Impact of the ~ 2400 yr solar cycle on climate and human societies

Posted: September 21, 2016 by oldbrew in climate, Cycles, Natural Variation
Tags:

.
.
Plenty for Talkshoppers to get their teeth into here.

Climate Etc.

by Javier

The role of solar variability on climate change, despite having a very long scientific tradition, is currently downplayed as a climatic factor within the most popular hypothesis for climate change.

View original post 12,620 more words

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    Excellent paper, but I noticed this blooper:

    “In essence periods of low solar activity would coincide with planetary and solar configurations in an equilibrated figure known as the trefoil, while periods of high solar activity would be associated with disordered configurations (Charvátová & Hejda, 2014). ”

    This is back to front. The trefoil periods presage high solar activity and warmer periods according to Charvatova.

  2. oldbrew says:

    In the Vasiliev post TB says:
    ‘The conjunction cycles of the major planet pairs Jupiter – Saturn and Earth – Venus both precess over the same 2400 year period. It is also 2/3 of the period over which the Neptune – Uranus conjunction cycle precesses.’

    The way it works out is:
    121 J-S = 2403.67y
    14 U-N = 2399.69y

    To get a match: 121 x 5, minus 1 (604) J-S = 14 x 5 (70) U-N
    Both even numbers, so halve them: 302 J-S = 35 U-N

  3. RJ Salvador says:

    Nicola Scafetta just published his version of the Hallstatt oscillation.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825216301453

    The paper is behind a pay wall but “The Hockey Schtick” has posted some of it.
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/

    The authors,
    “show strong evidences for an astronomical origin of this cycle. Namely, this oscillation is coherent to a repeating pattern in the periodic revolution of the planets around the Sun: the major stable resonance involving the four Jovian planets – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune – which has a period of about p = 2318 years. Inspired by the Milanković’s theory of an astronomical origin of the glacial cycles, we test whether the Hallstatt cycle could derive from the rhythmic variation of the circularity of the solar system disk assuming that this dynamics could eventually modulate the solar wind and, consequently, the incoming cosmic ray flux and/or the interplanetary/cosmic dust concentration around the Earth-Moon system.”
    According to the authors,
    “the rhythmic contraction and expansion of the solar system driven by a major resonance involving the movements of the four Jovian planets appear to work as a gravitational/electromagnetic pump that increases and decreases the cosmic ray and dust densities inside the inner region of the solar system, which then modulate both the radionucleotide production and climate change by means of a cloud/albedo modulation.”

  4. TLMango says:

    “the Hallstatt-cycle time scale, a larger production of
    radionucleotide particles occurs while the Sun-PMC orbit evolves from more
    elliptical shapes (e ≈ 0.598) to more circular ones (e ≈ 0.590), ”

    I’m very eager to see the references page on this paper.

  5. oldbrew says:

    The Hallstatt period and the 2403 year ‘solar’ cycle are not the same thing IMO, despite the apparently similar durations.

  6. Geoff Sharp says:

    I am also waiting Mango…

  7. Geoff Sharp says:

    Tallbloke says:

    Excellent paper, but I noticed this blooper:

    “In essence periods of low solar activity would coincide with planetary and solar configurations in an equilibrated figure known as the trefoil, while periods of high solar activity would be associated with disordered configurations (Charvátová & Hejda, 2014). ”

    This is back to front. The trefoil periods presage high solar activity and warmer periods according to Charvatova.

    Actually everyone is wrong on this front. Charvatova only looked at the solar proxy record when comparing her phases which does not have enough definition. When looking at the sunspot record it can be seen that her ordered phase (U/N together with trefoil pattern) has low solar activity but no solar grand minima and her disordered phase has BOTH grand minima and high solar activity.

    She does not understand what causes grand minima within her disordered phase, but it’s simple if you look at the individual inner loop orbits that go out of whack within her disordered phase.

  8. Geoff Sharp says:

    That should be U/N apart for the ordered phase….

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    Usually Nicola posts his papers on his website. If anyone finds a non-paywalled link, please let us know.

  10. oldbrew says:

    ‘the major stable resonance involving the four Jovian planets – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune – which has a period of about p = 2318 years.’

    The half period of 27 U-N and 233 J-S conjunctions is about 2314 years.

