Nicola Scafetta: High resolution coherence analysis between planetary and climate oscillations

Posted: April 22, 2016 by oldbrew in climate, Cycles, methodology, research, solar system dynamics, Temperature
Tags: ,

Image credit: NASA

Image credit: NASA


Note from the author: I am sending you my new paper. It has been just published.

Scafetta, N.: High resolution coherence analysis between planetary and climate oscillations.
Advances in Space Research 57, 2121-2135, 2016.
DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2016.02.029

To help access and share the article, there is the following article link, which will provide free access to the article until June 9, 2016.
http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1SvYs~6OiTa4q

Abstract
This study investigates the existence of a multi-frequency spectral coherence between planetary and global surface temperature oscillations by using advanced techniques of coherence analysis and statistical significance tests. The performance of the standard Matlab mscohere algorithms is compared versus high resolution coherence analysis methodologies such as the canonical correlation analysis. The Matlab mscohere function highlights large coherence peaks at 20 and 60-year periods although, due to the shortness of the global surface temperature record (1850–2014), the statistical significance of the result depends on the specific window function adopted for preprocessing the data. In fact, window functions disrupt the low frequency component of the spectrum. On the contrary, using the canonical correlation analysis at least five coherent frequencies at the 95% significance level are found at the following periods: 6.6, 7.4, 14, 20 and 60 years. Thus, high resolution coherence analysis confirms that the climate system can be partially modulated by astronomical forces of gravitational, electromagnetic and solar origin. A possible chain of the physical causes explaining this coherence is briefly discussed.

Comments
  1. erl happ says:

    To understand climate change one must first comprehend that mid and high latitude weather is the product of change in the ozone content of the upper air. Gordon Dobson established back in the 1920’s that Total Column Ozone maps surface pressure.Specifically the core of a low pressure cell has about 40% more Total Column Ozone than the core of a high pressure cell. The former originates in high latitudes and the latter in low to mid latitudes. Ozone partial pressure is enhanced in winter when sun angles are low. Secondly, understand that ozone warms the atmosphere by absorbing long wave radiation from the Earth giving rises to marked differences in air density from 5 kilometres through to 17 kilometres in altitude (in the mid latitudes) that result in strong winds including the Jet Streams. Nodes in the jet stream propagate to the surface as polar cyclones that ring the Antarctic in the Southern Ocean on the margins of the continent. The circulation in the Antarctic is intense and the variation in the intensity of polar cyclone activity is the source of shifts in atmospheric mass across the globe that changes the planetary winds and cloud cover. A change in the source of the wind changes surface temperature as does a change in cloud cover.

    So, on an internal basis, climate change has two sources, the Antarctic stratosphere and that in the Arctic. The Antarctic varies on what appears to be a very long time scale if one is to judge from the 70 year decline in surface pressure in high southern latitudes that may have a 100 year descent in a total 200 year cycle length but it could easily be shorter or longer. The Arctic stratosphere imposes an irregular variation on shorter time scales within the longer amplitude global cycle imposed by the Antarctic. The irregularity of the Arctic cycle is a product of higher sensitivity to external stimuli due to the ozone richness of the northern stratosphere by comparison to to the southern stratosphere. But it is also derived from the fact that shifts in atmospheric mass from one hemisphere affect the other. So, Arctic surface pressure is greatly affected by the strength of polar cyclone activity in the Antarctic and to a lesser extent the Arctic stratosphere impacts Antarctic processes.

    The upshot is irregularity. There is no standard cycle length in the Arctic and in the short term the Arctic cycle is dominant over the entire globe. Irregularity rather than repeating cycles is the rule. There is no ‘standard’ cycle of any particular length. ‘Cyclo-mania’ is a product of our insecurity and the desire for a Quick Fix.

    There can be no predictability based on mathematical analysis of a system characterised by irregular modes of variation. First, understand how/why the internal system varies. Then, look at the mode of variation in the external forces that impact the internal system.

    There are as many patterns in the modes of climate variation as there are in the flowers that bloom in the spring.

  2. Dr Scafetta’s papers are always interesting and joy to read.

    In this one, I noted his reference to the link between the state of the heliosphere and solar perturbations resulting from planetary motion.

    This is interesting in the context of work on the interaction of variations in the heliosphere with changes in the heliosphere caused by texture of the LIC.

    Do the motions of the planets and the Sun modulate the impact of the local interstellar medium via?

    Dr. Scafetta’s longer wavelength cycles might be seen as high frequency cycles from the point of view of astrophysicists who study the movement of the solar system through a textured interstellar cloud, such as the Local Fluff.

    All of the following papers are available via Google Scholar by clicking “All x versions”.

    Schwadron, N. A., Adams, F. C., Christian, E. R., Desiati, P., Frisch, P., Funsten, H. O., … & Zank, G. P. (2014). Global anisotropies in TeV cosmic rays related to the sun’s local galactic environment from IBEX. Science, 343(6174), 988-990.

    Zank, Gary P.; FRISCH, Priscilla C. Consequences of a change in the galactic environment of the Sun. The Astrophysical Journal, 1999, 518.2: 965.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9901279.pdf

    SUNSHINE, CLOUDS AND COSMIC RAYS.
    E. Palle ´ Bago ´ and C.J. Butler
    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PalleBago.pdf

  3. oldbrew says:

    In Figure 1C the oscillations separated by 179/180 years e.g. 1850-2030 appear to be of the same order of magnitude i.e. the Jose cycle (9 times the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn).

    http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q923.html

  4. Paul Vaughan says:

    Corrupt (based on false geometric & spatiotemporal assumptions) CALIFORNIAN talking points:
    “Irregularity rather than repeating cycles is the rule. […] ‘Cyclo-mania’ is a product of our insecurity and the desire for a Quick Fix. […] There can be no predictability based on mathematical analysis of a system characterised by irregular modes of variation.”

    Misrepresentation.

    The prospects for systematic classification of spatiotemporal attractors are excellent. It’s nearly-virgin territory.

    A full theory of spatiotemporal chaotic attractors does not even exist yet (in the human world) and the accompanying exploratory algorithms haven’t yet been conceived, nevermind built.

