MET Office scientist flunks simple logic test.

Posted: September 21, 2015 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics
Tags: , , , , ,

I pointed Richard Betts to the Charles D. Keeling (Yes, that Charles D. Keeling) and Timothy Whorf paper on lunar tidal cycles and their connection with rapid climate change ‘The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change.’

Here’s what happened:

betts-keeling

Basically, Betts ran away. He’s a natural climate change denier. His job is to ‘do outreach’ promoting the Carbon Dioxide causes climate change hypothesis, but maintain plausible deniability that anyone ever showed him what a crock of crap it is compared to more likely explanations.

Keeling and Whorf found an 1800 year Lunar tidal cycle which is what Betts is referring to with “millennial timescaless”. If he actually read the paper he would also find this nugget:

“A cause for such greater regularity in tidal forcing might be resonances of other bodies of the solar system, especially the outer planets. We are struck by the close correspondence of the average period of the 180-year tidal cycle of 179.5 years (1/10 of that of the 1,800-year cycle) and the period of the sun’s rotation about the center of mass of the solar system of 179.2 years, the latter a manifestation of planetary resonances”

Which is why Ian Wilson found a Lunar resonance between the alignment of its lines of Apsides and Nodes and El Nino events, and I found a similar resonance between the solar cycle and ENSO: The Moon’s orbit and the Solar cycle period are shaped by the same forces generated by the rest of the solar system. Note that ~180 years is in a 1:3 ratio with ~60 years – the periodicity of the major oceanic oscillations. El Nino dominates one half of that ~60 year period, La Nina the other. Short term changes add up to bigger long term changes. Richard is being thick for a Bett.

El Nino events align with reductions in solar activity. Smaller events at the top of the solar cycle as activity increase ends, and bigger events are initiated at the ~11yr solar minimum

El Nino events align with reductions in solar activity. Smaller events at the top of the solar cycle after activity increase slows and ends, and bigger events are initiated at the ~11yr solar minimum. The anomaly at 1954 may be due to the proximity of the previous El Nino event, of which there are on average three per solar cycle.

The Moon and Sun are the two bodies with the biggest tidal and angular momentum/vector effects on the Earth’s oceans. Additionally, rhythmic changes in the Sun’s output as seen in red in the above plot vary the input of energy to Earth’s oceans, provoking the peaking outputs that are El Nino events when there is a lull in solar activity.

Away from the ~60 year cycles found in tropical oceans, the north Atlantic exhibits a ~72 to ~74 year cycle. That’s in a 3:1 ratio with the ~208 year De Vries cycle, just like the ~60 year cycle is in a 3:1 ratio with the ~180 year Jose cycle. But here’s the kicker that proves the resonance theory: The beat period of 72 and 60 years is
72×60/(72-60)=360 years. That period is 6×60 years and 5×72 years. The tropical and extra-tropical oceans are in a 6:5 resonance with each other.

Moreover, the ~230 to ~240 year cycle of lunar declination mentioned by James Goodman’s twitter comment above in reference to the work of David Dilley is in a near 3:2 resonance with the same 360 year period. 216 years is in a 5:3 ratio with 360 years and has also been mooted as a De Vries cycle period. It also ties in with solar grand minima event periods.

Be10-declination

Here’s a rough plot showing the alignment of the De Vries cycles observed in the Steinhilber et al 10Be Solar irradiance reconstruction (lower plot blue curve) and replicated by Rick Salvador’s simple four body orbital resonance model (yellow curve), compared to David Dilley’s Full moon declination cycles (upper yellow curve). The apparent phase reversal at the modern end warrants further investigation.

Rhodes Fairbridge noted long ago that Alaskan and Siberian beach ridges expressed a bigger amplitude periodicity at ~360 years. Here we have the physical evidence supporting our theory. Evidence which Willis and the WUWTians avert their eyes from as it undermines their childish ‘cyclomania’ label that they schtick on we students of solar system dynamics. There are three occasions I’ve asked Anthony Watts to comment on the regularity of the beach ridges, and he’s done a Betts every time.

We will eventually drag the CO2 gasbag theorists and their lukewarm apologists into 21st century science.

Comments
  1. Does this theory have any similarity to Piers Corbyn’s solar-lunar technique? I know the guy’s got to make a living but he should publish his theory.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Betts has company. This one’s an AGW committed astrophysicist

    Translation: “I see no ships”

  3. tallbloke says:

    WM: I respect Piers’ right to commercial confidentiality and don’t discuss his theory here.

  4. But if he is bidding for the BBC weather contract they will need to know his method – at least at a managerial level. It could be the making of him – perhaps his brother could put in a word?