    Update: this is in fact pointed out in the full paper – see later N.Scafetta post…
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/nicola-scafetta-on-the-astronomical-origin-of-the-hallstatt-oscillation-found-in-radiocarbon-and-climate-records-throughout-the-holocene/

  11. TLMango says:

    OB,
    Yes, half of the 4627.2 year period would be 2313.6

    There is a problem with the solar graphs in this paper.
    While indicating the eccentricity of the sun’s orbit, the paper
    fails to acknowledge that the reduction of this eccentricity
    proves the lesser influence of alignment.

    The 4627 year alignment cycle is based solely on alignment.
    It takes eccentricity and acceleration to produce strong magnetic
    fields. Force does not equal mass x alignment. During an ice age
    the 4627 year cycle dominates. This paper tries to connect the
    4627 year cycle to the Holocene and this is backwards.

    If Geoff had paid more attention to my presentations, he would have
    gotten it right.

  12. oldbrew says:

    What constitutes ‘alignment’? Four planets in line with the Sun may be a bit optimistic.

    Here’s what the solar simulator finds in 1821: J and S together, U and N together at another angle.

  13. Geoff Sharp says:

    If Geoff had paid more attention to my presentations, he would have
    gotten it right.

    You have to have meat on the bones Tom, so many hand wavers.

    I am saying grand minima can only occur when J/U/N together with S opposite. Not hard to disqualify I would think.?

    What do you offer?

  14. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: it can be seen that her ordered phase (U/N together with trefoil pattern) has low solar activity

    The word ‘presage’ in my comment was carefully chosen.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Paul: Usually Nicola posts his papers on his website. If anyone finds a non-paywalled link, please let us know.

    See new post on Scafetta’s new Halstatt paper.

  16. Geoff Sharp says:

    The word ‘presage’ in my comment was carefully chosen.

    A very loose term. Better to inform the public of the facts.

    Charatova got it wrong but at the same time got it right…perhaps you could explore her science, her story is worth investigating?

  17. oldbrew says:

    Interview with Ivanka Charvatova: Is climate change caused by solar inertial motion?
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/interview-with-ivanka-charvatova-is-climate-change-caused-by-solar-inertial-motion/

    PRP papers, second on the list:
    Responses of the basic cycles of 178.7 and 2402 yr in solar–terrestrial phenomena during the Holocene
    I. Charvátová and P. Hejda
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/prp-special-issue/

  18. JB says:

    The figure (2318) of the four gas giant period is close to the 12th harmonic of the precession cycle (~2160, depends on whose figures are used). The difference in periods strikes me as the difference in rotor/stator slip in Tesla’s induction motor design. An oscillating EMF is inducing a current into the solar system that produces a counter EMF which then drives the gas giants’ orbits (and the sun). Such a connection would tend to explain how the climate cycles are ultimately derived from the movement of the galactic arm.

    Just a thought…

  19. rishrac says:

    I looked at the alignment of the planets. A similar senerio happened in 2009 with J U N in opposition to S . . Would it matter if either of N – U was leading or lagging in that 15 degree window ? The arc window of 15 degrees for Jupiter is about 7 months, then it moves out of that window. ( I’m referring to the illustration of Geoff Sharp ). Would the dynamics of that 7 month period change things that much ? Would there be a counter balancing alignment that would mark the end of that period ?

    In regards to 2009, is that a bona fide marker ?

  20. Geoff Sharp says:

    Rishrac, it doesn’t matter if Uranus or Neptune is leading as far as the single event is concerned. That outcome is a changed inner loop orbit of the Sun around the SSB. 2009 was a weaker version of the 1472 event as this is measured by looking at the Saturn angle and also the shape of the inner loop orbit. Inner loop orbits that have the first part of the excursion trying to be an outer loop orbit correlate with deeper grand minima, the higher the excursion the deeper the grand minimum.

    But as Uranus and Neptune are together for some time as the faster planets Jupiter and Saturn keep orbiting, we can get 3 of these events per U/N conjunction. So then the position of the leading planet becomes important in respect to how many and what type of events happen in the cluster that occurs at every U/N conjunction.

    This time around we had a weak lineup at SC20, a medium line up at SC24 and then no event after that….this is very different to the lineups witnessed during the LIA.

  21. jim says:

    Interesting as usual. Baricenter effects to the earth, you have all the effects to account for a offset, the large gas planets, to one side, so would this excess heating produce heavy clouding and increased reflectivity, cool or overheat, produce more sunspots or fewer? Or create more or fewer cronal holes? And depending on the cycle, magnetic cycle, strengthen or weaken the “solar cell”?

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