Some new findings about the recent warming trends

[Roger J Smith]

In developing my research on solar system magnetic field influences on terrestrial climate, I recently isolated an interesting finding that may give us some additional insight into what is happening with recent warming. 

Using the CET daily temperature data from 1772 to present, I had already done some extensive research showing the existence of rather weak temperature profiles associated with earth's passage through (presumably rotating) solar system magnetic field sectors associated with other planets in the solar system. These appeared to be modulating temperatures over the long term by several tenths of degrees Celsius. 

Recently, I broke down the data sets into four quarters of 62 years each (1772-1833, 1834-1895, 1896-1957 and 1958-2019). Then I divided the fourth quarter data into two equal portions, 1958 to 1988, and 1989 to 2019. 

What I was looking for was the segment to segment correlation of the signatures to assess whether or not the effects were real. I was expecting to see the fourth quarter warmer than the other three, but with a similar profile. 

Starting with the most significant set of temperature profiles associated with Jupiter, I quickly noticed that my assumption of a steady increase of a similar profile was not quite the case. Instead, what I found is described below, but before going into that, just an overview -- the synodic J-year is on average 399 days long (it varies from 395 to 404 due to Jupiter's somewhat elliptical orbit). The data sets were divided not by calendar years but by J-years so the fourth quarter includes the 1958 opposition and 337 days before it, plus 60 days after it, and so on, using the precise dates available in astronomical tables for Jupiter oppositions. So the data set (which was first entered to make 2012 equivalent to the synodic year) always has day 338 as the opposition of Jupiter, and therefore has the conjunction (Jupiter on far side of Sun) around day 138 on average.

What I discovered to be the case for the J-year was this:

The first three quarters looked broadly similar and had peaks and troughs in the temperature profile at similar times in the J-year. But the fourth quarter varied by running about 0.6 C deg above the profile in the first half of the J-year (generally that portion surrounding conjunction), with a similar profile just elevated by that amount, and then averaged 0.9 C deg above in the second half, with little resemblance in that portion to the previous three quarters. It was warm most of the time in that half-J-year (about seven months). 

When I divided the fourth quarter into most recent and less recent 31-year halves, I found that the anomalous effect was almost entirely confined to the period 1989-2019. The 1958-1988 half actually showed no real increase over the third quarter 1896-1957, with the only exception being that there was a spike of about 0.3 deg additional warming after Jupiter oppositions (near the end of the 399-day profile and into the first ten days). 

I was then curious to see if similar effects were occurring in the temperature profiles associated with other planets, and in fact for Saturn, Uranus and possibly Neptune the same general trend could be seen -- increasing warmth in the half-synodic-year around oppositions, and in particular the three months that began about a month before opposition and ended about two months after it. The outcome for the longer Mars synodic year (averages 780 days) is different, and basically what I had expected to see with the other data, it's basically just the old signal evenly warmed up over the 2.2 year interval. I have not yet looked at profiles for the inner planets (which both show rather significant peaks of warming in the overall research associated with their inferior conjunctions).

I am now looking at my extensive Toronto data set to see if the similar modern warming there is also unevenly distributed with respect to the synodic years of the outer planets. 

This can mean one of two things, but I should qualify by saying that the general thrust of the original research (unrelated to the modern warming or its causes) is that sector "field" warmings were postulated to be some result of interactions between the planets and the Sun which the earth intercepts on a regular basis by moving through the sectors (or in the case of the inner planets, having them rotating past us in our slower orbit). What that interaction was, had been left in the hypothetical. It could have been actual warmth from the Sun being concentrated in sectors, or it could have been a result of excitation of our magnetic field by interaction with field sectors, or it could have been due to the outer planets blocking cosmic rays thereby having the effect of locally increasing the solar wind. 

So to find an uneven distribution of the recent warming puzzles me, especially if I believe the conventional theory that most if not all of this recent warming has an anthropogenic cause (greenhouse gas forcing). Why then would it not show up randomly and evenly distributed in the recent profiles of any arbitrary time scales, as it seems to do for the calendar year (although June has lagged behind other months in its recent warming performance)? 

With the amount of data concerned (31 years or about 28 J-years) the idea that it was just coincidence seemed unlikely. Then there was the absence of the effect for Mars, a similar modulator in the research to Saturn, but not much further out in the solar system than Earth and much smaller than Saturn with a weaker magnetic field (therefore unlikely to be very prolific at blocking cosmic rays).