  5. tallbloke says:

    Heh, not so sure Jezza Corbyn has much sway with the eeeevil meeeja.😉

  6. Whether you agree with him or not some of the rubbish being written by ‘newspapers’ is disgraceful. His non-attendance of the Rugby World Cup opening ceremony on Friday was interpreted as a ‘snub’. What they didn’t tell you is that he was still holding his weekly MP surgery at 9pm that night. Had he attended the same papers would have dismissed him for indulging in a freebe and ‘snubing’ his constituents. The guy can’t win…

  7. BLACK PEARL says:

    That’s the nature of the media for anyone in its sights

    {– Hey Tallbloke .. is it all right to use “crock of crap” but not Bulls*%$e 🙂 — }

  8. Roger, coincidence I was just asking about tides and SOI but short term see my comment at end of the post “Earth’s pull is “massaging” our moon. I noticed that there was a similar cycle between daily SOI (which based on atmospheric pressure) and tide height differences

  9. tallbloke says:

    CF: As well as Earth massaging the Moon, the Moon massages Earth. It’s oceans, crust, and atmosphere. Can you show us your ‘similar cycles’ in SOI and tides? Email me if you like.

    BP: Fruity expressions are allowed, in moderation.🙂

  10. tom0mason says:

    Dr. Richard Betts as a mere Met Office functionary, appears to be tasked with patrolling the twittersphere and blogosphere ensuring the nonsense message of CO2 causing climate disaster is propagated far and wide.
    Hopefully this activity is not done on the UK taxpayers’ ticket, if he is, it would only lend more ammunition to those who believe that the Met Office should be sold off, and the Hadley Centre too — preferably to Koch Industries, Inc.

  11. TLMango says:

    The 61 year beat that Scafetta wrote about in his ‘Multi-scale Harmonic Model……’ 2012
    happens to be a powerful solar cycle with very obvious physical mechanisms.
    The Sun orbits the center of mass with a periodicity of ~11.862242 years.
    The Sun accelerates and decelerates with alternating periods of ~9.92965612 years.
    11.862242 x 9.92965612 / (11.862242 – 9.92965612) = 60.94838271 years.
    The Earth/Moon system is dragged along by the Sun in its barycentric orbit.
    And…This all happens to the rhythm of these physical mechanisms.

    The orbital parameters of the Earth/Moon system are regulated by impulses from the Sun.
    And…. Tidal influence on Earth is regulated by the Moon.
    This is what I believe to be the connection between the 61 year solar cycle and
    the Keeling & Whorf cycle:
    60.94838271 x 30 = 1828.4514814 years.

    Keep in mind that the 61 year solar cycle originated as a Jupiter/Saturn beat frequency.
    Jupiter and Saturn constitute about 93% of the remaining mass (minus the Sun) in our solar system. It is Jupiter and Saturn that are 93% responsible for determining the motion of the
    Sun around the center of mass.
    And…. they are also responsible for about 93% of the impulses that come from the Sun.

    I’ve taken 97 of the strongest Jup/Sat beats and found that multiples of these frequencies
    seem to fall within the range of 1824 and 1828 years.
    for example:
    11.862242 x 154 = 1826.785268
    29.457784 x 62 = 1826.382608
    19.85931224 x 92 = 1827.056726
    9.92965612 x 184 = 1827.056726
    60.94838271 x 30 = 1828.4514814

  12. tallbloke says:

    TLM: The 61 year beat that Scafetta wrote about in his ‘Multi-scale Harmonic Model……’ 2012

    Thanks for that. The post I put up earlier in August 2011 (While Nicola Scafetta was concurrently working on his paper) also found the 61 year cycle:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/

    “The half period of 122 is 61 years and this also turns out to be related to Jupiter and Saturn another way. The 61-year cycle is given by 1/(1/9.93 – 1/11.86), where 9.93 is half the time between conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter (half, because tides are raised also on the other side of the sun), and 11.86 is Jupiter’s orbital period, as was suggested long ago by Brown [MNRAS, vol 60, pages 599-606, 1900] – My thanks to Leif Svalgaard for this excellent reference!”

    All the solar-planetary theorists are converging on the same conclusion: Solar system orbital resonance controls solar variation, lunar orbital parameters and thus electromagnetic and gravitational tides and hence terrestrial climate change.

    The leaders of the warmist and lukewarmist camps will continue to deny the obvious, attempt to discredit us and obscure the facts by crying chaos.

    They are going to look very disingenuous, mendacious, petty and stupid. Amongst other unappealing things.

