Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations

Pamela Gray says:
October 13, 2010 at 7:37 pm
“Say, I have a few traits being a redhead and all. Wonder if that is correlated to anything.”
I don’t know,Pamala. Are you a large redhead or a small one. pg

CERN is doing some experiments about the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Here is a link:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
The text displayed at that link is also displayed below:
“Cosmic rays and cloud formation
CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science; the results could greatly modify our understanding of clouds and climate.
Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth’s atmosphere from outer space. Studies suggest they may have an influence on the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets). This is supported by satellite measurements, which show a possible correlation between cosmic-ray intensity and the amount of low cloud cover. Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth’s energy balance; changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate. Understanding the underlying microphysics in controlled laboratory conditions is a key to unravelling the connection between cosmic rays and clouds.
The CLOUD experiment involves an interdisciplinary team of scientists from 18 institutes in 9 countries, comprised of atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic-ray and particle physicists. The PS provides an artificial source of ‘cosmic rays’ that simulates natural conditions as closely as possible. A beam of particles is sent into a reaction chamber and its effects on aerosol production are recorded and analysed.
The initial stage of the experiment uses a prototype detector, but the full CLOUD experiment will include an advanced cloud chamber and a reactor chamber, equipped with a wide range of external instrumentation to monitor and analyse their contents. The temperature and pressure conditions anywhere in the atmosphere can be re-created within the chambers, and all experimental conditions can be controlled and measured, including the ‘cosmic ray’ intensity and the contents of the chambers.”
——end of quote————
CERN also had a very pretty and extremely interesting pdf on the CLOUD project and the possible relationship between the sun and the climate at this link:
http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/IPAC10/talks/frymh02_talk.pdf
The basic idea is that when the sun is weak, more cosmic rays hit the earth and this leads to increased formation of nano scale nuclei that facilitate cloud formation. So the key change is not in the sun’s visible light but in the the sun’s magnetic flux (the lower the magnetic flux, the more galactic cosmic rays can enter the earth’s atmosphere). Unlike the visible light from the sun, the solar magnetic flux varies quite a bit.
It will be interesting to see what CERN discovers in their experiments. Clouds are a big mystery yet hugely important in the earth’s climate system.

Smokey:

:There is no testable, empirical evidence showing that CO2 affects temperature [it may, but the effect is too small to measure].

This is not correct. There is plenty of evidence, just not the sort a layperson might appreciate…such as data on the absorption of IR by CO2. This is indirect evidence to be sure,

If the sensitivity number was large, temperature would track CO2 closely. But it doesn’t. And the only established correlation shows that a temperature rise results in a rise in CO2 – not vice-versa.

That’s not a very effective way to think about it. To start with, you want to look at total forcings (which includes sulfates and total solar irradiance). When you do that, the first thing you find is that there was little net anthropogenic forcings (according to people who study this in detail) prior to 1975. So really we only have 35 years over which there is (much) change at all in temperature thought to be associated with anthropogenic forcings.
Secondly, your comment “a temperature rise results in a rise in CO2 – not vice-versa.” It just isn’t relevant, we have other data (alluded to above) that establishes the existence of a greenhouse gas effect. There’s little question that water vapor feedback will enhance the relatively small “classical” greenhouse gas effect associated with the anthropogenic Co2 forcing.
As it happens, we are currently doing an experiment that will probably unambiguously (over time) establish a relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature change, namely the near doubling of atmospheric CO2 over maybe 350 years. At the very least this will establish an upper limit on environmental CO2 sensitivity, more likely we will have a bracketed number. I may or may not be alive long enough to see that, who knows…
I’m going to be traveling the next three days or so….probably won’t have a chance to check back in on this thread, hope this gives you some food for thought.

Scaffeta’s work should be at the least thought provoking. Dogmatic responses for phenomenon beyond our complete understanding should be made only at your own peril. “Cycology” can also be dangerous but one thing that makes me look more closely at this paper is the fact that I have taken raw temperature data from NM and West Texas and by plotting annual average temperatures for a number of sites and using the Xcel polynomial fit on the plots, have noted a 60 year cycle that (when there is enough data) extends through 100+ years for at least the following cities: El Paso, TX, La Tuna,TX (near El Paso), Cimarron, NM, Roswell, NM, and Clayton, TX. Sun driven PDO and AMO cycles seem to drive this. But of course everyone wants to know what drives that? Is Scafetta on to something? No one ever said that climate questions would be easily answered but we should look for answers back in the dark corners and not be too quick to decide which corners are appropriate. For SW New Mexico according to the next swing in the temperature cycle, we should expect a cooling trend over the next 20+ years. For the last few years at the NM sites, they seem to have peaked and are now trending down. The next few years will show whether the 60 year cycle continues to hold. Klotzbach and Gray’s observed and hindcast hurricane values of NTC (Net Tropical Cyclone) activity from 1950 to 2007 seems to follow this 60 year cycle. WUWT?