What I have concluded as the take away is that one if forced to choose between two different explanations for this. 

(a) the recent warming is in fact natural and has its actual source in a recent increase in solar system magnetic field intensity or possibly a more effective blocking of incoming cosmic rays by Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus (Neptune's temperature profile was similar but as it happens in the 1990s Neptune was at opposition at very similar dates to Uranus, so there may not be enough distinct data to make a full separation of effects).  ... or

(b) the excess heat generated mainly by anthropogenic forcing is being utilized in the atmospheric response field sectors (not the space field sectors, but the atmospheric response components) in such a way that it ends up concentrated over western Europe and possibly other mid-latitude regions at certain times in the synodic cycles, and is concentrated more at other locations in the other portions of the cycles. 

If the answer is (a) then one might reasonably ask, why has this increase happened since about 1988 and is it permanent? The reason it might have happened is that solar activity all through the 20th century and in particular 1947 to 1989 was unusually strong. This may have slowly energized the magnetic fields of the large outer planets while having much less effect on Mars. Since that strong solar activity began to wane recently, there might be some chance that we would witness a gradual reduction of this warming (if that is the actual source) going forward, and a secondary signal of that might be a return to more normal profiles of how the warm and cool segments of the synodic years line up. 

If the answer is (b) then we might have a better handle on how to predict the unusually warm intervals that seem to occur with fairly regular frequency in recent decades. In the case of the UK climate and perhaps some other mid-latitude regions, the warmings might be mainly concentrated around the oppositions of the outer planets. 

I am working on a manageable excel file to show these results. The research at this point in time is embedded in a rather large and cumbersome excel file that has many other research files in it, and besides not wishing to expose all of those unrelated topics to casual readers, there is the practical aspect that the file is currently too large to download to net-weather. 

However, the basic concept here is fairly simple and open to discussion. Is there any plausible reason why recent warming should be concentrated in approximately one third to one half of time periods that are unrelated to the terrestrial calendar? If this were a finding that warming was stronger in one part of the earth year than another part, we could find little reason to suspect that any source other than AGW existed for the effects, it would be a case of figuring out the details. But with this extraterrestrial source, I am not that certain that what I am seeing has any other explanation than a space-based hypothesis. Of course this would not rule out an AGW signal, in fact, the Mars data probably establish that part of the warming must be terrestrial based. But what percentage of the warming is really human caused? Are we dealing with an effect that could intensify, stay relatively stable, or weaken back to its former intensity? 

I have been looking for any brief signs of similar flare-ups of opposition-timed warming spikes above and beyond what was already suggested in the "normal" profiles. So far, that has not uncovered anything similar to the recent past. Nor is there much sign of this slowing down or weakening. In the past two years, Jupiter oppositions were in May 2018 and June 2019; significant heat waves followed. You'll recall that in 2017 March and April had some unusual warmth, and before that, the period Dec 2015 to Jan 2016 was anomalously warm. The spread against the hypothesis is somewhat larger than the mean signal, but perhaps this is to be expected. 

If the main cause of the recent warming is solar system magnetic field excitation, blocking of cosmic rays, or anything unrelated to human activity, then it has implications for both planning and responses we have been making (all of which would have no effect were this the case). On the other hand, the magnitude of the danger presented is not reduced, especially if further investigation turns up some unexpected reasons to believe that the warming could accelerate. 

I have always thought that we know far less than is ideal about the interactions in the mid to outer solar system, in particular, the interactions of the Sun with Jupiter and Saturn. These are objects that we have long assumed have no real impact on our terrestrial weather, but perhaps we are badly mistaken about that. We had best figure this out quickly if we are in some unanticipated natural event that changes the basic energy flow of the terrestrial atmosphere. Any possible solutions would surely be "out there" in our magnetosphere or further out in the solar system, and not with fossil fuel reductions, methane elimination or any other of the current choices we are making. 

[JeffC]

So what you're saying Roger is that the data thus far may either debunk AGW or it may support it?

If the warming of the earth is due to solar  / solar system influence then the recent warming may be reversible, if not then we need to plan to mitigate.

fascinating stuff, would love to see it graphically illustrated fo my poor addled brain to get a better fix on it!

could be worth also posting this in the thread below as it's possibly relevant to that as well

 

 

Cheers

 

Jeff

 

 

[Methuselah]

Personally, I expect it to make no difference at all to AGW theory...

