empty circles in the diagram from Landscheidt’s paper.’
Landscheidt’s own paper – see part 7:
‘166-year cycle in variations of the rotary force driving the sun’s orbital motion’
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
‘The presented results indicate that the Gleissberg cycle is a bistable oscillator capable of assuming either of two states. The transition between these states seems to be triggered by special phases in the 166-year cycle which induce phase reversals.’
OB:
The long JEV cycle is 164.9187606 years as I’ve shown above.
Seidelmann’s (1992) N is 164.79132.
Take a look at NASA Horizons JEV output and that’s what you’ll see. (It’s clear.)
There’s century-scale coherence with PDO. I may illustrate if ever / whenever the timing is more ripe for slow-paced, open, seriously-exploratory discussion.
You lost me there PV – I used your ‘JEV (11.06964992 years)’ figure.
15 x 11.06964992 years = 166.04475y on my cheap calculator 😉
I will read that. Thanks Paul.
Saturn problem: JPL ephemeris says 10755.698 days, NASA fact sheet says 10759.22 days.
Hard to believe a 3.5 day difference. Checked assorted websites, both figures are used.
Call me dumb call me stupid but after reading the papers I don’t see any new practical application in those particular articles in advancing the cause of what makes the climate change and how it may change and why.
If anything as far as I am concerned they are very abstract and I get very little further info.from them in helping me understand why/how the climate may or may not change. They are essentially saying the same things I am saying but in an abstract way in my opinion.
The reality is we agree in the big picture but approach it much differently. That is fine and I feel we are both on the correct paths.
What is most important is trying to predict what is going to happen to the climate in the immediate future which I have gone through in detail.
Here’s another way of looking at it: ‘Climate and the Seasons’
Click to access season.pdf
This paper was updated on 8/10/14 with 3 new pages.
Mike Mann on BDO:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009%3C2137%3AJSMOST%3E2.0.CO%3B2
helps clarify root of dispute with Wyatt & Curry
http://iceagenow.info/2014/09/earths-impending-magnetic-flip-scientific-american/
Here is an item that deserves much more attention, and ties into my theory that weak magnetic fields equate to cold conditions..
Counterpoint?
Click to access MSSA+PS-PRE_vf.pdf
Paul there are climatic thresholds which will obliterate all what the articles you send are trying to convey.
Earth’s Impending Magnetic Flip” – Scientific American
Posted on September 30, 2014 by BobFelix
“A geomagnetic reversal may happen sooner than expected,” says this article in Scientific American.
“The European Space Agency’s satellite array dubbed “Swarm” revealed that Earth’s magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than previously thought, decreasing in strength about 5 percent a decade rather than 5 percent a century,” the article continues. “A weakening magnetic field may indicate an impending reversal.”
So far, I agree. But then the article veers way off course.
“Earth’s magnetic north and south poles have flip-flopped many times in our planet’s history—most recently, around 780,000 years ago,” the article asserts.
I completely disagree with that statement.
Why? Because it ignores magnetic excursions.
A magnetic excursion refers to those times in the past when the earth’s magnetic field temporarily headed south. Sometimes it began fluctuating and then settled down. Sometimes it moved part way south and then moved back north again. Sometimes it moved all the way south and then back north.
To my way of thinking, just because the field quickly moved back north doesn’t mean that a reversal didn’t take place. If I fall down and then immediately jump back up, that doesn’t remove that fact that I did indeed fall down.
There have been many magnetic reversals/excursions during the last 780,000 years. To name a few are the Gothenburg, the Mono Lake, the Lake Mungo, the Laschamp, the Blake, Biwa I, Biwa II, Biwa III, Emperor, Big Lost and Delta. And many more magnetic reversals/excursions have probably occurred thee past 780,000 years that scientists have not yet identified.
“The flipping takes an average of 5,000 years,” the article continues. “It can happen as quickly as 1,000 years or as slowly as 20,000 years.”
Again, I disagree. Some studies reveal that magnetic reversals can occur far faster than that. I describe one such speedy reversal in Not by Fire but by Ice.
“In a study of lava flows at Steens Mountain, south central Oregon (which erupted during a reversal, by the way), Michel Prévot, Edward Mankinen, Robert Coe, and C. Sherman Grommé found that magnetic intensity had fallen to less than 10% of today’s in less than one year.