  13. TLMango says:

    Hi Roger,
    Another cycle from Scafetta’s ‘Multi-scale Harmonic Model……..’ 2012 is the 114/115 year period.
    The 114 year cycle comes from Ogurtsov’s ‘Long-period Cycles of the Sun’s Activity…….’ 2002.
    Then, Scafetta used it in his model because it agreed with the Lundqvist (spelling) temperature
    graph. I love this 114 year cycle, its a Jup/Sat beat and a harmonic of both the Metonic cycle
    and the Keeling/Whorf cycle:

    11.862242 x (29.457784 / 3) / (11.862242 – (29.457784 / 3)) = 57.01397771 years
    57.01397771 x 32 = 1824.447287
    19.00465924 x 96 = 1824.447287
    57.01397771 x 2 = 114.0279554

    Scafetta used it as a 115 year cycle.
    David Dilley used it as the 230 year lunar cycle.
    The 19.00465924 (57.01397771 / 3) is a nice approximation for the Metonic.

    The 114 year cycle is also related to the Jose cycle (178.7338102 years).
    After five cycles, the Jose cycle executes a jump of one synodic period (19.85931224 years).
    There are more of these jumps at longer time scales.
    The Jose cycle eventually becomes a 182.4447287 year cycle with a dominant 912.2236432
    year cycle (which is half of the Keeling and Whorf cycle).
    To understand the Jose cycle, use Equ(3) of my ’61 year graph’ at weathercycles.wordpress
    ‘Schwabe Triplets’ page 2 (posted Oct 31, 2014 10:38 pm).
    Sorry for not posting here, Im not able to.

  14. TLMango says:

    Correction: use Equ’s (1) & (2). Not Equ(3).
    Its not good to hurry,thats when I make mistakes.

  15. tallbloke says:

    TLM: To understand the Jose cycle, use Equ(3) of my ’61 year graph’ at weathercycles.wordpress
    ‘Schwabe Triplets’ page 2 (posted Oct 31, 2014 10:38 pm).
    Sorry for not posting here, Im not able to.

    There doesn’t seem to be an entry on Oct 31 2014
    https://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2014/10/
    But Weathercycles site is a bit untidy for finding things, you should start your own wordpress blog (it’s easy).

    Keeling and Whorf seem to constrain their cycle to between 1795 and 1805 years in their paper. These longer cycles are tough to pin down however.

  16. TLMango says:

    Hi Rog,
    The entry is on page 2 which is really in the older comments of ‘Schwabe Triplets’.
    Be sure to use Equ’s (1) & (2) to view more of the Jose cycles.

  17. E.M.Smith says:

    Note that [2x] the 360 year period is 720, or near 1/2 the Bond Event 1470 ish year length.

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/

    As the Bond Cycle error bands are wide, I think it matches well enough. The historical 1/2 Bond events are certainly close at 780 vs 720 years. Ought to be worth trying to line up history with solar lunar cycle state.

  18. E.M.Smith says:

    “that 2x the 360″….

    FWIW I also saw some evidence for near 360 year cycles in historical events…

  19. tallbloke says:

    TLM: I searched in the page for Schwabe and got nothing. Please just give a direct link to the comment containing the equations or just copy and paste it here.

  20. tallbloke says:

    EM Smith: Thanks for that. The 360 is 1/5 of the 1800, and as you say, near the 1/4 Bond period. Keeling and Whorf themselves note in the paper that Bond events vary in period intervals widely. To me, that indicates that the ‘cycle’ is actually several cycles interacting, with a few in-phase and a couple out of phase at any one time.

    It’s a similar story with the ~60yr ‘cycle’, and this is why it’s amplitude varies so much at different epochs.

  21. tallbloke says: September 22, 2015 at 5:26 am

    ‘EM Smith: Thanks for that. The 360 is 1/5 of the 1800, and as you say, near the 1/4 Bond period. Keeling and Whorf themselves note in the paper that Bond events vary in period intervals widely. To me, that indicates that the ‘cycle’ is actually several cycles interacting, with a few in-phase and a couple out of phase at any one time. It’s a similar story with the ~60yr ‘cycle’, and this is why it’s amplitude varies so much at different epochs.’