PS: to either practice or to theory.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Ed Stone

[JeffC]

23 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Personally, I expect it to make no difference at all to AGW theory...

theory or practice?

[Derecho]

7 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

 

I have always thought that we know far less than is ideal about the interactions in the mid to outer solar system, in particular, the interactions of the Sun with Jupiter and Saturn. These are objects that we have long assumed have no real impact on our terrestrial weather, but perhaps we are badly mistaken about that. We had best figure this out quickly if we are in some unanticipated natural event that changes the basic energy flow of the terrestrial atmosphere. Any possible solutions would surely be "out there" in our magnetosphere or further out in the solar system, and not with fossil fuel reductions, methane elimination or any other of the current choices we are making. 

OK, your assumptions involve a huge amount of extrapolation, firstly you only look at the CET… the CET is a tiny part of the planet. Look at 2010 for example, a cold year for the CET yet the warmest year on record globally at the time.

If I have read this right, you believe orbital variations in Juptier (and potentially other planets) are what is driving variations in global temperature (despite the fact you look at CET) by affecting magnetic fields?

With regards to point a) where is the data for the solar system magnetic field? Are you extrapolating this from the orbital patterns of other planets that are at least 365 million miles away? At least it sounds on point b) that you are acknowledging anthropogenic warming.

You then seem to somehow question the warming in the last third of your final section (its not clear which this is). I highlight your last paragraph in particular, your theory has no backing. Where is the science that refers to an impact from other planets? You refer to "changes in the energy flow of the terrestrial atmosphere". Is this synoptic variability? because synoptic variability won't get rid of the additional heat being added to the atmosphere. It'll just change its distribution while it carries on building up in the atmosphere as a whole.

The flaw in your thinking is that it seems as though you have a set outcome (debunknig climate change) without considering the data that you are using. Correlation does not equal causation. For example there is an extremely strong correlation between per capita cheese consumption and deaths from people becoming tangled in their bedsheets and it seems the length of winning words in spelling contests and people killed by venomous spiders.

 

The issue is that there is no solid evidence from physical processes that per capita cheese consumption increases the odds of people getting tangled in bedsheets. Nor is there no evidence that physical processes in Jupiter are affecting what is happening here. Given how much more accurate weather forecasts would help the society and economy, don't you think some scientists would have pointed this out by now after all these years...

So I'm really unconvinced due to the amount of extrapolation and the fact the physical processes don't have no obvious connection (and where is the science to back up your assumptions?). One area we can be confident about however is the influence of CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in our atmosphere, thus heating our planet more and more. People need to accept that and if we don't act soon we are in trouble given the rate in which CO2 emissions are increasing at.

As much as I would like the cause of the warming since 1850 to be something else, I am completely convinced CO2 is driving the warming and the more I study climate the more alarming I believe anthropogenic climate change is... and this is coming from someone who was a sceptic when they were 16!

Edited August 14, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[Devonian]

Absolutely spot on QS

[Roger J Smith]

I will get the excel file available for readers to inspect and I think you'll see that there is quite obvious evidence that some sort of solar system magnetic field signal exists, and that it has changed recently after being quite stable for most of the period studied. 

As to the CET or UK temperatures being a small part of a global picture, point understood but I had already established that there were similar responses at other locations across the northern hemisphere, so the signals were being incorporated into data for other mid-latitude climatic regions. This is a very large and complex topic and at my rather advanced age I am concentrating on getting these basic results accepted so that a future generation of workers could tackle problems such as southern hemisphere, polar regions and tropical zones within this framework. 

I would invite anyone who is skeptical about this research to wait for a chance to inspect the data and then see if the comments hold up, personally I think that the series of graphs of this effect over time show a very obvious development of a different trend around the 1980s and 1990s. 

Arguments about this not being supported in science fail to realize that some other studies have been published about high energy flows in the solar system magnetic field and in any case I am not postulating that the source of the warming is at Jupiter or other planets, I am saying that their interactions with the Sun are modulating the solar wind which we know is the primary source of heat for our planet, so any such objections are invalid since the theory doesn't say what you're criticizing it for saying. 

The important point is that opens up a valid field of objection to the concept that all of the warming we have recently seen is anthropogenic and it may require that we divide the warming into two separate sources, leaving the problem of how to do that and what implications it would have for our response. I don't even have a first estimate of how that should be divided, it could be 90-10 either way or anything in between. 

Anyway, give me a couple of days, I should have had these files ready when I posted this, but I wanted to get any ideas people might have to help me formulate one or two additional graphs to answer questions I might anticipate. 