Perhaps in less than two months.
During a follow-up study in 1989, Coe and Prévot found that the field had reversed at the rate of three degrees per day.
Perhaps in only three weeks.
Not content with their earlier findings, Coe and his colleagues took another look. The earth’s magnetic field had reversed at “the astonishingly rapid rate,” their new study found, of six to eight degrees per day. Not only did it reverse, it fluctuated. Rapid fluctuations occurred many times during the reversal, said Coe. “Enhanced external [magnetic] field activity . . . from the Sun might somehow cause the jumps.” (Coe, Prévot, and Camps, 1995) (Not by Fire but by Ice, Chapter 16)
And finally, the article asserts that “It is hard to know how a geomagnetic reversal would impact our modern-day civilization, but it is unlikely to spell disaster. Although the field provides essential protection from the sun’s powerful radiation, fossil records reveal no mass extinctions or increased radiation damage during past reversals. ”
This is so far off base that it would be laughable if it were not so serious.
Let’s look at the record.
The Gothenburg magnetic reversal of 11,500 years ago correlates with a huge mass extinction, when the mammoth, the mastodon, the sabre toothed cat, the short-fact bear, to name just a few unfortunate mammals, went extinct.
The Mono Lake magnetic reversal of 23,000 years ago correlates with a mass extinction.
The Lake Mungo magnetic reversal of 33,500 years ago correlates with a mass extinction. (Some studies even suggest that that is when the Neanderthal went extinct.)
Not only do magnetic reversals/excursions correlate with extinctions, many reversals occurred in sync with catastrophic glaciation. Here’s a chart showing those correlations.
Salvatore Del Prete (October 3, 2014 at 4:07 pm) suggested:
“[…] climatic thresholds which will obliterate […]”
Salvatore, you needn’t live in perpetual self-doubt to make sure you don’t misunderstand.
Thresholds don’t obliterate central limit theorem, but occasionally they teach crucial lessons about aggregation criteria, thus facilitating methodological evolution.
Some of these “thresholds” are measurement system aliases (haphazard aggregation / naive data reduction) of mere spatial phase reversals that are being misinterpreted as solely-temporal (and in some cases falsely-assumed spatially-uniform) evolution.
Obviously other “thresholds” have to do with latent heat & ice, the evolving distribution of continents, etc.
Definitions are at the root of many misunderstandings. When I write of “balanced multi-axial differentials”, you can interpret that (in your reference frame) as a “threshold” catch-all.
I found time to clean up a few loose ends I left with Ray Tomes above:
J-S:
(19.86503587) / 20 = 0.993251793
(1)*(0.993251793) / (1 – 0.993251793) = 147.1875173
J-N:
(12.78279303) / 13 = 0.983291772
(1)*(0.983291772) / (1 – 0.983291772) = 58.85074998
S-N:
(35.85455172) / 36 = 0.99595977
(1)*(0.99595977) / (1 – 0.99595977) = 246.5106645
You can see these on the flashing 1470 graph.
Above I wrote something misleading when I was in too much of a hurry to slow down and communicate more carefully:
“Ray’s calculation does not require the same time of the terrestrial year. It only requires the same phase-difference, which is allowed to occur at any time of year.”
It actually does require the same time of the year, but it does not require all 3 of N, S, & J aligned with the terrestrial year. (I can’t do anything about the lack of free time that causes me to not be able to keep the pace needed for 2-3 day intense blog discussions, but if the thread lives longer, I’ll eventually come back to clarify.)
Ulric Lyons deserves credit for pointing to 1470 countless times. It took ages before I found time to check what he was saying using 2 different graphical methods. It may not have been obvious (since I didn’t state it explicitly), but to save time I presented on the assumption that readers are familiar with the details of past Talkshop discussions.
Alert readers may recall that I took the starting point repeatedly volunteered by Ulric a few steps further to consider alignments with the terrestrial year & day. Recall that both hit near 1470. These observations answer 3 questions and raise more.
This is not a politically expedient avenue of exploration for canned narratives aiming to engineer naive facades of administrative defensibility, so political activists will assuredly deliberately misinterpret, misrepresent, & distort.
When I have the BDO animations finished, I’ll post them. Capable parties will gain insight into the Wyatt vs. Mann (they’re both right — and both wrong) PDO / AMO “stadium wave” dispute.