Steve Fitzpatrick:

. The argument that the models are OK for estimating responses to applied forcing is completely specious: there is no way to verify the performance of the models in the absence of accurately known forcings, so no way to know if a model’s response to an applied hypothetical forcing is accurate.

I think you’ve way overstated your case on this one.
There are certainly ways to verify the performance of the models in the absence of accurately known forcings. The reason is, that some forcings are relatively well understood, and do vary over time in a well-understood manner (certaintly TSI, possibly also forcings associated with large eruptions). Beyond that, to the degree we can set bounds on the total forcings, we can set commensurate bounds on the forcings.
The idea that this can’t be done “in the absence of accurately known foricngs” is actually what is completely specious. This is the sort of thing that gets done in different branches of science all the time and goes under moniker of the “inverse problem”.
Mind you I’m not defending how well they are doing this, but if you haven’t, you should probably at least familiarize yourself with how they estimate the forcings before being so hypercritical of it. This is currently done separately from running the full 3-d codes. The point is this is completely doable in principle, even if right now not in practice (if not, then it’s just a limitation of computer resources and nothing more).
The worry I have is echoed by George Taylor’s comment on the inability of the models to accurately capture the atmospheric ocean oscillations. That’s a pretty technical issue, so I’ll leave it to another time & place. See my comment to Smokey about “being out-a-here.”

MikeTheDenier says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm
It seems to me that if the orbit of a planet can cause the wobble of a distant star, thus allowing we earthlings to detect the existance of such planets, then we must accept that planets in our own solar system will cause our own star to wobble. Since our star affects our climate then the wobbles must also have some effect on our climate.
REPLY: A prescient thought, thanks- Anthony

I do not see how this logic holds. We have known since Newton that every object in the solar system causes wobbling in the orbit of every other object in the solar system, it is a plain consequence of Newton’s law of gravity. The Sun and the planets are in constant free fall.
Since the Suns mass is so much larger than the combined mass of the rest of the solar system, the wobbling is rather miniscule (about 2 solar radii), as illustrated by my simulators here, here and here.
I am not saying there isn’t a relation, but rather that we have not yet seen a credible mechanism for how the orbital mechanics can affect solar activity in a way that also affects the earths climate in a measurable way. Of course, the Milankovitch cycles are real and well known, but that is a different issue.
We know that CO2 has an effect on climate. Is the effect of anthropogenic CO2 measureable? I would say no. Similarly, I would say that if a mechanism for how these wobbles could affect our climate could be presented (no such mechanism is known to me), the computed effects on climate would be similarly not measurable.

Secondly, your comment “a temperature rise results in a rise in CO2 – not vice-versa.” It just isn’t relevant, we have other data (alluded to above) that establishes the existence of a greenhouse gas effect. There’s little question that water vapor feedback will enhance the relatively small “classical” greenhouse gas effect associated with the anthropogenic Co2 forcing.
==================================
Who is “we.”?
And if you have the data, produce it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Carrick says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:28 pm
As it happens, we are currently doing an experiment that will probably unambiguously (over time) establish a relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature change, namely the near doubling of atmospheric CO2 over maybe 350 years. At the very least this will establish an upper limit on environmental CO2 sensitivity, more likely we will have a bracketed number. I may or may not be alive long enough to see that, who knows…
I’m going to be traveling the next three days or so….probably won’t have a chance to check back in on this thread, hope this gives you some food for thought.
=============================
Show it. Prove it. Where is it??
Why are you avoiding presenting the revealing data that you so describe??
For now….what you have presented….is not “food for thought”. It is some other form of organic material which shall remain nameless.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

“Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter control the 11-year solar tides which influence our climate. Then there are the lunar 18-year nodal and 1,800-year declination cycles, the Landscheidt Impulse Of the Torque cycles of the Jovian giants, and finally the Earth’s own Milankovich cycles, which round out the total control of our climate. This isn’t astrology. This is historic, provable, repeatable, predictable fact. This is the climate change elephant in the room.”
————————————————————————————
Shhhhhh, you are not allowed to mention Landscheidt’s name. His (very accurate) predictions of El Nino and La Nina scares the ‘scientists’.