Critics will have the burden of explaining why there is any signal at all in 248 years of data when a Jupiter synodic year time scale is employed. You can take some other time scale and find much smaller variations from a smooth zero net anomaly straight line. Then similar looking profiles emerge for Saturn and Mars on their time scales. 

I am just looking now at output from the Toronto data and seeing that a very similar result can be demonstrated for the J-year in their data. 

As to 2010 being cold in Britain and not many other places, you have to get lucky sometimes, but 2010 was also anomalously snowy in the east central United States. The two things were related to the blocking over Greenland. Here again, things like that rather singular event are more likely to be set up by external than internal energy flows in the atmosphere-magnetosphere system. We all know that the SSW phenomenon is something important to long-range weather forecasting and what are the chances that SSW propagates downward rather than upward? Given that there is rather limited predictability involved, I wouldn't want to close any doors on subjects like that. 

[Roger J Smith]

Burn me at the stake, right? Or maybe just a long drawn out inquisition. Well that's already happened so don't bother. 

[Gael_Force]

Somebody has done some research on this but I don't know if the scientist is reputable??

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/posters/Poster Presentations/Poster_Scafetta_Climate_Oscillations.pdf

[Bristawl Si]

48 minutes ago, Roger J Smith said:

Burn me at the stake, right? Or maybe just a long drawn out inquisition. Well that's already happened so don't bother. 

Your views are as valid as any other posters on here, Roger. Your posts invite debate which is healthy. Keep posting

[Derecho]

14 minutes ago, Gael_Force said:

Somebody has done some research on this but I don't know if the scientist is reputable??

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/posters/Poster Presentations/Poster_Scafetta_Climate_Oscillations.pdf

Looks like that is related to a combination of PDO and ENSO however? (Given the peaks around 1940 and 1998). Additionally they forecast cooling / or a flat line until 2030 which hasn't turned out right.

If their research really turned out to be correct and other planets were leading to this effect then this also wouldn't stop anthropogenic climate change. Their findings are based on detrending the global temperature record to identify a potential cycle.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[Devonian]

1 hour ago, Roger J Smith said:

Burn me at the stake, right? Or maybe just a long drawn out inquisition. Well that's already happened so don't bother. 

Don't be silly, do you expect roses or scepticism?

[BornFromTheVoid]

I don't see any hint of  being burned at the stake here. The questions and requests so far seem entirely fair.

Also, Scafetta is a common name in the climate denier blogosphere. He often speaks at the Heartland Institutes climate change denial conferences, posts on and is supported by numerous well known deniers and their websites. He has no expertise in climate science.
He's one of those that constantly criticises climate science and its ability to make predictions, while all of his own solar based predictions have been complete and utter failures. This tends to be the case when there's no physical mechanism to explain why such factors influence the climate, only correlations and numerology.

[Roger J Smith]

Well in this case there is a physical mechanism, energy flows in the solar system magnetic field are being studied under the general heading of "space weather" (not a term I invented) and I think it's fair to say that is a reputable science in its early stages. 

What I'm talking about here is not meant to be an alternative to the AGW theory, it has the potential to be anything between that and a parallel process unrelated to it that must be given some weight in our understanding of what is likely to happen going forward. If let's say half the modern warming has this unrelated cause, then we've only seen half of what most in the science had assumed was the footprint of AGW. If it's one third, then we've seen two thirds (all assuming that the two processes cannot interact with each other somehow). 

Anyway, my more pithy comments are only semi in jest and partly in frustration that we all seem locked into a predictable cycle of viewpoints that really have nothing to do with the actual numbers that I have in the research files, so I am going to get this excel file onto this thread as soon as possible, estimating that might be Friday at latest, the problem being that I have a huge amount of linked equations and stripping portions of the file might corrupt the parts I want to retain. 

Then you can see three essential things to form a better basis for real discussion here. First of all, what was this background J-year signal? (it is already documented in my research thread which appeared several years ago on net-weather, so nothing new about it). Then how robust has that been over time, is it the same signal in different periods which might bolster confidence in it being a real physical entity? Finally, how has it changed recently and what does that potentially mean? 

Okay, I am going to spend the rest of today (it is before noon here) working on reducing the data file to something that can be posted in the thread. I will concentrate on showing the data for the J-year rather than widening out the scope to the rest of the supporting data, maybe we could have a second round of discussion in a few weeks after that first round, with the other data added in a second posted file. 