To get Nicola’s 20 year sun speed oscillation:
1. square each of VX, VY, & VZ
2. add up the squares
3. take square root of sum of squares
In Excel:
=+SQRT(SUMSQ(C1:E1))
Copy/paste formula down column F.
NASA Horizons specs:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
=
Ephemeris Type : VECTORS
Target Body : Sun [Sol] [10]
Coordinate Origin : Solar System Barycenter (SSB) [500@0]
Time Span : Start=1580-01-01, Stop=2120-01-01, Step=1 MO
Table Settings : quantities code=5; CSV format=YES
Display/Output : plain text
*******************************************************************************
Revised : Jul 31, 2013 Sun 10
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES (revised Jan 16, 2014):
GM (10^11 km^3/s^2) = 1.3271244004193938 Mass (10^30 kg) ~ 1.988544
Radius (photosphere) = 6.963(10^5) km Angular diam at 1 AU = 1919.3″
Solar Radius (IAU) = 6.955(10^5) km Mean density = 1.408 g/cm^3
Surface gravity = 274.0 m/s^2 Moment of inertia = 0.059
Escape velocity = 617.7 km/s Adopted sidereal per = 25.38 d
Pole (RA,DEC in deg.) = 286.13,63.87 Obliquity to ecliptic = 7 deg 15′
Solar constant (1 AU) = 1367.6 W/m^2 Solar lumin.(erg/s) = 3.846(10^33)
Mass-energy conv rate = 4.3(10^12 gm/s) Effective temp (K) = 5778
Surf. temp (photosphr)= 6600 K (bottom) Surf. temp (photosphr)= 4400 K (top)
Photospheric depth = ~400 km Chromospheric depth = ~2500 km
Sunspot cycle = 11.4 yr Cycle 22 sunspot min. = 1991 A.D.
Motn. rel to nrby strs= apex : RA=271 deg; DEC=+30 deg
speed: 19.4 km/s = 0.0112 AU/day
Motn. rel to 2.73K BB = apex : l=264.7+-0.8; b=48.2+-0.5
speed: 369 +-11 km/s
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
Ephemeris / WWW_USER Sat Sep 20 18:25:48 2014 Pasadena, USA / Horizons
*******************************************************************************
Target body name: Sun (10) {source: DE-0431LE-0431}
Center body name: Solar System Barycenter (0) {source: DE-0431LE-0431}
Center-site name: BODY CENTER
*******************************************************************************
Start time : A.D. 1580-Jan-01 00:00:00.0000 CT
Stop time : A.D. 2120-Jan-01 00:00:00.0000 CT
Step-size : 1 calendar months
*******************************************************************************
Center geodetic : 0.00000000,0.00000000,0.0000000 {E-lon(deg),Lat(deg),Alt(km)}
Center cylindric: 0.00000000,0.00000000,0.0000000 {E-lon(deg),Dxy(km),Dz(km)}
Center radii : (undefined)
Output units : AU-D
Output format : 05
Reference frame : ICRF/J2000.0
Output type : GEOMETRIC cartesian states
Coordinate systm: Ecliptic and Mean Equinox of Reference Epoch
*******************************************************************************
JDCT , , VX, VY, VZ,
*******************************************************************************
$$SOE
$$EOE
*******************************************************************************
Coordinate system description:
Ecliptic and Mean Equinox of Reference Epoch
Reference epoch: J2000.0
xy-plane: plane of the Earth’s orbit at the reference epoch
x-axis : out along ascending node of instantaneous plane of the Earth’s
orbit and the Earth’s mean equator at the reference epoch
z-axis : perpendicular to the xy-plane in the directional (+ or -) sense
of Earth’s north pole at the reference epoch.
Symbol meaning [1 au=149597870.700 km, 1 day=86400.0 s]:
JDCT Epoch Julian Date, Coordinate Time
VX x-component of velocity vector (AU/day)
VY y-component of velocity vector (AU/day)
VZ z-component of velocity vector (AU/day)
Geometric states/elements have no aberration corrections applied.