    Roger,
    You are stuck in the concept of linear accumulation of time interval or elapsed time (years) which also invokes the concept of ‘energy’ being an accumulation of power! Have you considered The other ‘energy’ power within an interval of time, space, or both? Power/energy contained within a whole cycle (interval) of anything.. The rotational and orbital momentum of each planet. Such is claimed to be overall conserved. Among planets this seems to be a whole momentum trading scheme. Think carbon credits!! This opposing POV has a name “inverse complex conjugate” of same anything. This frequency POV has many concepts that involve aliasing, modulation, interference, and phase reversal that are not apparent in accumulative time, but are quite valid in interval time.
    This solar system, galaxy, universe; have these cyclics (repetitions) that you observe, many are not perfectly repetitive for good reason. Real resonances if allowed to accumulate power at single frequency become asymptotes that must destroy the host, if that power is not dissipated as entropy discarded to space (heat). All of the deliberate mass motion on or about this planet, including the motion of Moon and tides, are such dissipation of power!
    Please try not so hard to ‘match’ ratios. Spend much more effort on how and why they do not match, please!
    All the best! -will-

  22. E.M.Smith says:

    @Tallbloke:

    1470 + 360 = 1830

    So darned close to exact. 5 × 360 = 1800 and 4 × 360 = 1440 that is inside the error band on Bond timing.

    FWIW, echoing Will, I think many of the “cycles” seen are occasionally a skip beat as another length gets an added or removed occasionally (thus confounding some cycle search methods).

    Stochastic resonance is well worth looking up. It was used in old tube radio detectors (where I first ran into it…) so is not just some hypothetical. Many natural things show stochastic resonance, so almost an oscillator, but not quite…

    So take 179 + 22 = 201 occasionally having one more or less 22 year solar cycle in a cluster gets you two different solar cycle intervals seen in the data. Look for those off by one cycle variations.

  23. So Luke Howard WAS on to something all those years ago, saying the climate was connected to the Moon

    “In 1842 he published an unconvincing treatise identifying an eighteen-year cycle in British weather, comprised of a seven-year rise followed by a ten-year fall in average temperature and rainfall; this was followed by his Barometrographia (1847), a visually impressive folio volume in which annual fluctuations of the weather were plotted against the phases of the Moon, using large circular diagrams traced by a self-recording barograph, in an attempt to determine the extent of lunar influence on climate.

  24. tallbloke says:

    Will J: Real resonances if allowed to accumulate power at single frequency become asymptotes that must destroy the host, if that power is not dissipated as entropy discarded to space (heat)…Please try not so hard to ‘match’ ratios. Spend much more effort on how and why they do not match, please!

    Perceptive comment. In fact, Stuart and I have found many such ‘nearly but not quite’ ratios in the solar system, and I think I have an explanation for them, including the way in which excess energy is dissipated.

    Bodies are attracted towards being in exact ratios (especially 2:3 ratio), but getting too close to it transfers energy from the larger to the smaller body. The result is that the smaller body is forced to a more elliptical and/or inclined orbit. This changes the period and moves the bodies away from being in exact ratio with each other. However, where several bodies are involved in a resonance (e.g. the Galilean moons of Jupiter), the room for a change of period is limited. This is where you’ll see a body getting gravitationally ‘squeezed’ and heat being generated as a mode of energy dissipation.

    E.M. Totally agree about ‘skip beats’, we call it ‘cogging’. Often we’ll find exact number of orbits or rotations between neighbouring pairs that match at Fibonacci multiples +/1 orbit/rotation of one of the pair. This indicates where a body is trying to ‘fit’ with more than one other.

    A good example of this is Venus. It keeps the same face towards Earth at each conjunction, but is also trying to do the same with Jupiter. It misses the exact alignment of jupiter by 9 degrees or so. But it comes close to exact every solar cycle…

    WM: Thanks, hadn’t heard of Howard before. Got any of his work in print?

  25. TLMango says:

    Also, Venus and Earth have a ~143.8 year conjunction.
    And….. Jupiter and Saturn have a powerful 143.958 beat.
    I fully subscribe to Ray Tomes’s ‘Harmonic Theory’.
    {2,3,4,6,8,9,12,16,24,36,48,72,144}

  26. TLMango says:

    Rog says “But it comes close to exact every solar cycle…”

    There really is a fixed set of harmonics that prevails in the universe.
    Our solar system also gravitates toward these harmonics.
    The 11 year solar cycle is reflected in the orbital parameters of the planets,
    because the Sun regulates the orbital parameters of all its satellites.

    This would also include the moon.
    Just like all the other bodies, the moon takes its orders from the sun.

  27. tallbloke says:

    TLM: The Moons orbit has been shaped primarily by Sun Earth, Jupiter and Venus. It’s best to think of it as a whole system. The Sun regulates the planets, and vise versa. A system is only really a system if it contains cybernetic feedback. Where such feedback exists, the arrow of causality turns on itself. The nearest we could get to a primary effect that sets up the waveform pervading the system is probably the rate of collapse of the nebula that formed it.