    This idea that predicting a time-only mean is the only thing that matters is deliberately coercive political distortion. Dark agents on the corrupt american climate blogs misrepresent (by deliberately basing arguments on false geometric & spatiotemporal assumptions) to score cheap, underhanded political points.

    The first challenge is to discover and sort (e.g. equator-pole, pole-pole asymmetry, western boundary, etc.) classes of fluid statistics that are bounded in aggregate. The closest we have to container walls are things like continental margins and polar fronts, but they are still subject to fluid bursts so conceptually we’re in the realm of spatiotemporal volatility attractors (which should not be confused (and deliberately conflated for political purposes) with time-only means).

    __________________________________________

    I’m in the middle of a heavy period of paid work. When time permits I’ll be looking carefully at Scafetta’s new paper. It could be several days or more before I’m ready to comment.

  5. Paul Vaughan says:

    I have a strong grievance with this excerpt from Scafetta (2016):

    “[…] the segment length should not scale with the frequency as required by the wavelet algorithm.”

    I get quite annoyed when I keep seeing this CULTURAL notion.
    There is NO LOGICAL REQUIREMENT to lock grain & extent. That’s cultural and frankly it’s TOTALLY ridiculous and unacceptably beyond exasperating that people insist on such narrow-mindedness. Someone did it that way way-back whenever and then in sheep-like fashion there has been a parade of thoughtless following. Limiting exploration to such an ARBITRARILY restricted FRACTION of volatility space is mindless. Is it ignorance &/or deception? Yes, without doubt.

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    I should probably remind people AGAIN that GENERALIZED wavelet methods SUBSUME Fourier methods. Fourier methods are JUST A SPECIAL CASE of generalized wavelet methods.

    Mainstream conventional notions of wavelets somehow got culturally narrowed (via ignorance &/or deception) to a SUBSET of GENERALIZED wavelet methods.

    When people talk about Fourier analysis, they’re talking about a wavelet analysis with some of the parameters arbitrarily locked rather than allowed to vary. In the climate discussion this is done DELIBERATELY to NARROWLY FRAME discussion. It’s an elite trick to box dull minds into a deliberately restricted logic. IT’S UNETHICAL.

  7. So there is some truth in Astrology and Horoscopes after all!

    Earlier this week I gave a research seminar entitled “Climate Change- Settled Science?”
    Got a real laugh when I said that “if Jupiter enters Uranus things can get very nasty”.
    PS
    The audience were mainly “consensus” supporters, but by the time I had finished, they were a lot less sure!

  8. TLMango says:

    It is so good to hear from you Dr Scafetta! It was your great work
    that gave me an appreciation for the solar system. The solar system
    really is a symphony. God’s music.

    Your MEM peaks are at ~20.3 and ~60.9 years.
    What is your opinion on my theory that the sun’s outwardly directed acceleration
    has a ~60.9 year rotation cycle? (along with an 114 year cycle)

    Write more papers and don’t stay away so long.

  9. EGU2016 : Relax …. Michele, Antonio and Nicola

    Antonio Bianchini poster :
    http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-9861.pdf

  10. Bud Roberts says:

    The maths involved point to a possible predictability that is far more intuitively acceptable than any of the climate models are able to produce. This is especially true when considering those models ability to back cast known conditions.

  11. Roger,
    thank you for the post.

    Michele prepared a nice poster.

    Frederick suggested us to consider two interesting papers.

    About the comments from Paul, I could not fully understand them, but my sentence that he cites must be understood within the contest of my paper.

    I do agree that there is some abuse of using wavelet analysis as if they were “superior” to spectral analysis. This is not correct. The techniques must be used and interpreted correctly.

  12. ren says:

    Michele Casati I’m not a scientist, so let me intuition. I think that for the solar activity is important if Jupiter and Saturn come close to each other or move away. Of particular importance may be concurrence conjunction or opposition of the maximum or minimum solar activity.

  13. ren says:

    For example, please see the position of Jupiter and Saturn in September 2011.
    http://www.solarsystemscope.com/

  14. J.Seifert says:

    The GISP2 ice cores show a perfect 61.6- year cycle in the temp evolution over
    10,000 years. This perfect timing MUST therefore be based on astronomical causes,
    i.e solar and planetary interaction. Regretfully, talking about a ~60-year cycle, thus variable,
    by lets say 5 years more or less, is a giveaway to the PDO- and AMO-ocean cycles folks,
    which continue to claim that the ocean currents do the warming and cooling in a ~60-year rythm
    without cyclic solar and planetary forcing.
    I will present a specific paper on the solar mechanics for this 61.6-year cycle, early next year. JS.

  15. erl happ says:

    Conclusion of this weeks post at: https://reality348.wordpress.com/

    Climate change is due to a systematic change in the synoptic situation due to change in the ozone content of the weather-sphere. It manifests as shifts in atmospheric mass, a change in the origin of the wind and associated changes in cloud cover. Change manifests most obviously as volatility in surface temperature in January (the Arctic winter) and July (the Antarctic winter). The Antarctic drives the long swell of change with an interval of perhaps 100 years, but only in the context of recent experience, while the Arctic delivers the surface chop over the bulk of the planet northwards of 30° south latitude.

    Because climate change manifests quite differently in each hemisphere and is most severe in winter a global temperature statistic averaged across the year, like any average, but much worse in this case, conceals the dynamic of change. Average global temperature is not a statistic that can reveal the origin of climate change.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    Clarification:

    I’m distinguishing between conventional wavelet methods and generalized wavelet methods.

    The former are not sufficiently generalized to subsume conventional spectral analysis, whereas conventional spectral analysis is just a special case of the latter.

    Generalized wavelet methods are NOT conventional wavelet methods. Rather, generalized wavelet methods are an infinitely broader class of methods that subsumes ALL types of spectral analysis.

    Conventional wavelet methods are a very narrow subset of generalized wavelet methods. It’s puzzling that mainstream explorers place such an arbitrary restriction on their vision, narrowing it haphazardly to a finite subset of the infinite set of possibilities.

    Probably it stems in part from human instinct to reduce an infinite set of possibilities to a perceived-more-manageable subset, but any automated method of such (assumption-based) reduction comes at a cost and different reduction paradigms come with different costs.