Computations by …
Solar System Dynamics Group, Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Information: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/
Connect : telnet://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov:6775 (via browser)
telnet ssd.jpl.nasa.gov 6775 (via command-line)
Author : Jon.Giorgini@jpl.nasa.gov
*******************************************************************************
=
Many thanks Paul, good looking recipe.
new:
map animation of
Bidecadal (~20 year) Oscillation (BDO)
in sea surface temperatures (ERSSTv3b2 1870-2014)
Link: http://s15.postimg.org/muz1tv02x/Bidecadal_Oscillation_20_year_BDO.gif
via KNMI Climate Explorer ( http://climexp.knmi.nl/ ) field correlations with revolving complex wavelet transform of speed of sun with respect to solar system barycenter (calculated from NASA Horizons output as described above)
The method is similar to CEOF & MSSA. Some observers may recall that I’ve shared an animation of the ~60 year “stadium” wave (based on slightly different but also similar methods) in the past.
Is anyone curious to know how this timing framework ties to solar rotation timing frameworks?
Yes, carry on PV. Your animated image wasn’t displaying so I’ve switched it to a link.
QBO based on V & E:
2.370717996 years
There have been suggestions (from academia) that there’s a mid-latitude oscillation with a period closer to 2.12 years than 2.37 years.
Could this be why?
(BDO)*(QBO) / (BDO + QBO)
~= 2.12 years
(19.86503587)*(2.370717996) / (19.86503587 + 2.370717996)
= 2.117958235 years
The following article reveals a clear 52.4 year cycle:
Heristchi, D.; & Mouradian, Z. (2009). The global rotation of solar activity structures. Astronomy & Astrophysics 497, 835–841.
Click to access aa09582-08.pdf
Could this be the beat of the QBO with the nearest BDO harmonic?
nearest harmonic of J-S:
(19.86503587) / 8 = 2.483129483 years
(2.483129483)*(2.370717996) / (2.483129483 – 2.370717996)
= 52.36831107 years
If there’s something special about conjunctions, note how this ties in (multiply all the numbers by 4) with what I’ve already shown much earlier in this thread:
(9.932517933)*(9.482871982) / (9.932517933 – 9.482871982)
= 209.4732443 years
Depending on whether QBO is based on V & E or some other combination of solar system bodies, this calculation gives a number between 207.5 & 210 years. Is one of these possibilities de Vries? If so, what steps need to be taken to decide which?
Now note that Chandler based on V & E is:
QBO / 2 = 1.185358998 years
The nearest BDO harmonic:
(19.86503587) / 17 = 1.168531522 years
(1.185358998)*(1.168531522) / (1.185358998 – 1.168531522)
= 82.31355252 years
2*(82.31355252) = 164.627105 years
Compare with N = 164.79132 years
Terrestrial correlation phase reversals at this period have been observed, so perhaps it’s worth considering whether some regional mean circulation shifts in latitude are on this framework, which is coherent with the long JEV cycle.
So in summary, it looks like Minobe’s PPO (pentadecadal pacific oscillation) is just the beat of the QBO with the nearest harmonic of BDO.
That there’s coherence with solar rotation is interesting, but let’s take due care to consider this from a perspective of broader contextual awareness, as I think there’s something more fundamental for humans to learn about hierarchical timing frameworks and (accidentally haphazard) spatiotemporal aggregation. (Is Heristchi & Mouradian’s (2009) 52.4 year cycle an (embarrassing) alias due to poor accounting for leap years?? To be continued below along with 1470…)
An aim may ultimately be to answer questions, but at this exploratory stage I suggest it’s most important to first raise these questions in a polite context for careful consideration by sensible parties capable of ultimately answering them without getting sidelined and/or derailed by the vicious political jousting that ruins all possibility of discussion advancement at blogs located more centrally in the climate discussion network.
I’ll make another post that extends consideration of annual alignments on these frameworks to include daily alignments. (Foreshadowing: 1470 ….)
Tip: Warren White (Scripps IO) has done interesting, useful work on BDO (compare his CEOF BDO summary with my matching spatiotemporal wavelet BDO summary). It would be helpful (huge time-saver) if there was an orders-of-magnitude more concise summary of his findings, but White’s a smart contributor so a bit of laborious digging for the incisive nuggets is worthwhile in this case.
Important: The BDO is the root of the conflict between Wyatt & Mann. This is about aggregation criteria, spatiotemporal aliasing, & failed diagnostics.
Plenty to think about there PV.