  28. TLMango says:

    Roger,
    Great points.
    I agree with everything you said, except the part about the nebula collapse.
    There are a 100 billion solar systems in our galaxy.
    There has to be a harmonic equilibrium.

  29. TLMango says: September 23, 2015 at 12:03 am

    Roger, Great points. I agree with everything you said, except the part about the nebula collapse.
    There are a 100 billion solar systems in our galaxy.There has to be a harmonic equilibrium.

    Doesn’t Volkswagen and McDonald’s come close to that? They still got problems! 🙂

  30. gallopingcamel says:

    Since Nicola left Duke I am running short of good people to share a coffee with.

    Darn! I ended a sentence with a preposition.

  31. tallbloke says:

    TLM: I agree with everything you said, except the part about the nebula collapse.
    There are a 100 billion solar systems in our galaxy.
    There has to be a harmonic equilibrium.

    But not all those solar systems formed from the same size nebulae. Anyway, we’re into speculative cosmology here, which I mostly try to avoid.🙂
    Search the blog for Kotov for someone who also believes in a galactic (or even universal) constant.

  32. oldbrew says:

    TL Mango says: ‘The 61 year beat that Scafetta wrote about in his ‘Multi-scale Harmonic Model……’ 2012 happens to be a powerful solar cycle with very obvious physical mechanisms.’

    It’s the time taken for the position of the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction to move through 360 degrees.
    1 J-S = 117.14703 degrees of retrograde movement from the previous J-S conjunction.
    J-S x (360 / 117.14703) = ~ 61 years.

  33. tchannon says:

    “Darn! I ended a sentence with a preposition.”

    Your place or mine?

  34. TLMango says:

    Hi Rog,
    When I said “except the part about the nebula collapse”, I was trying to say that there are
    many nebulae and the universe is endless. So there must be a universal set of harmonics.
    All my work hinges on Ray’s ‘Harmonic Theory’, so I may be pushing a little harder than I should.

    I apologize if I come across as hostile. I have absolutely no communication skills and that always gets me into trouble.

  35. TLMango says:

    Hey there OB,
    Yes, the 61 year and the tri-synodic are both close approximations for the
    ‘Jupiter Saturn Great Conjunction’.
    Most people would be surprised to learn that the ‘Jupiter Saturn Great Conjunction’ had been
    resolved more than 165 years ago:

    “(721.) The arc 8 deg 6 min is contained 44 4/9 times in the whole circumference of 360 deg;
    and accordingly, if we trace round this particular conjunction, we shall find it will return to the
    same point of the orbit in so many times 21760 days, or in 2648 years. But the conjunction we
    are now considering is only one out of three……. hence a conjunction (one or other of the three)
    will happen at that point once in one third of this period, or in 883 years;……… ”
    ………………………………………………………….. John F.W. Herschel, 1849
    ………………………………………………………….. ‘Outlines of Astronomy’

    This of course is the J/S beat:
    11.862242 / 2 x 29.457784 / 5 / (11.862242 / 2 – 29.457784 / 5) = 883.2109902 years.

    Herschel used different values for the orbital periods of Jup & Sat, but its the same beat.

  36. oldbrew says:

    ‘Herschel used different values for the orbital periods of Jup & Sat, but its the same beat.’

    Well, Herschel used to be a musician after all😉
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel#Musical_works

  37. All that ROG, has presented is part of the reason as to why /how the climate changes.

    Those that dismiss this are wrong.

  38. TLMango says:

    We can prove that Herschel was correct:

    J = 11.862242…………S = 29.457784
    3 (19.85931224) = 59.57793672 ‘the tri-synodic

    The Sun’s pattern of motion rotates with the alignments of Jupiter and Saturn.
    The Sun orbits the center of mass averaging ~11.862242 years.
    59.57793672 / 11.862242 = 5.022485355
    (5.022485355 – 5) 360 deg = 8.09472763 deg

    This 8.09472763 deg is the 8 deg 6 min Herschel was speaking about.
    Herschel used slightly different orbital periods for Jup & Sat, so the 8.09 figure is just
    a smidge smaller than his 8.1 deg.
    As each tri-synodic pattern rotates they are separated by 8.09472763 deg.

    We can also calculate the average number of years that pass with each degree of rotation.
    59.57793672 / 8.09472763 deg = 7.360091586 years/deg

    In an irregular way, the tri-synodic patterns that follow will continue to rotate,
    eventually turning 360 deg in 2649.632971 years.
    (7.360091586 years/deg) 360 deg = 2649.632971 years

    And…….. 2649.632971 / 3 = 883.2109902 years

  39. This tidal force from the moon/sun is superimposed upon other items that influence the climate which is why the effects are not always the same and the interval varies which is why it’s acceptance is limited.