This bit from the Conclusion section of the paper is interesting:-
“It is evident that we can still infer,by means of a detailed data analysis, that the solar system likely induces the climate oscillations, although the actual mechanisms that explain the observed climate oscillations are still unknown. If the true climate mechanisms were already known and well understood, the general circulation climate
models would properly reproduce the climate oscillations. However, we found that this is not the case. For example, we showed that the GISS Model E fails to reproduce the climate oscillations at multiple time scales, including the large 60-year cycle. This failure is common to all climate models adopted by the IPCC (2007) as it is evident in their figures 9.5 and SPM .5 that show the multi-model global average simulation of surface warming. This failure indicates that the models on which the IPCC’s claims are based are still incomplete and possibly flawed.”

Firstly, Read Fred Haynie’s site for detail on climate cycles;
Secondly, Newtons 3 laws of motion. No matter that object move round one another slowly or at distance there is always an effect.
The jovian planets boil internally, the moon pulls the earth and the earth pulls the moon. The effect is of course proportionate to their relative sizes. A jovian moon has little effect on the planet but the planet has an enormous effect on the moon. As to whether any of this movement changes the sun sufficiently to change the climate on earth, I don’t know and I would need some pretty convincing evidence to believe it would. This paper is not that evidence but it is a start of the debate.

Carrick says:
There’s little question that water vapor feedback will enhance the relatively small “classical” greenhouse gas effect associated with the anthropogenic Co2 forcing
That is a classic statement. You must explain the physics behind this when you have the time bearing mind that H²O absorbs in the same bands as Co². The only form of heat transfer between them is by kinetic forces, etc, etc. I am genuinely looking forward to this event.

I don’t ‘get’ why people are asking for the physical mechanisms to be explained.
The author made it clear from the start this was an empirical paper – it’s now up to the theorists to either demolish the paper through reason, argument, or opposing evidence –or search for a mechanism that would deliver the results!
I see much talk about about the weakness of the gravitational /magnetic forces working at a distance – but not enough about resonance effects.
My ‘educated guess’ at the missing mechnaism would be that the long term size and shape of the Earth’s magnetic field is influenced by the author’s documented cycles.
Causative chain: Map the ‘signals’ the author suggests to Earth’s magnetic field – and you get the required variance in cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere – which changes the amount of water vapour – and hence climate change.
Sorry – I can’t find a causation chain that involves carbon dioxide.

I wonder if what he has found is the answer Newton couldn’t find to the three-planet problem.
It is true that Newton didn’t find the answer but he didn’t look very hard.
In any case the answer has been known now for over a century and not only for 3 bodies but many bodies.
Poincare found it even if he did a mistake in his first calculation.
The result is that the orbits of a 3 planet system are chaotic.
Despite of what too many people think , it is not possible to predict (or hindcast) the position of the Earth on its orbit for time intervals bigger than about 10 millions of years. Beyond 10 millions years the error has increased exponentially too far and you simply can’t say where the planet was/will be.
Quite another and more complex problem is the question of the stability of the orbit itself.
Even if it is true that you can’t know where the Earth was 10 millions years ago, this doesn’t tell immediately something about the orbit itself (eccentricity, average distance etc).
Concerning the orbits themselves, it has been proven that they are chaotic too but at much larger time scales: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html
Btw when I say “proven”, it means actually that a computer simulation has been run, because we know since Poincarre that the 3 body problem can’t be solved analytically.
So next time when you read somebody talking or writing about the Earth orbit parameters 100s of millions or more years ago, you can be sure that he has not a clue.
Over these time scales one can only make an educated guess based on educated probability guesses (like in the Laskar’s paper linked), but there is no certainty.
That’s why it can make you laugh when the climate science is “explaining” the climate in the very distant past and … uses the orbital parameters of today 🙂

Carsten Arnholm, Norway says at October 13, 2010 at 11:24 pm

We have known since Newton that every object in the solar system causes wobbling in the orbit of every other object in the solar system, it is a plain consequence of Newton’s law of gravity. The Sun and the planets are in constant free fall.