    Certainly I’m aware of no generalized wavelet analysis package that runs in finite time. A fully generalized spatiotemporal wavelet analysis demands infinite computing time and so in practice developers make choices to restrict the field of exploration so that algorithms can run in finite time.

    It is a GOOD sign that the only comment I have on Scafetta (2016) is a philosophical aside stimulated by a tiny technical excerpt from the paper.

    Like other Talkshop contributors I always look forward to Nicola’s contributions.

    For example I would be delighted to see what Nicola could do with time to explore climate spatiotemporally.

    That of course is ambitious, as the needed software does not yet exist. It has scarcely even been conceived by leading thinkers. Whoever pursues the path carefully may need nearly total freedom from other responsibilities.

    Imagine human vision revolutionized by orders of magnitude beyond the tunnel vision of today’s methods. Let’s set the bar infinitely high and never submit to the deliberately false base assumptions of elite pawns attempting to artificially restrict discussion to a manageable subset of possible visions (intended to box discussion into artificially restricted, tailor-engineered “logics”).

    Regards

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    Erl, please help us understand your vision.

    How does your vision of ozone cause polar motion (the water cycle) and the QBO to have cyclic components?

    And do you also see ozone as central in cyclical rainfall-band migration with precession?

    What differing vision (if any) do you have of ozone centrality on Earths with different geography (land-ocean distribution)?

    I would be curious to know how you think ozone’s influence would change if we closed Drake Passage, opened the Isthmus of Panama, revived the Tethys Sea, or made MUCH more radical modifications.

    What would happen with your vision of ozone if the entire northern or eastern hemisphere was land and the entire southern or western hemisphere was ocean?

    I’m wondering how much of your vision of ozone centrality depends on land-sea distribution.

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    2 more questions Erl:

    What do you envision as causing annual cycles of ozone concentration?

    If we took away all of the ozone (and prevented more from developing), would Earth’s climate change in your vision if we changed land-sea distribution radically?

    Regards

  19. ren says:

    Is a wave in the stratosphere over the polar circle is related to solar activity?

    http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/realtime/southpole.html

  20. ren says:

    Is the wave in the stratosphere causes changes in pressure over the polar circle and distorts the polar vortex?

    How does it look to the north?

  21. ren says:

    This high pressure in the Arctic (low to lower latitudes) is a big waste heat into space.

  22. Brett Keane says:

    We are getting our first wintry southerly storm here over all New Zealand.

  23. erl happ says:

    Paul,
    I can be a lot more focussed if you comment on particular chapters in my blog. Secondly, you have to do some homework by reading up on the ‘annular modes’ of inter-annual climate variation. JM Wallace Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington is pre-eminent in climate science.

    Some interesting speculations.

    A preparatory statement. Surface temperature depends on where the air is coming from and secondly, cloud cover. It is not currently realized that ozone drives variations in both. In fact, the associations are known but which is cart and which horse is in question. It should not be in question. At the root of the problem is the failure to realize the potency of ozone as a greenhouse gas and secondarily, its role in heating the atmosphere above 6km in elevation in the mid latitudes, well inside what we define as ‘the troposphere’.

    Q. How does your vision of ozone cause polar motion (the water cycle) and the QBO to have cyclic components?
    A. Re the QBO I have nothing to offer. Not sure what you mean by ‘polar motion’. ‘Water cycle’ is a broad topic and well covered in the literature.

    Q. And do you also see ozone as central in cyclical rainfall-band migration with precession?
    A. ‘Precession’. Not sure what that refers to.
    Rainfall band migration is something that I am very familiar with because I live at 33°S where the southward migration of the fronts in winter has involved a 20% reduction in winter rainfall. It relates to falling surface pressure at 60-70° south and rising pressure at 33°S latitude. High pressure in the mid latitudes is related to clear skies and dry air. Paradoxically, because of the increase in the CO2 content of the air these semi arid winter rainfall zones are ‘greening’ despite the reduced availability of moisture.
    This is a ‘transfer of atmospheric mass phenomenon that is well covered in the literature relating to the ‘annular modes’ as described by Wallace http://research.jisao.washington.edu/wallace/ncar_notes/ and here by Thompson: http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ao/

    My contribution is this: The effect of an increase in surface pressure that is associated with an increase in GPH and episodic warming at the surface is ozone and cloud cover related: https://reality348.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/3-how-the-earth-warms-and-cools-naturally/

    Q. What differing vision (if any) do you have of ozone centrality on Earth with different geography (land-ocean distribution)?
    A. The distribution of land and sea determines that the Antarctic circulation is dominant in regulating the partial pressure of ozone in the global atmosphere. This is much more influential than the flux in very short wave radiation from the sun on all time scales.
    Ozone is central to the synoptic situation on all time scales because it’s responsible for the differential heating of the air in the weather-sphere that in term determines the circulation of the air globally as explained in my latest post. The ‘troposphere’ is not the weather-sphere. The weather sphere is that part of the atmosphere where heterogeneity in atmospheric density drives the movement of the air. It cuts in at about 6km of elevation in the mid latitudes and at lower altitudes towards the poles.
    There is a notion that the global circulation is driven from the tropics. Nonsense. It’s driven by ozone heating of the atmosphere near the poles via the interception of infared radiation from the Earth itself at 9-10um. The energy that drives that heating is available 24/7/365 at all elevations.It’s efficiency depends on surface pressure. So the process is many times more efficient at 600 hPa than 60 hPa.

    Q. I would be curious to know how you think ozone’s influence would change if we closed Drake Passage, opened the Isthmus of Panama, revived the Tethys Sea, or made MUCH more radical modifications.
    A. No difference at all given the digging and lifting power of the machines that we have available. We have been digging Australia up and transporting it to China for decades.

    Q. What would happen with your vision of ozone if the entire northern or eastern hemisphere was land and the entire southern or western hemisphere was ocean?
    A. If the entire northern hemisphere were to be land than we would have an accentuation of the dominance of the southern hemisphere in determining the ozone content of the weather-sphere.
    The influence of the Antarctic depends to a considerable extent upon the fact that the land mass surrounds the pole and that it does not extend too far north wards, and that the southern continents by and large occupy the mid and low latitudes rather than the high latitudes.