    If the evidence on those two fronts were clearer this would have much more acceptance.

    Again for my part it is a part of the climate puzzle.

  40. oldbrew says:

    TLM: ‘And…….. 2649.632971 / 3 = 883.2109902 years’

    The number you end up with is about half of 89 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, but 89 is not a multiple of 3 J-S.

    If you use the NASA/JPL data instead of the NASA fact sheets for planetary data (both NASA, but they don’t quite match), you should find something like this:

    Then the number of retrograde revolutions of J-S is 126-85 = 41 and 2503y/41 = 61.04878y
    In the 2503 yr period there are 126 (42 x 3) J-S.

    The graphic comes from here: Why Phi? – Jupiter, Saturn and the de Vries cycle

  41. TLMango says:

    On an interesting side bar:

    The Bond cycle: 883.2109902 x (5/3) = 1472.018317 years.
    And…… the tri-synodic rotates 7.360091586 years/deg.
    7.360091586 x 200 = 1472.018317 years

  42. TLMango says:

    OB,
    Yes, what you are saying is true, 19.85931224 is not a multiple of 883.2109902.
    I think that the 883.2109902 figure may be an asymptote, because the math
    looks right.

  43. TLMango says:

    Salvatore,
    You are absolutely correct, clarity will eventually come because we have the correct theory.

  44. oldbrew says:

    TLM: 74 J-S = 1470 years if you use the JPL data.
    As is 115 J-N and 41 S-N (115 – 41 = 74).

    We’re off topic here though😐

  45. The test is coming before this decade is out.

  46. Good in the big picture but fails to explain abrupt climatic changes.

    The Arctic Iris Theory for D/O events is by far the best theory out there in my opinion.

    In this analysis we may understand the forced gravitation oscillation between the earth, sun and the moon as a forced coupled oscillation system to the earth. The tide and the earth rotation responds as a non-linear coupled oscillation to the forced gravity periods from the moon and the sun. This is a complex oscillation in periods between hours and thousands of years. The forced gravitation introduces a tidal mixing in the Atlantic Ocean. This tidal mixing introduces temperature and salinity fluctuations that influences climate and the eco system.”

  47. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: Just because we are talking about cycles, doesn’t mean those cycles act on climate in a regular, sinusoidal way. Remember the title of Keeling and Whorf’s paper is “The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change”.

  48. TLMango says:

    Hi Rog,
    Thanks for doing this topic and thanks for providing a site that knows
    that celestial mechanics is science.

    ‘Indirect Planetary Influence’ appears to be the correct theory.
    We get our Jupiter Saturn influence mostly from the Sun.
    The orbital parameters of the Moon have a huge Jupiter Saturn footprint.

    The evidence is overwhelming :

    J = 11.862242 ………….. S = 29.457784
    (A)……S/6 x J/3 / (S/6 – J/3) = 20.31612757 ‘……….Perigee Syzygy Lunar Cycle
    (B)……S/1 x J/1 / (S/1 – J/1) = 19.85931224 ‘……….Synodic
    (C)……J/1 x S/4 / (J/1 – S/4) = 19.42258845 ‘
    (D)……J/3 x S/9 / (J/3 – S/9) = 19.00465924 ‘……….Metonic Lunar Cycle
    (E)…..J/5 x S/14 / (J/5 – S/14) = 18.60433691 ‘…….Lunar Line of Apse

    The great conjunction and the lunar cycles :
    ………………………. A x B / (A – B) = 883.2109902 ‘…Perigee/Syzygy & Synodic
    (A x 3) x (D x 3) / (A x 3 – D x 3) = 883.2109902 ‘…Perigee/Syzygy & Metonic Lunar
    (A x 4) x (E x 4) / (A x 4 – E x 4) = 883.2109902 ‘…Perigee/Syzygy & Lunar Line of Apse

    (B x 2) x (D x 2) / (B x 2 – D x 2) = 883.2109902 ‘..Synodic & Metonic Lunar
    (B x 3) x (E x 3) / (B x 3 – E x 3) = 883.2109902 ‘..Synodic & Lunar Line of Apse

    …………………….. D x E / (D – E) = 883.2109902 ‘..Metonic Lunar & Lunar Line of Apse

    (A x 5) x (D x 5) / (A x 5 – D x 5) = 1472.018317 ‘……..Perigee/Syzygy & Metonic & Bond Cycle
    (A x 10) x (E x 10) / (A x 10 – E x 10) = 2208.027476 ‘.Per/Syz & Lun/Line/Apse & Hallstatt Cycle