Carsten, I’m still somewhat in doubt to what extend parts of the sun really are in free fall, given that the gravitational field the sun sees is produced by several bodies distributed in space, and also considering that the sun isn’t just a dimensionless point, but a mercurial being of notable extensions. Clearly any given difference would be small, but plasma is also a profoundly unstable demon.
Zeke the Sneak says at October 13, 2010 at 5:20 pm

Do these active currents of negatively charged particles effect the sun’s behaviour? If electrons are flowing towards the Sun, doesn’t that mean it is a positively charged anode?

In his textbook “Die Physik des erdnahen Weltraums” (Bonn 2003), the German astrophysicist G. W. Prölss describes a return current which is entering the sun presumably at the poles. He calculates it’s intensity to be about 10^11 Ampères. Now, if such a current should exist, then the solar wind can’t be electrically neutral as it was often stated here. I really would like to see this puzzle solved.

Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
October 13, 2010 at 11:24 pm
I am not saying there isn’t a relation, but rather that we have not yet seen a credible mechanism for how the orbital mechanics can affect solar activity in a way that also affects the earths climate in a measurable way. Of course, the Milankovitch cycles are real and well known, but that is a different issue.
Please read the useful discussion on periodic forcing of chaotic / nonlinear systems, at the end of the Scaffeta paper.
I think what is missing from Scaffeta’ paper is the issue of whether the forced system has a reactive medium; and also the fact pointed out earlier by Paul Vaughan that a naturally arising oscillation does not have to be a stationary wave.

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2010 at 4:26 am
MattN says:
October 14, 2010 at 3:56 am
He predicted #24 was going to be a weak cycle decades ago.
This is what he predicted ‘decades ago’:
SWINGING SUN, 79-YEAR CYCLE AND CLIMATIC CHANGE [PDF 309K]
J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19.
“The next minimum in the 79-year cycle will occur in 1990. It will be more pronounced than the minimum in 1811.”
And he also later predicted the next downturn would be around 2030. Although his predictions are not spot on as many think, Theodor did have the foresight and intuition to recognize the solar drivers, he just didn’t have the data available at the time to be more precise. Thanks to Carl Smith who followed in his foot steps the crucial data is here for us all to use and SC24 is a living example of Carl’s legacy.

Tom Vonk: I think I read a long time ago that NASA computed the first numerical solution to the four-body problem when computing the trajectory of either the Pioneers or the Voyagers. I think the four objects were the spacecraft, the sun, Jupiter and one or more asteroids. I haven’t been able to google this up – do you happen to know the details here and have a link?

The climate is chaotic.
The planetary orbits are chaotic.
Since it is not physically possible to formulate barycentric motion.
I suggest,
-to use one of the strange attractor
The climate is chaotic.
The planetary orbits are chaotic.
Since it is not physically possible to formulate barycentric motion.
I suggest,
-to use one of the strange attractor.
There exists a large literature which attempts to determine optimal choices for the delay
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Grassberger-Procaccia_algorithm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Now that we have discovered other planetary systems a simple test of this is possible: does magnetic activity or stellar irradiance match the barycentric movements in these other systems? The data so far says no. I’m sure people can find the relevant links themselves.
Once again Leif misses the mark. He should know that one of the prime selection criterion that are used for planetary doppler searches of planetary systems, is to avoid stars with evidence of significant solar activity cycles. Apparently, stars that have significant magnetic activity in their H and K CaII lines produce too much “noise” in their radial velocities to allow effective searches for exo-planets in these systems to
be feasable. The radial velocity “noise” drowns out the small cyclical radial velocity signature of any possible planets in these systems.
Indeed, I believe that one of the reasons that doppler-based planetary searches have not discovered any solar systems that have multiple Jovian-size planets in circular orbits, located at distances in the range of 3 – 30 A.U, is the simple fact that selection criterion used to choose stellar candidates actually precludes these type of solar systems.
I predict that if we were to systematically look at G type stars with established long term solar cycles, we would find that these systems will have multiple Jovian-size planets in near circular orbits, located at distances spanning 3 – 30 A.U. I also predict that the period of parent stars magnetic activity cycle (i.e. “Solar Cycle”) will be
related to some combination of the synodic periods of the outer Jovian-like planets.

What size am I you say? Big enough to deal with middle school boys having behavior problems, but too small of an Irish troll to live under a drawbridge. I live under a footbridge spanning a bubbling brook.
Folks, I recommend, no…I highly recommend, that you buy a number of books describing the Sun. Leif, do your recommendations from a couple years ago still stand or do you have additions you would recommend for an informative library?
A short list of your favs would be great, once again.