    The current distribution of land and sea in the northern hemisphere ensures that the North Pacific is the dominant node for ozone accumulation in winter. Its so dominant that it creates a lopsided circulation that has an entirely different circulatory dynamic to that in the southern hemisphere. Mesospheric air descends over Siberia rather than the Arctic. Changes in the circulation affect China first, the canary in the climate change coal mine.There, I read, its been cooling for 30 years.

    Q. I’m wondering how much of your vision of ozone centrality depends on land-sea distribution.
    A. Ozone would still play its central role regardless of the distribution of land and sea. It’s central to the generation of the planetary winds because it causes the differential heating of the air due to the fact that this particular greenhouse gas is unequally distributed in the horizontal and vertical domain.

    Q. What do you envision as causing annual cycles of ozone concentration?
    1. Photolysis of ozone depends upon the length of the atmospheric path so high latitudes are to some extent exempt and particularly so in winter.
    2. The mesosphere is cool because it lacks ozone. Mesospheric air is drawn in over the poles in winter and mixed into the stratosphere diluting the partial pressure of ozone. This is more vigorous in the southern hemisphere due to the distribution of land and sea. High surface pressure in winter is a land based phenomenon. Low surface pressure is found over the sea. High pressure is associated with intake of air from the mesosphere. Low surface pressure is due to the presence of ozone in the atmosphere driving the formation of polar cyclones….the Jet stream aloft.

    Q. If we took away all of the ozone (and prevented more from developing), would Earth’s climate change in your vision if we changed land-sea distribution radically?
    A. If ozone were to be totally removed the air would become more quiescent. The transfer of heat from the equator towards the poles would be a slower process. The Arctic Oscillation would disappear. Inter-annual and longer time period variability in climate would be much reduced. We would be left with Milankovich cycles, land and sea breezes and monsoons. There would be no polar cyclones, no jet streams and a very different sort of interaction between cold dry air and warm wet air in the mid latitudes.
    The current distribution of land and sea determines that the annual range of temperature is much greater in the northern hemisphere than the southern. Removing ozone would not change that.
    Change the distribution of land and sea in an ozone free environment would not produce the variability in climate that we enjoy in an atmosphere that contains ozone.

  24. Brett Keane says:

    @73.91° S, 120.83° E it shows -70C – that is real cool, as they say. But not if one is there. Mesosphere for Erl?

  25. Brett Keane says:

    Hmmm- it gets warmer all the way down to 1000hPa, then the surface drops to 10hPa Temp. Strange that…

  26. erl happ says:

    Brett. High surface pressure over Antarctica is the low AAO state as seen here: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.aao.shtml

    As Ren is pointing out its also a high surface pressure state over the Arctic as seen in his null school diagram and also here: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml

    Surface pressure is inversely related to the AO and AAO indices.

    High surface pressure increases the rate of descent bringing ozone rich air towards the surface causing GPH to increase below 100hPa as indicated in Rens diagrams showing GPH anomalies.

    There is certainly a lot of very cold air over Antarctica at the moment. http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-0.16,268.69,410/loc=-62.809,-58.643

  27. erl happ says:

    Brett, re ‘Strange that…’

    The air above the Antarctic continent is always warmer than the surface. At 500hPa there is a polar cyclone directly above that very cold point where the surface temperature is -70°C pulling in and accumulating air from the surface with a near zero central wind speed. At 700 hPa it meets air at -50°C and the start of an obvious ascending spiral. At 250hPa the core of that circulation is warm and its a very much expanded affair. That is where the uplift is generated.

    The air above the surface is a product of mixing processes involving some descent, and some ascent. The air at the surface is cooled by the ice that receives very little isolation from the sun In terms of radiation, energy out always exceeds energy in.

    So, to get the very cold temperatures associated with a direct flow of mesospheric air it assists if the point of descent is well separated from ascending columns of warm air. When the air near lake Baikal hits minus 70°C that would likely be the case.

  28. Brett Keane says:

    Very good, Erl. Working in SH time, we could make this a 24hr blog without losing sleep! Now I’ve followed a funnel down for myself, I can see the possibilities; it’s a start. There are still the -90C high altitude zones, and the snow into sand explorer killer episodes on S polar routes to sort. Anyway your thoughts on where the uplift mixing starts are very helpful in teasing out the possible mechanics of it, hopefully. Not very intuitive stuff.
    The possible linkages between SSW ozone and solar bursts re Ren et al is something else to study too. Ren states, IIRC, that the S magnetic Pole focuses decending air from on high, and GCR I think.

  29. erl happ says:

    Re your 5.56 comment relating to exhausting tropical heat to space. See this: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201603

    In the atmosphere, 500-millibar height pressure anomalies correlate well with temperatures at the Earth’s surface. The average position of the upper-level ridges of high pressure and troughs of low pressure—depicted by positive and negative 500-millibar height anomalies on the March 2016 —is generally reflected by areas of positive and negative temperature anomalies at the surface, respectively.

  30. erl happ says:

    Ren, do the anomalously low geopotential height zones in this map correspond with areas exhibiting negative sea surface temperature anomalies? If so, you can conclude that a cold dense troposphere has more cloud allowing less solar radiation to reach the surface. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/hgtanomaly-global/201603.gif

  31. ren says:

    Brett Keane
    Because coronal holes speed of the solar wind has recently increased. Now, however, the solar wind weakens again. The next wave in the stratosphere in the south in a matter of weeks.
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=04&startyear=2016&starttime=00%3A00&endday=23&endmonth=04&endyear=2016&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

  32. ren says:

    Earl and Brett should be paid attention to the anomalies of the zonal wind. When the solar wind weakens, weaker zonal winds in the stratosphere.

    You can see that the anomaly in the stratosphere is ahead anomalies in the troposphere.

  33. ren says:

    At the same time the temperature in the stratosphere over the poles falls. Conclusion: waves in the stratosphere, are not associated with an increase in temperature.
    Time-series representation of temperatures at the 10-hPa level over the South Pole
    The black line shows daily temperatures, and the gray line indicates the normal (i.e., the 1981 – 2010 average).

  34. ren says:

    The increase in temperature at the poles is secondary to the waves in the stratosphere.