    (B x 5) x (D x 5) / (B x 5 – D x 5) = 2208.027476 ‘……..Synodic & Metonic & Hallstatt Cycle
    (B x 5) x (E x 5) / (B x 5 – E x 5) = 1472.018317 ‘……..Synodic & Lun/Line/Apse & Bond Cycle

    A x 90 = 1828.451481 ‘….Perigee/Syzygy & Wave Cycle
    B x 92 = 1827.056726 ‘….Synodic & Wave Cycle
    C x 94 = 1825.723314 ‘
    D x 96 = 1824.447287 ‘….Metonic Lunar & Wave Cycle
    E x 98 = 1823.225017 ‘….Lunar Line of Apse & Wave Cycle

    Keying in this much data is risky business, I hope the math errors are nil.

  49. TLMango says:

    I thought the risk of error was high.
    correction: I called the nodal precession (18.6 years) the Lunar Line of Apse.
    I hope that I haven’t created confusion.

  50. E.M.Smith says:

    @Galloping Camel:

    You mean “It was a preposition you ended your sentence with.” don’t you?
    🙂

  51. Ian Wilson says:

    Rog,

    Why don’t you plot SOI strength (i.e. ONI index) with derivative of the (smoothed) SSN. From you plot I think you will find that strong positive ONI indices should be limited to values of the derivative of the (smooth) SSN that are close to zero.

  52. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian puts the word “(smooth)” in brackets, but it’s actually quite an important point. Even the type of smoothing matters (classic example: detecting cyclic volatility in daily LoD). It has to be a type of smoothing that preserves representation of the centrally limiting geometry …and you can’t (think nonlinear) do that without attention to seasonality (…so never mind all this “anomaly” stuff…) I’m going to redo the analysis with new methods I’ve been prototyping in excessively rare and grossly insufficient (consequence: what should take weeks takes years) free time.

  53. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul,

    I am not sure but this might be of some interest to you:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-015-2835-3

    The abstract ends with the words:

    “These results show that it is important to take into account the seasonality of climatic forcings, even when studying annual mean climate change.”

  54. Paul Vaughan says:

    For sure yes Ian it was published with open access just a few days ago and I mentioned it on Suggestions-14 immediately after spotting it yesterday in ce’s “Week in review – science edition” (which increasingly disappoints …with this exception at least).

    Some of the modelers are trying.

    Several commentators from wuwt & ce for sure should read some of the expositions in that paper which appear specifically catered to cleaning up “misunderstandings” & “misinterpretations” of polar versus tropical precession versus obliquity versus eccentricity misrepresentations pushed by wuwt community leaders.

    I’ll never forget the epic (and unchallenged) incorrect suggestion by wuwt elite that equatorial insolation peaks in June. It was such a gong show watching them try to ignorantly distort Milankovitch …and insolation more generally.

    Tip: wuwt cannot support the realistic attention to seasonality, nonlinearity, & nonuniformity because it directly undermines their sun-climate propaganda campaign. (The whole campaign rests on a few key false assumptions that fail ALL empirical diagnostics. Why they’ve been allowed to carry the campaign this far?… only something shady & sketchy — that much is for sure…) Wuwt has to deny Figure 1b in the paper as it (among other coffin nails) clarifies beyond all shadow of a doubt that their slimy, sleazy “0.1 deg C per solar cycle” narrative is physically impossible. These people are so f**king creepy I can’t help thinking they’ve been paid to wage the thought-policing campaign.

  55. tallbloke says:

    Paul,
    Give me links to the max insolation in June thing and I’ll blog it with a gauntlet thrown down if it’s as blatant as you say.

  56. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve linked to it before. You can probably locate it by searching the talkshop for something like:
    captdallas
    or
    captain dallas
    The commentary on that wuwt thread was ridiculous. A sensible person wouldn’t try correcting it. They’d rather walk away.

  57. Paul Vaughan says:

    I believe I’ve mentioned WE’s ridiculous equatorial June insolation gaffe elsewhere on the Talkshop before …but here’s a single example I’ve quickly located:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/scafetta-mazzarella-spectral-coherence-between-climate-oscillations-and-the-m-%e2%89%a5-7-earthquake-historical-worldwide-record/comment-page-1/#comment-97279

    See also:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/scafetta-mazzarella-spectral-coherence-between-climate-oscillations-and-the-m-%e2%89%a5-7-earthquake-historical-worldwide-record/comment-page-1/#comment-97033

    The comment just above the latter link is where we got onto the topic (captain dallas = captdallas graph).