All of this is new research as far as I know, which means that the question "why didn't somebody notice this before" is irrelevant to the discussion, I have no idea why nobody noticed it before, that's not my job as a scientist, but didn't two different people discover Neptune's existence at roughly the same time in the 1840s working independently? Maybe there's some guy in Russia doing exactly what I'm doing on his computer. Never know with science, nobody should ever assume that we know everything there is to know, especially in our science where to be frank we lag far behind most of the other sciences. 

[Roger J Smith]

I could also recommend getting hold of recent TV documentaries under the aegis of "NOVA" that discuss Jupiter and Saturn. This would be fascinating viewing for anyone even if totally uninterested in my research. It opened my eyes to some concepts that I had not previously realized about the potential influence of these large planets on events in the inner solar system. But I had already known that they both have strong magnetic fields (much stronger than ours) which tends to increase their potential to interact in some meaningful way with both the solar wind and cosmic rays. You do need to get beyond thinking of their potential in gravitational terms, this has nothing to do with mass over distance squared. The effects demonstrated vary with much larger powers. Consider that even a change of 0.1% in net solar wind would have a significant influence on terrestrial weather. Is it so hard to imagine that interactions of the Sun with these large planets could be smaller than 0.1% of net solar wind flow? I don't find that difficult to imagine at all given that the solar system magnetic field is known to be arranged in rotating sectors of unequal strength. 

However, a secular warming must have a cause other than those sectors alone, since we continually traverse them on an annual basis. So that's what this research is about, finding out whether or not the sectors are perhaps getting stronger in time. If it blows a bit of a hole in the AGW theory, that's good for science, in my opinion and if it somehow reinforces the AGW theory then also good for science. 

[Methuselah]

30 minutes ago, Roger J Smith said:

I could also recommend getting hold of recent TV documentaries under the aegis of "NOVA" that discuss Jupiter and Saturn. This would be fascinating viewing for anyone even if totally uninterested in my research. It opened my eyes to some concepts that I had not previously realized about the potential influence of these large planets on events in the inner solar system. But I had already known that they both have strong magnetic fields (much stronger than ours) which tends to increase their potential to interact in some meaningful way with both the solar wind and cosmic rays. You do need to get beyond thinking of their potential in gravitational terms, this has nothing to do with mass over distance squared. The effects demonstrated vary with much larger powers. Consider that even a change of 0.1% in net solar wind would have a significant influence on terrestrial weather. Is it so hard to imagine that interactions of the Sun with these large planets could be smaller than 0.1% of net solar wind flow? I don't find that difficult to imagine at all given that the solar system magnetic field is known to be arranged in rotating sectors of unequal strength. 

However, a secular warming must have a cause other than those sectors alone, since we continually traverse them on an annual basis. So that's what this research is about, finding out whether or not the sectors are perhaps getting stronger in time. If it blows a bit of a hole in the AGW theory, that's good for science, in my opinion and if it somehow reinforces the AGW theory then also good for science. 

I've seen them, Roger. They are brilliant, in their own right, but neither postulate a link between Jupiter, Saturn and terrestrial warming.

[Roger J Smith]

The excel file is currently edited down to a postable size and just needs some editing but the thread post that will introduce it will take some concentrated work so that you have a viable guide to a rather massive amount of data.

However, I can post some summaries that will essentially make the same argument about (a) the existence of a signal from Jupiter and (b) changes in that in recent years. 

I am estimating that the excel file and related post will be available by 0600h Friday.

The summary will be posted in about an hour from now. 

[Climate Man]

Thank you for all of this Roger, will be very happy to look at this with a very open mind.

 

[Roger J Smith]

It would be a matter of debate what might constitute proof of a signal in the CET (or any other) temperature record from an external source such as Jupiter. And once demonstrated, any such signal could hypothetically be the result of some process driven by Jupiter or a process mainly controlled by the Sun as modulated by Jupiter. 

Imagine that we had a calendar that was Jupiter-centric and not solar-centric. (There are monthly moon-cycle calendars but these are really solar in their foundations since seven additional lunar months are added every 19 years to keep these calendars in sync with the solar year). 

To match my data set as you will soon have the opportunity to inspect, my proposed Jupiter-centered calendar J-year will have 12 months of 33 days each, with the date of Jupiter opposition on the 8th of "J-November" which is day 338 of the J-year. To keep that happening every J-year, J-December will be the leap month, and its length will vary from 32 days to 41 with an average of 36 days. (note that "J-February" would be equal to all the other months at 33 days also).