  35. ren says:

    Brett, blocking polar vortex is visible over the Indian Ocean.

  36. erl happ says:

    Ren
    at 5.56 to Brett. Are you using the neutron monitor as a proxy for the solar wind? Its really just a proxy for the temperature of the upper stratosphere over the pole. The temperature is a function of surface pressure. If surface pressure falls away it slows the flow of air from the mesosphere raising the temperature.

    Re 8.25 I say that stronger zonal wind above 10hPa between 50° of latitude and the pole should correspond with a stronger flow of air from the mesosphere into the stratosphere and higher polar pressure.

    You say weaker zonal wind ( and higher temperatures in the stratosphere) is associated with a slower solar wind. We agree but have you got data to back that up?

    This paper from January 2016 provides an answer in terms of correlations. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2015JA022104/full

    Our results show a statistically significant relationship between the ULF wave powers and both T and U reanalysis data at altitudes below ~4–5 km (in the troposphere) and above ~8–9 km (in the stratosphere) near to Terra Nova Bay, especially at the 27 day solar synodic rotation period and subharmonics, while around the tropopause(h ~7–8 km) we do not find any significant relation. Moreover, zonal mean U and T fluctuations at the different altitudes are compared with geomagnetic Ultra Low Frequency activity at Terra Nova Bay, and with the polar cap potential difference Φcap,in the geographical latitude range 60–90°S; the results show that ULF activity is highly related to T and U in the polar region up to ~60°S and in the troposphere (h < 5–7 km).

    ULF relates to geomagnetic activity
    U relates to zonal wind.

    The authors have no idea as to how the response occurs. They say:
    Energetic electron precipitation occurring at high latitudes is associated with geomagnetic ULF (1 mHz–1Hz)waves activity.

    Also:
    Recently, Francia et al. [2015] found signatures of ULF geomagnetic activity in the surface air temperature atTerra Nova Bay (TNB, geographical coordinates 74.7°S, 164.1°E); the pulsation power and air temperature appeared significantly correlated, with the air temperature delayed by a few days.

    Perhaps Paul could have a look because its his field of analysis and tell me which way it works.

  37. ren says:

    Erl happ

  38. ren says:

    With such a low solar activity index AAO will not increase.

  39. ren says:

    Over the North Pole also pressure will remain high.

  40. @Nicola,
    It is highly encouraging to find that “Consensus Scientists” have not silenced you. Two weeks from now I will be teaching in North Carolina. Too bad I won’t have the pleasure of meeting you for coffee at Barnes & Noble.

  41. Geoff Sharp says:

    Interesting that Nicola references McCraken 2014 instead of Sharp 2013.

  42. ren says:

    Annual rate of change of declination for 2015.0 to 2020.0 from the World Magnetic Model (WMM2015). Red –easterly change, blue – westerly change, green – zero change. Contour interval is 2’/year (1/30th of a degree), white star is location of a magnetic pole and projection is Mercator

  43. tallbloke says:

    Nicola, well done. I finally have a day off work, and looking at the paper, I think this is an important result. It’s good that Sverre Holm has done analysis, and that you have successfully rebutted his critique. This is how science properly proceeds.

    Much better than the suppression and slander from Rasmussen, Eschenbach and Watts.

  44. TLMango says:

    From abstract of “Phase correlation between the 20 and 60 ……….” :

    “… the 20 year harmonic velocity and angular momentum components
    of the solar motion are much larger than those of the 60 year: this
    suggests that if the found spectral coherence is physical, alternative
    mechanisms of gravitational or electromagnetic origin may be involved
    in the process.”

    I’m a recent convert to the elecrtric universe theory. But… for the sake of
    argument we need to set aside the gravitational / electromagnetic origin
    and first take a much closer look at barycentrism.

    It is a fact that the sun’s motion around the center of mass ‘is’ dictated by
    it’s satellites. This fact has lulled many into believing that the planets have
    much more power over the sun than they actually have. Our solar system
    is a somewhat isolated vacuum and… absent of a greater force
    (electromagnetic excluded), the sun has no choice but to maintain perfect
    synchronicity with it’s satellites. Even humongous Jupiter is 1000 times less
    massive than the sun. Within our solar system there is only the sun and the
    angular momentum of the dust particles that shape it’s motion.

    If an outside force were to come along (let’s say electromagnetic) that is greater
    than that of planetary influence, we could be in for a world of hurt. Maybe
    90,000 years of hurt?

  45. TLMango says:

    No matter how weak a force is, if it’s the only force than it is
    all powerful. This is how I see planetary influence. Until the
    synchronization between the sun and it’s satellites gets disrupted,
    the cycles of the planets are official solar cycles. And when that
    day comes that the sun breaks it’s covenant there won’t be anything
    the planets can do to stop it.

    This is also true on a galactic level. Gravity is a function of both mass
    and distance, so there is scientific consensus that the gravitational force
    of nearby solar systems is inconsequential. I disagree, the only force
    present could never be inconsequential.

    I’ve been trying to sell my theory that the sun has a side-to-side motion.
    That the earth/moon system is caught up between two opposing gravitational
    forces. Once when the sun moves away from the galactic center and
    a second time when it returns. And this would be when the cycles of the
    sun would be transferred to the earth/moon system.

  46. ulriclyons says:

    Roger, let Nicola take a look at my planetary sunspot cycle model on Alcyone or TheSky. It readily plots which sunspot cycles are weaker in each Minimum, which a regular cycle cannot do as they occur at irregular intervals, i.e Dalton from SC5, Gleissberg from SC12, and this Minimum from SC24. It also makes sense out where each sunspot maximum happens. With the general rule of the Earth-Venus syzygies towards Uranus around maximum in stronger sunspot cycles, until they slip out of sync, and Earth-Venus syzygies are then are towards Neptune around sunspot maximum for how ever many weaker cycles that the Solar Minimum is, until the Jupiter-Earth-Venus triplet can regain sync with Uranus. With the regular sunspot cycles, Jupiter alternates from between being in quadrature and in syzygy with Uranus from cycle to cycle. In the weak sunspot cycles, the return Earth-Venus syzygies with Neptune are faster than with Uranus in the regular cycles, as Neptune orbits slower, this results in some of the shortest max-to-max cycles occurring in Solar Minima, the Maunder Minimum has a pair. Being able to place to the precise placement of past Solar Minima has been critical in my weather and climate investigations.