    That’s a massive topic and there will never be time to say any more than 1 or 2% of what could be said.

  58. Paul Vaughan says:

    If you trace my comments in that thread you’ll end up linking to where captain dallas posted this:

    …to which WE responded:

    “I don’t find that at all. Here’s what I get:”

    WE added: “I just checked my figures, however, and I don’t see any error.”

    I seriously can’t even imagine how a person (supposedly with a clue about climate) would in the first place make such an error …and even more mysteriously fail to detect it when consciously (supposedly) double-checking.

    Like I said: Whoever writes that clown’s checks is the living definition of usable tool.

  59. Paul Vaughan says:

    2 key things to notice:
    1. “0 Peak” on captain dallas’ graph
    2. “Jun” on WE’s graph — burst out laughing when I first saw that jaw-droppingly beyond-ridiculous physical misconception — it’s hard to believe someone could even have that thought by accident — if the instinct is that f**ked up just get the clown off the stage. There are lots of sharper tools in the shed than the paymaster facilitating this equatorial insolation idiocy.

  60. Paul Vaughan says:

    Equatorial equinoctial season insolation exceeds equatorial solstitial season insolation:

    (Hopefully that doesn’t surprise anyone!)
    Note that anti-correlated max & min equatorial insolation follow the 100ka eccentricity cycle.

    Dominance rocks between vernal & autumnal equinoxes with the 21ka precession cycle:

    Note the analogous rocking between boreal & austral solstices.

    Perihelion is currently in January (meaning austral solstitial season insolation exceeds boreal solstitial season insolation), but EQUATORIAL insolation is still (OF COURSE!) greater in equinoctial seasons. (Duh!!!)

    There’s another way to graph all of this stuff in a single crystallizing image (…someday if/when time permits).

  61. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke (September 26, 2015 at 9:03 pm) suggested:

    “Paul,
    Give me links to the max insolation in June thing and I’ll blog it with a gauntlet thrown down if it’s as blatant as you say.”

    TB I would say it’s sufficient to simply (in a low-key manner on the sidelines) help people see the graphical doublespeak.

    If you look at WE’s most recent article it’s clear that they’re willing to graphically acknowledge the semi-annual equatorial cycle of solstices & equinoxes in the right-here right-now context. (There’s no way to hide from it in the here-&-now obviously.)

    …So the obvious question then is why the doublespeak??

    The answer is possibly the longer Milankovitch implications (as if the present is by some miraculously clever deceptive device mutually excluded). Perhaps they realize that acknowledging eccentricity & precession effects on the equatorial annual maximum exposes their “0.1” narrative as a bold con job.

    Does Richard Betts concede the differintegral structure implied by geometric axioms and the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum?

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/niv-shaviv-nice-one-the-sun-still-is/comment-page-1/#comment-106030

    If not Betts can at least recognize what’s mullerously wrong with WE’s feigned attempt to verify captain dallas’ 100ka “0 Peak” summary.

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    Update:
    In concept I’ve figured out how to illustrate the space-time wave of terrestrial insolation pattern changes tied to solar cycle deceleration (SCD) by direct analogy with Milankovitch insolation pattern space-time waves.

  63. oldbrew says:

    ‘Rhodes Fairbridge noted long ago that Alaskan and Siberian beach ridges expressed a bigger amplitude periodicity at ~360 years.’

    What Fairbridge said was:
    ‘An interesting link with planetary cycles exists at a triple ratio figure : 317.749 years (7 Uranus-Saturn laps/ 16 Saturn-Jupiter laps/ 17 lunar declination cycles). A storminess record in geomorphic (that is, physical) form is preserved in a “staircase” of 184 isostatically uplifted beach lines on Hudson Bay (Fairbridge and Hillaire-Marcel” 1977, Nature. Vol. 268), which date back to more than 8,000 years. Their extraordinary regularity is duplicated in other parts of the Arctic, which denies any theory of randomness in storminess cycles. Their mean periodicity is about 45 years, but secondary modulation appears at 111 years, 317 years, and longer intervals.’
    http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html

    As well as a ‘7 Uranus-Saturn laps/ 16 Saturn-Jupiter laps’ (= 23 Jupiter-Uranus i.e. 7+16), there’s this:
    291 Jupiter-Earth = 317.789y
    307 Saturn-Earth = 317.791y
    314 Uranus-Earth = 317.782y

    314-307 = 7 (S-U), 307-291 = 16 (J-S), 314-291 = 23 (J-U)

    That’s the ‘317 year’ periodicity in the beach ridges.