What Dr. Scarfetta is missing is the causal link between the planetary orbital periods, solar activity and the Earth’s Climate. This does not dismiss the possibility that such a link could exist, it just says that the mechanism is (currently) unknown.
The answer to his dilemma is the Moon. The Lunar tides of the Moon do have a discernible influence upon long term climate here on Earth.
The Moon has been moving away from the Earth ever since its formation billions of years ago. As it has moved away its orbital period has continuosly changed. This means that the properties of the Lunar Orbit have been shaped and moulded by combined tidal and gravitational effects of Venus and Jupiter, particularly at times when the orbital periods of these planets have been a sub-multiple of the orbital period of the Moon.
I will be showing in a paper to be published in 2011 that long term changes in the Lunar orbit are synchronized with long term changes in Barycentric motion of the Sun.
I cannot discuss these links in this forum as yet until I can get my paper published.
It might be eventually shown that the level of solar activity on the Sun is determined
by the barycentric motion it undergoes due to the gravitational influences of the Jovian planets. It might also be reasonable to argue that changes in the level of solar activity have an effect on the Earth’s climate. All I am saying is that what ever effects changes in solar activity have upon the Earth’s climate are being greatly reinforced by synchronized changes in the long-term variations in strength of lunar tides
experienced here on Earth.
I believe that the Lunar tidal effects will be identified as the (dominant) mysterious “amplification mechanism” that strengthens the apparent link between solar activity and the Earth’s climate.

vukcevic says:
October 14, 2010 at 5:03 am
The field is one and only, so any change in one field can affect the other parts of it, of course they act at an angle: magnetism/electricity:90 degrees apart, gravity:180 degrees apart.
YOU CAN PROVE IT WITH YOUR IPOD BEFORE THE NEXT EARTHQUAKE HITS YOUR PLACE:
http://itunes.apple.com/br/app/gravity-meter-pro/id360592895?mt=8
OR WITH A RADIO:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29238677/Earthquake-3
I don’t want you to believe in my theory but TEST IT with whatsoever gadget or instrument you like, the Field is a UNIFIED FIELD.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
Of course, this means that we live in an ordered universe, a world with a “canon”, with an implied “ethos”, which is and will be strongly opposed and resisted by the preachers of chaos and randomness and the “uncertainty principle”or the “post-normal science”. That kind of thinking has taken us to a lot of anti human theories (you name it: all “progressive” ones).
Choose your trench at the Armageddon battle field, the time is due!

Once more I would like to introduce the concept of clocks.
Clocks as regular repetition of motion in time In this sense each planet is two clocks (spining, and orbit), the whole planetary system is a giant clock, the sun with its spin and its cycles other clocks.
Meditate on clocks.
I say that all clocks are correlated. Does someone dispute this? They are correlated because a function can be found to describe each, and then in time there will be beats and coincidences which have nothing to do with causality.
Now let us accept that there are cycles of the earth’s climate. These cycles will correlate with any clock you want to use to clock them, effectively.
Causality needs transfer of energy, and from all these celestial clocks the only appreciable energy transfer comes from the moon to the earth. That is where I would concentrate for a causal relation. The transfers of energy from the planets to the sun are minuscule and not to be taken seriously, imo. In my region of the earth for more than a thousand years the phases of the moon have been used to predict short term weather by farmers and sailors.
A mechanism of correlation where causation is very very far removed from the present, is gravitational transfers of the type that have made the moon always facing us. In this model, if a clear correlation exists with the clock “Jupiter” or whatever, it will be because over the millenia the Moon clock synchronized with the “Jupiter” clock . Or another mechanism : when the planets formed the synchronization came about.

Lucy Skywalker says:
October 13, 2010 at 6:42 pm
“…the three-planet problem.”
Got curious about that. And look what I found: http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/ThreeBody/ThreeBody.html
No matter what I order it to do my planet comes crashing into one of the suns. Ain’t that fun? 🙂

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
Again – Rhodes Fairbridge went down this road and had a very good look around. I suspect that his conjectures will sooner or later be seen to be crucial to a fuller understanding of climate variation. See Richard Mackey, 2007, Journal of Coastal Research strangely! There’s some bio details on Fairbridge which can be skimmed, and quite a lot of useful insight into his thinking on this, plus details of related research papers.