Furuya & Chao give the Chandler wobble as 433.7 days +/- 1.8 days.
Click to access 0224-2_Estimation%20of%20period%20and%20Q%20of%20the%20Chandler%20wobble.pdf
See Figure 6: contour map.
‘nearest harmonic of J-S:
(19.86503587) / 8 = 2.483129483 years’
Dividing S by J gives more or less the same result.
Calendarization.
We need to be paying far more careful attention to calendarization.
While working on day / year 1470 notes, I cracked another puzzle I introduced previously. (Typo alert: “then normalize by year” (p.1) should read “then normalize by 27 day stack”. I never bothered to mention this typo before as I knew capable people would figure it out intuitively.)
While reviewing mainstream works it’s helpful to explore the mainstream mindset, so I was looking at Laskar’s expression for the mean tropical year when I realized it implies there must be something seriously wrong with conventional leap year scheduling.
By the way, this could also explain one of Piers Corbyn’s lookback cycles. Probably he figured out this calendarization issue a long time ago (…or maybe he actually misinterpreted the “signal” to be a real cycle?)
All of this is going to take a bit of time to explain. Yes it ties with J-S & bidecadal. It’s not that it would take a lot of time to explain. It’s just that I frequently don’t have the little needed time. In short there’s a 32 year aggregation issue caused by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year
=
if (year is not divisible by 4) then (it is a common year)
else
if (year is not divisible by 100) then (it is a leap year)
else
if (year is not divisible by 400) then (it is a common year)
else (it is a leap year)
=
Sometimes the answer is simple and right in front of our faces but we’re deeply immersed in culturally-based assumptions that we rarely – or even never – stop to think about.
2000AD
mean length of terrestrial tropical year
measured between 2 northern solstices
= 365.241626 mean solar days
Meeus, J.; & Savoie, D. (1992). The history of the tropical year. Journal of the British Astronomical Association 102(1), 40-42. [citations]
2000AD
mean length of terrestrial sidereal year
= 365.256363004 mean solar days
Recall that:
mean sidereal days / year
= mean solar days / year + 1
Based on Seidelmann (1992):
1 sidereal day = 0.997269663 solar days
which gives:
1 tropical year = 366.2415889 sidereal days
1 sidereal year = 366.2563662 sidereal days
harmonic mean = 366.2489774 sidereal days
beat with nearest subharmonic of 1 sidereal day
= (366.2489774)*(366) / (366.2489774 – 366)
= 538390.7391 sidereal days
= 1470.042604 tropical years
= 1469.983292 sidereal years
= 1470 years
Alternately, the calculation can be done as follows:
A.
(366.2415889)*(366) / (366.2415889 – 366)
= 554845.1809 sidereal days
= 1514.97044 tropical years
= 1514.909315 sidereal years
B.
(366.2563662)*(366) / (366.2563662 – 366)
= 522884.1314 sidereal days
= 1427.702771 tropical years
= 1427.645168 sidereal years
harmonic mean of A & B
= 1470.042604 tropical years
= 1469.983292 sidereal years
= 1470 years
and it doesn’t stop there….
1238 QBO = 1470 years?
Reblogged this on CRIKEY !#&@ …… IT'S THE WEATHER CYCLES and commented:
Tallbloke hosts a discussion initiated by Paul Vaughan on Earth climate cycles in the order of quasi 20 yr…. Bi – DECADAL
The Bidecadal Oscillation
Is it caused by the solar Hale Cycle as suggested by Tim Channon or is it caused by the velocity of the sun with respect to the solar system barycenter as suggested by Nicola Scafetta?
Also:
74 Jupiter-Saturn @ 19.865y = 1470.01y
115 Jupiter-Neptune = 1470.02y
41 Saturn-Neptune = 1470.036y
These are the ‘big boys’.
Paul Vaughan says: September 20, 2014 at 6:50 pm
‘6.4 = harmonic mean’
6.4 x 5 = 32 years to get whole number of Earth orbits, then:
52 Venus = 32 Earth = 17 Mars
which gives these conjunction numbers:
20 Venus-Earth (52 – 32) = 15 Earth-Mars (32 – 17) = 35 Venus-Mars (52 – 17)
These are very close approximations but not 100% exact matches.
35 Venus-Mars is the closest to 32 years (31.998~).