  47. ren says:

    The stronger the magnetic field, the larger the magnetosphere. Some 20,000 times stronger than Earth’s magnetic field, Jupiter’s magnetic field creates a magnetosphere so large it begins to avert the solar wind almost 3 million kilometers before it reaches Jupiter. The magnetosphere extends so far past Jupiter it sweeps the solar wind as far as the orbit of Saturn.
    Like Earth’s magnetosphere, many of the charged particles trapped in Jupiter’s magnetosphere come from the solar wind; however, Jupiter has an extra source of particles that other planets do not have. Jupiter’s volcanically active moon, Io, provides a substantial portion of charged particles to Jupiter’s magnetosphere.

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/giantplanets_magnetospheres.php

  48. ren says:

    Such is the position of Jupiter and Saturn at the start of solar cycle 25.

  49. ren says:

    The effect will be strongest with the outer planets
    (Jupiter onwards), while it is likely by the time effect
    reaches 1AU (Earth), possibly drops to negligible
    values. It is also obvious that the outer regions of the
    Jupiter’s magnetosphere (which extends up to 10 AU,
    as far as Saturn’s orbit) may have significant effect on
    the contribution to its own feedback.
    It has been recently discovered that this particular area
    is prone to incursion by strong of cosmic rays and does
    not abruptly stop at the termination shock but most
    likely extend much closer to the centre of the solar
    system, which again may significant effect on the
    possible feedback as the major magnetospheres enter
    the area.
    Existence of this inhomogeneous area of the
    heliosphere, may be reason for inability to precisely
    define SSN extremities to spatial Jupiter- Saturn
    relationship.
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarcurrent.pdf

  50. ren says:

    Let us note that when Jupiter and Saturn have begun to move away from each other approach each other, there was an increase in solar field.

  51. ren says:

    Sorry. It should be, they started to approach each other.

  52. tallbloke says:

    TLM: first take a much closer look at barycentrism. It is a fact that the sun’s motion around the center of mass ‘is’ dictated by it’s satellites.

    Not only around it, but up and down through it. But It’s not the barycentre that matters; (barycentrism is a stupid word confected by those who wish to dismiss the effects of planetary motion on the Sun),The important factor, is that the outer planets remain above or below the solar equator for many years at a time.

    Ulric: I think you need to devise an alignment index, similar to that designed by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins and later by Ching Cheh Hung for JEV, that can then be compared with solar records to demonstrate a correlation.

  53. ulriclyons says:

    “I think you need to devise an alignment index [..] to demonstrate a correlation.”

    I don’t.

  54. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB wrote: “Ulric: I think you need to devise an alignment index, similar to that designed by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins and later by Ching Cheh Hung for JEV, that can then be compared with solar records to demonstrate a correlation.”

    TB’s correct, since as it is framed, most will just glaze over and skim & skip the paragraph, BUT I hasten to add that I do NOT see that as a fault of Ulric. It’s his choice that I respect.

    Would I prefer that Ulric present indices rather than paragraphs? Yes, BUT on a higher (less selfish) ethical level I respect his choice. Can we say he is wrong if we don’t bother to decipher his paragraphs? No. Can he expect us to decipher his paragraphs? No, but he is free to provide us with the option to do so and to hope we might.

    Simple quantitative metrics could be developed for ALL of Ulric’s qualitative descriptions. Recall that some time back I did quantify a few. On the other hand I do respect that Ulric is a volunteer. I respect his choice of how to present and I despise cookie-cutter administrative types of red tape paradigms that suggest 1+1=2 only if framed in a certain way.

    The JEV index (middle-panel) is simpler than Desmoulins’s & Hung’s indices:

    It’s dead-easy to calculate.

    RJ Salvador could find an optimal index for an amplitude match with his methods, but I know that more advanced methods are needed to nail the cycle length variations and spatial dimensions (can’t be ignored with flow on a nonuniform geoid). However, we can’t expect RJ to quantitatively index Urlic’s qualitative expositions.

    Also remember Volker Doorman. He quantified lots of stuff, but everyone mostly ignored his indices. Perhaps there was an important lesson about the geometry in his notes that we all missed. (I never had time.)

    But that’s ok. Someone else will rediscover it someday and meanwhile we have time for life because we were wise enough not to squander it on unnecessary communication.

    Wants and needs.
    We can put efficient understanding in the “it’d be nice” category.
    It’s a want, but it’s not a need.

    Simply asserting devoutly “It’s the sun” is more powerful than any administrative reframing. The people most likely to show appreciation & respect to the sun are probably artsy and nature-loving types of people, not stuffy conservatives. If there’s to be an obsession with framing to reach a reachable audience, I can suggest it would be more productively focused on crowds with open minds than wasted on crowds with closed minds.

    The line that divides groups OPEN to the truth and CLOSED to the truth FOR SURE is not a political-party dividing-line and this could well explain why some camps are SO eager to keep the sun’s light OUT of their venues.

    I think there’s something artistic about the way Ulric communicates his observations. I don’t need to exert effort to follow it logically in order to appreciate it aesthetically.

    We need to take it to a higher level and part of that is to just present visions alongside one another IN HARMONY WITHOUT ARGUING with one another. We can just work on the assumption that we may be misunderstanding one another, not get angry about it, and just be sensible and cordial (in parallel sometimes).

    We’re due for a rethink. Some of the old ways of bickering and arguing in climate discussion are just a totally and completely stupid waste of time. And of course belief-policing like at wuwt should be brutally, harshly, and intolerantly banned. It’s wrong. It’s so over-the-top unethical. It deserves NO tolerance whatsoever. The presumption that you’re going to tell people what to think and even force them is just intolerably offensive. This type of underhandedly manipulative mindset is just begging to be shut down with an incisive correction.

    I welcome a vision where a multitude of competing visions just fall on the page adjacent to one another in harmony. I envision a flow of ideas where there are no perceived contradictions, rather only minds OPEN enough to acknowledge that at some level of higher exploration where our drive to reach beyond the limits of our abilities is so strong that our minds completely open to the possibility that that which we explore is so multifaceted that that which we each see from different angles is not in contradiction but rather simply different vision from different perspective and that all genuine efforts to communicate in such a context NECESSARILY entail misunderstandings.