Regarding the Russian heatwave and in response to posters mentioning the CLOUD experiment, I think you might be interested in this:
Galactic cosmic ray variation influence on baric system dynamics at middle latitudes
Irina Artamonovaa, , and Svetlana Veretenenkob
a Saint-Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
b Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Received 5 August 2009;
revised 27 April 2010;
accepted 1 May 2010.
Available online 11 May 2010.
Abstract
Variations of atmospheric pressure in the North Atlantic region during Forbush decreases of galactic cosmic rays were investigated. A noticeable pressure growth with the maximum on the 3rd and 4th days after the Forbush decrease onsets was revealed over Scandinavia and the northern region of the European part of Russia. It was shown that the observed pressure growth was caused by the formation of blocking anticyclones in the region of the climatic Arctic front, as well as by the sharp slowing of the movement of North Atlantic cyclones. It was suggested that the particles that precipitate in the regions of the climatic Arctic and Polar fronts, with the minimum energies E 20–80 MeV and 2–3 GeV, respectively, may influence the processes of cyclone and anticyclone formation and development at extratropical latitudes.
Keywords: Solar effects; Forbush decreases; Cyclonic activity; Pressure variations

In the page 50, fig.9.1

Scafetta’s paper is interesting but it presents a voluminous plethora of data which – for me at least – a little hard to get my head around. The very large number of figures includes several apparently contradictory predictions, some of which are clearly inaccurate, for instance the figure 11b reproduced in the post says that we should now be in a temperature trough – it is more likely we are at a peak.
A much more succinct description of a plausible planetary connection to PDO/AMO climate cycles is given very nicely in Sidorenko et al 2010 – just a two page abstract but very clearly explaining the essentials (it draws from the wok of Ian Wilson):
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-9559.pdf
Here is an extract:
If the Solar system just consisted of Jupiter and the Sun, the barycentre of the Solar System would move in an almost circular orbit located just above the surface of the Sun (i.e. about 1.08 solar radii), called the sub-Jupiter point.
Out of interest I have a question to Dr Svalgaard and others with the same anti-barycentric assignment: do you believe the statement in the above quote or not?
Is there a “sub-Jupiter point” 1.08 solar radii from the sun’s center – or not?
Is Newtonian gravity correct – or not? Should Isaac Newton be categorised as a climate skeptic for his support of barycentrism? – should your colleague William Connolly get busy purging wikipedia of references to Isaac Newton?

Enneagram says:
October 14, 2010 at 10:54 am
In the page 50, fig.9.1

All I find is more correlation graphs. What kind of mechanism is proposed?

Northern Exposure says:
October 14, 2010 at 10:59 am
When people say the jovian planets have a miniscule affect on the sun, is there an actual number that can be applied to what is deemed as “miniscule” ?
As Leif says: Tides from the planets are sub-millimeter in height.
Tidal forces are real, but the tidal effects on the Sun as caused by the planets are vanishingly small. Trouble is, there are not many other known mechanisms that could affect the Sun in any credible manner. Such a thing may still exist, for sure, but as nobody seem to be able to find it, a reasonable hypothesis is that it doesn’t.

phlogiston says:
October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
Here is an extract:
If the Solar system just consisted of Jupiter and the Sun, the barycentre of the Solar System would move in an almost circular orbit located just above the surface of the Sun (i.e. about 1.08 solar radii), called the sub-Jupiter point.
Out of interest I have a question to Dr Svalgaard and others with the same anti-barycentric assignment: do you believe the statement in the above quote or not?
Look up the definition of barycentre. This is not a question of belief. It is a mathematical fact that if the solar system consisted of only the Sun and Jupiter, their common centre of mass will alway lie on a straight line between them, and closer to the most massive object. 1.08 solar radii sounds about right. You can compute it yourself, it is not complicated.
Is there a “sub-Jupiter point” 1.08 solar radii from the sun’s center – or not?
Sure, if you choose to compute the centre of mass between only the Sun and Jupiter, you will get that answer. However, it does not have any physical significance, it is just a point in space like any other.
The centre of mass of the whole Solar system follows a more complex path, however, ref. this . But it is still just a point in space.

Jupiter & Saturn impact on solar wind / magnetic impact to the Earth is (together with the moon influence) core to Piers Corbyn long term wheather and extreme events predictions (through his Wheatheraction business) ; only accessible through payment !