    Down with the stupid bickering and arguing!!

    We have to be larger than obstruction, with minds so wide open that we are above & beyond all that and it doesn’t bother us.

    Belief-cops: Here’s the door. Get the f**k out!! kind of thing

    The discussion at other venues isn’t healthy. It’s negative. There’s excessive bickering. That’s not going anywhere positive. It’s a totally unhealthy waste of time. It’s death & decay.

    To keep fruitful discussion alive it must survive in GOOD health with a multitude of CORDIAL voices.
    What is the best way to moderate a climate discussion?
    Currently TB is the best discussion moderator in the climate discussion, but I envision a set of blog commentary rules that would completely eliminate bickering while at the same time increasing the number of OPEN-minded intelligent contributors.
    It’s doable.
    I think we just haven’t taken the time to craft that set of guidelines. A core principle I would suggest is that everyone MUST be free of harassment of any form. No OPEN-MINDED contributor can be told they’re wrong, but competing OPEN-MINDED visions can be put alongside. I might even consider banning negative responses and only allowing positive ones because discord UNDERMINES EFFICIENCY.
    Red tape admin type people: NOT ALLOWED IN THE ROOM. Period! Their game is discord.
    Well, maybe that’s enough to get some brainstorming rolling on a set of guidelines for creatively diversifying visionary efficiency while mercilessly and decisively crushing heinously rude belief-policing.

    We’ll always have serious difficulty attracting and retaining good people if there’s always discord and arguing. They’ll just leave. Allowing too much discord is self-sabotaging.

    This comment doesn’t really follow from the quote I started with. I’m an opportunist. No offense intended.

    Talkshop is #1.

    Last thought: the spatial dimensions on Earth. Even here at the talkshop where minds are open, they get ignored. Ignorance of the spatial dimensions (as if a time-only approach to circulation on Earth is adequate) is a BIG problem in climate discussion.

    Would LOVE to see Nicola do some spatiotemporal climate exploration to next-level his legacy.

    Cheers!

  55. tallbloke says:

    Ulric said: “Roger, let Nicola take a look at my planetary sunspot cycle model”

    But there is no model to look at. There is as Paul said a paragraph of qualitative descriptions.

    Ulric has provided a curt two word response to my recommendation (at least it wasn’t foxtrot oscar this time), which was given as friendly advice rather than criticism. But that’s fine. I’ll put as much effort into looking at his ‘model’ as he puts into friendly interaction with the talkshop.

  56. ulriclyons says:

    “But there is no model to look at. There is as Paul said a paragraph of qualitative descriptions.”

    There is a model, and you could have shown Nicola the geometric correlations that I have already shown you without the need for an alignment index, if you have remembered them. I don’t think it needs an alignment index as with Ching Cheh Hung as the bulk of it consists of syzygies and quadratures. The key variable is the Ea-Ve syzygies falling out of sync with Uranus. I could develop a non-alignment index for that, but you don’t require it first to test anything, just look for yourselves at the degree of slip that actually occurred at the onset of Maunder, Dalton, Gleissberg, and SC24.

  57. tallbloke says:

    Ulric: you could have shown Nicola the geometric correlations that I have already shown you without the need for an alignment index, if you have remembered them.

    Maybe they were lost in a blizzard of email which didn’t end well. Put everything together in one place in a coherent article, in word (or open office) format, and I’ll happily post it for discussion.

  58. Paul Vaughan says:

    We’re all capable of ignorance.
    If there’s a word-puzzle I’ll skip it even if it answers mysteries of the universe.

    Of course there are others who may love word-puzzles.
    They can race by to the holy grail while my aesthetic taste rejects framing.

    Some demand words to go with pictures and others demand pictures without words.
    There’s no right or wrong — only preferences and culture.

    The most offensive culture insists 1+1=2 only if the framing is red tape.

  59. TLMango says:

    Hey there ren,
    “Let us note that when Jupiter and Saturn started to approach
    each other, there was an increase in solar field.”

    Definitely! The time period between Jupiter/Saturn opposition
    and J/S alignment also happens to be the ~9.929 year acceleration
    period for the Sun.

    There are times when Jupiter is moving away from the Sun toward
    it’s aphelion and the Sun is accelerating in the opposite direction.
    There are times when Jupiter is accelerating toward it’s perihelion
    and the Sun is be accelerating in the same or opposite direction.
    Throw Saturn into the mix and things get really complicated.

    Being aware of all this, we begin to see just how important the direction
    of the Sun’s acceleration really is.

  60. TLMango says:

    Hey Rog,
    Can you tell I’m from Detroit.
    We be accelerating.
    Would you fix that for me.
    ‘is be’ = “is”

  61. oldbrew says:

    From about 2022 to 2033 Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune will be in the same ‘quadrant’ re the Sun.

    This configuration is relatively rare so the consequences could be interesting.

  62. TLMango says:

    Thanks OB for the correction,

    In my research I have struggled to convince others just how
    important the direction of the sun’s acceleration really is.
    All of my previous posts have the same underlying theme:
    ‘eccentricity trumps alignment’.

    Where there is eccentricity there is acceleration.
    This is why the short Hallstatt (2208 yrs) has all the punch and
    the long cycle (2313 yrs) does not. The sun reverses the direction
    of it’s acceleration every 441.6 years (441.6 x 5 = 2208 yrs).

    Every 4627 years the four giants line up on the same side opposing
    the sun. This is when the sun’s distance from the center of mass is at
    it’s greatest. But… not all of these 4627 year cycles are equal. Each
    big alignment occurs at a different location that rotates relative to the
    stars and relative to the aphelions of the four giants. The absolute
    greatest distance is accomplished when the big alignment occurs
    while the giants are nearest to their aphelions.

    When we compare the short Hallstatt (2208 yrs) with the long cycle
    (2313 yrs), we are comparing two very different kinds of physical
    mechanisms. The long cycle is an expression of the planets influence
    on the sun. The short cycle is an expression of the sun’s momentum
    influencing the planets.

    Please look at my graphs at weathercycles.wordpress
    especially the 12 frames indicating the motion of the sun

  63. oldbrew says:

    TLM: ‘The sun reverses the direction of it’s acceleration every 441.6 years ‘

    That period = 15 Saturn orbits with NASA/JPL’s Seidelmann data [see note B]
    http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par

    It’s also about a quarter of 89 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions (= 149 Jupiter orbits, and 149-89 = 60 Saturn = 15 x 4).

  64. Roger said:

    “Nicola, well done. I finally have a day off work, and looking at the paper, I think this is an important result. It’s good that Sverre Holm has done analysis, and that you have successfully rebutted his critique. This is how science properly proceeds. Much better than the suppression and slander from Rasmussen, Eschenbach and Watts.”

    I think that Roger got a main aspect of my paper, that is, the rebuttal of some interesting critique by Holm, and the demonstration that somebody else is more interested in slanders than in science.

  65. TLMango says:

    I don’t know much about Dr Holm. I only know that I’ve
    never seen Dr Scafetta respond in any other way but with
    respect for those who reasonably critique his work.

    Having said this: If Dr Holm’s critique was peer reviewed,
    I am really surprised that it passed. If I’m not mistaken, this
    is analysis of the sun’s motion around the center of mass?

    Even though the sun’s motion is extremely complex, there
    are a few basic motions that we can actually see. If we can
    see a specific motion, it is a physical mechanism and not something
    we have to search for with analysis. As Dr Vincent Courtilot said:
    Observation is sadly missing from scientific research.

    The sun moves 360 deg around the center of mass in ~11.862242
    years. The Sun alternates between acceleration and deceleration
    every 9.929656113 years. These two physical mechanisms join
    together to form the 61 year beat:
    . . . . 11.862242 x 9.929656113 / (11.862242 – 9.929656113) = 60.94838271 years

    We can visibly see the 59.5779 year physical mechanism we
    call the tri-synodic.
    Dr Holm needs to explain why he was using analysis to find something
    that is physically present and why he couldn’t find it.

  66. oldbrew says:

    42 tri-synodic of Jupiter-Saturn (126 J-S) = 41 x 360 degrees of retrograde J-S movement (’61 yr.’ cycle)

    See: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/why-phi-jupiter-saturn-and-the-de-vries-cycle/

  67. tallbloke says:

    Paul: Some demand words to go with pictures and others demand pictures without words.
    There’s no right or wrong — only preferences and culture.

    Sure, but since there’s more than one person in a talkshop discussion, I like to publish articles which are accessible to all participants. When I tested Ulrics verbal description with an ephemeris to find dates, I discovered several inconsistencies almost immediately. When I raised these with Ulric, he gave ad-hoc explanations for them. That’s why I’d like to see a plottable index. I think it’d help Ulric too, since confirmation bias is a big problem once ad-hoc ‘special cases’ come into play.

    The problem I ran into was that instead of taking my emailed observations as useful criticism, Ulric hurled vile abuse at me (and other talkshop participants). Which is why I blocked email and he’s on moderation here.

  68. ulriclyons says:

    Rog: “When I tested Ulrics verbal description with an ephemeris to find dates, I discovered several inconsistencies almost immediately. When I raised these with Ulric, he gave ad-hoc explanations for them.”

    You failed to give me a response to my request for you to check the noted alignments against the list of sunspot maximum dates. So you could not have raised any points about them. In fact your response by mail was:
    “I have my own freshly landed fish to Phri. Do the donkey work yourself, it’s your hypothesis.”

    At least you have recalled* that it was verbal and not “lost in a blizzard of email”. Given your inconsistencies I do not wish to continue this here.

  69. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB wrote:
    “Ulric hurled vile abuse at me (and other talkshop participants).”
    “I’d like to see a plottable index.”

    I can easily be persuaded to take a harder line. Here it is:

    Ulric should develop, graph, and cordially present a quantitative index.
    Words are unnecessary! [ :

  70. Geoff Sharp says:

    Every 4627 years the four giants line up on the same side opposing
    the sun. This is when the sun’s distance from the center of mass is at
    it’s greatest. But… not all of these 4627 year cycles are equal. Each
    big alignment occurs at a different location that rotates relative to the
    stars and relative to the aphelions of the four giants. The absolute
    greatest distance is accomplished when the big alignment occurs
    while the giants are nearest to their aphelions.

    The “grand alignment” is shown to not coincide with anything spectacular in solar terms throughout the Holocene. Any differences from planetary orbits shapes would be negligible.

    I have plotted the solar distance from SSB over 3/4627 cycles using the 20,000 year ephemeris provided by Steinhilber. If the data is correct it suggests very little change over 3 cycles.

    Look carefully at the graph, there are 3 lines overlaid on top of each other…the solar paths are near identical.

  71. TLMango says:

    Thanks for the post OB,

    126 / 41 x JS = ~61 years

    The sun’s pattern of motion can rotate to a number of different
    cycles. This may not seem possible but it’s true, the 61 year beat
    is just one of these cycles. OB’s posted approximation is very close.
    But… when we take in consideration that the sun’s motion
    rotates with the alignments of Jupiter and Saturn, we
    can reach a better value.

    using ……. J = 11.862242 …….. S = 29.457784
    ……. JS = 19.8593122389 …….. tri-synodic = 59.57793671687
    The sun’s outwardly directed acceleration rotates 242.6982425434 degrees
    in a counter-clockwise direction every 19.8593122389 years. This could
    also be viewed as a 117.30175745651 degree clockwise rotation.

    … (19.8593122389 yrs) 3 = 59.57793671687 yrs
    … (117.301757456 deg) 3 = 351.9052723695 deg
    … 360 deg / 351.9052723695 deg = 1.023002575596
    … (1.023002575596) (59.57793671687 yrs) = 60.94838271008 yrs

  72. l was wondering why scafetta did not mention the 33 yr power spectral peak.noted on one of his graphs?

    the global temp follows a schwabe triplet series of ` 33yr
    https://weathercycles.wordpress.com/category/our-solar-system-linked-to-climate/schwabbe-triplets/

  73. […] via Nicola Scafetta: High resolution coherence analysis between planetary and climate oscillations — T… […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s