Why the doubt that Jupiter and Saturn could influence Earth’s climate? Down in the southern hemisphere we have to warn visitors that, latitude for latitude, the intensity of the sun’s radiation in mid-summer is currently about 7% greater here than in the northern hemisphere (so be sure to wear a hat – its even more because of less pollution!) What is less well known is that, because of barycentric movement, the difference in maximum intensity of solar radiation between northern and southern hemispheres itself varies in the range of about 3% to 11% – the extremes are rare but variation in the range 6% – 8% is not. One would think that by itself might have some influence on climate. More significant, I would guess, would be the difference between total annual solar energy received by the north and the south and how that varies from year to year. I have no idea what this is – not much, I assume, and would like to know, but it seems unlikely that there is no variation at all – and it wouldn’t take much to be significant.

What is not discussed about the sun is the fact that there might be strong solar activity that travels around its surface. That is, the solar flares might be happening all the time, but when we do not see them, they are happening at the back side of the Sun!
We do not have any imaging/satellites of what exactly happens behind the Sun. So, there might be some El Nino-style event on the surface of the Sun that goes around the surface slowly, taking eleven years (or more, depending on which cycle we examine).

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Leif, thank you for the link. I am beginning to see the problem with this method of putting the (wishful) thinking to the test. Any comparison between star systems similar to our own may require a study over a decade in length.

anna v says:
October 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm
_____________Reply;
The next time your washing machine goes into spin dry with several towels, a fluffy pillow and a couple pairs of jeans, try to keep in mind the center of balance of the whole assembly is the same as the barycenter of the earth moon system, as it walks across the floor.
The barycenter of the Earth moon system moves the center of mass of the Earth around the same as the middle of the load of clothes moves the washer around.
In the case of the earth moon system each cycle of 27 to 28 days moves the center of mass of the Earth up and down over 30% of its size, while it is being slung forward and back in its orbit speed about the same amount. So every time the moon goes North to South the Earth’s center of mass moves 800km to 1200km South to North.
The forces felt on the earth are felt to its core as a compression wave as the angular momentum pivots around the barycenter, creating the tidal bulges in the Earths crust, oceans and atmosphere, which move relative to the point above the barycenter.
Given the standard washing machine does not move around 1/3 of it’s height and width, even at the worst unbalance case, would you let it go that way for 4.8 billion years with out feeling it?

Planetary theory.. oooh scarey
Planets orbits are laid out due to solar orbit and cycles. Maybe what they are seeing is the mirroring of this. The planetary orbits are a mirror of the solar cycle because of the solar orbit and cycles. Not the (main) driver ..
Geoff, talked with Galactic central bar room and wanted to know if they were still driving this train, they are.
They wanted to know if you were ok, seems they hear your name mentioned often. lol
P.S. Leif .. Vuks has a Jack up his sleeve..

Maybe should have said result of..
planetary orbits are a result of solar orbital and cycle..

Anyone .. any theories on why the North poles of Jupe and Sat are negative? Do their poles drift with any frequency?

anna v says:
October 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm
You are confusing tides with the barycenter motion. Of course it is correlated, but not causal, otherwise the earth’s mantle would be at least like mashed potato.
In your analogy of the washing machine, the error lies that you think the barycenter is moving. If it were moving, the washing machine would be walking around the floor. ( I have one on wheels). The barycenter is constant by observation.

For those that might be interested in some of the history of barycentre science this paper from Fairbridge and Shirley in 1987 show how the old masters were on the right track but focused on the wrong aspects of the poor data available back then.
Fairbridge, Shirley and Landsch**dt all predict a solar grand minimum at 1990, basing their predictions on the zero crossings or where the Sun returns over the SSB. There is no mention of the Uranus & Neptune disturbance in angular momentum although they do notice the unordered solar orbit that is a result, but fail to put the two together. Charvatova does the same thing 1 year later but predicts a solar downturn to start at 2000.
The early diagrams in Jose’s ground breaking 1965 paper do show the the angular momentum perturbations caused by Uranus & Neptune as do the odd diagram via Landsch**dt, but they both also missed it.
It took Carl Smith in 2007 to flesh out the detail when he plotted solar angular momentum produced from the newer DE405/406 JPL Horizon’s data that covers 6000 years….he himself still did not see the connection but I was lucky to stumble on this 1 year later which continues to open new doors.
Fairbridge paper HERE.

Carsten Arnholm
“I have read through Scafetta’s paper and I am still missing the mechanisms.”
How about Jupiter setting up the tidal bulge and the inner planets acting on it.