If this were the case, you would have runs of 3-4 years (for example 2015 to mid 2018) when Jupiter's oppositions were in February, March, April and May where J-December would be relatively short, then intervals a few years later with longer J-Decembers when the oppositions of Jupiter were somewhat further apart. To orient yourself to this a little more in the here and now, 2012 plus Jan 2013 would have been a J-year and the 2012 opposition date (Dec 3rd) would then be J-Nov 8th of that J-year. So the J-December of that year would essentially have been Jan 2013. Now that Jupiter oppositions are moving towards their longer separations, the J-years would be a few days longer and the J-Decembers that fall around Aug 2020, Sep 2021 and Oct into Nov 2022, will be 40 or 41 days long. And we are currently at the start of a new J-year. The previous one ended on the 11th of August which was J-December 36th. The J-opp was on June 10th (or J-Nov 8th) and the next one is on July 14th of 2020. So today is the 4th day of J-January in this Jupiter-centric calendar.

So after reducing the entire daily CET data set to anomalies by solar calendar date averages, what would be the average temperature anomalies in each of the twelve J-months as defined above? I show them in this table, for the entire 248 year data set, and for each quarter, and within the last quarter, the two equal halves of that last quarter.

The final column shows the increase for q4(2) (1989-2019) over the mean of all data.

... all data are in C deg and derived from mean daily anomalies relative to 1772-2019 daily averages ...

(edited later _ note the use of earth months in this table will change in the following posts to a more neutral system, J-Jan becomes Jyr-A, J-Feb is Jyr-B, etc, so that the eventual discussion can avoid any confusion between this arbitrary division of time and the earth calendar.)

Month ___ All data ___ q.1 ___ q.2 ___ q.3 ___ q.4 ___ q.4-1 ___ q.4-2 ____ q4-2 minus mean all data

J-Jan ___ +0.026 ___ -0.329 _-0.239 _-0.050 _+0.720 _+0.389 _+1.064 ____ +1.038

J-Feb ___ -0.129 ___ -0.212 _-0.372 _-0.186 _+0.252 _ -0.020 _+0.534 ____ +0.663

J-Mar ___+0.005 ___ -0.091 _-0.347 _+0.117 _+0.341 _+0.102 _+0.587 ____ +0.582

J-Apr ___ -0.019 ___ -0.229 _ -0.258 _+0.057 _+0.355 _+0.173 _+0.544 ____ +0.563

J-May ___+0.099 ___ -0.487 _-0.177 _+0.312 _+0.751 _+0.253 _+1.266 ____ +1.167

J-Jun ___ +0.079 ___ -0.135 _-0.240 _+0.280 _+0.409 _+0.071 _+0.760 ____ +0.681

J-Jul ___ -0.127 ____ -0.446 _-0.421 _-0.097 _+0.445 _ +0.034 _+0.890 ____ +1.017

J-Aug ___+0.111 ___ -0.086 _-0.145 _+0.068 _+0.607 _ +0.121 _+1.111 ____ +1.000

J-Sep ___ -0.098 ___ -0.423 _-0.407 _-0.024 _+0.461 _ +0.153 _+0.780 ____ +0.878

J-Oct ____-0.032 ___ -0.267 _-0.311 _+0.292 _+0.158 _ -0.443 _+0.780 ____ +0.812

J-Nov ___+0.094 ___ +0.055 _-0.201 _+0.136 _+0.387 _-0.129 _+0.921 ____ +0.827

J-Dec ___+0.007 ___ -0.267 _--0.327 _-0.155 _+0.776 _+0.461 _+1.107 ____ +1.100

______________________________________________________________________________________

(this summary can be found at KL-KT 1051-1062 in the excel file to be posted)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Here's an overview of what this summary shows.

There has always been a faint J-year signal with peaks in months five and eleven (at the conjunctions and oppositions of Jupiter). The mean amplitude of this two-wave phenomenon is 0.2 C deg, but it weakened considerably to almost no signal in q.2 (1834-1895). The amplitude in q1 was about 0.4 deg, a little larger than in q3 and the first half of q4, although what catches my eye in q4(1st half) is that the data show either no warming or a cooling from q3 until the last J-month (J-Dec) which is considerably warmer (and that warmth continues into the following J-January). Inspection showed that most of that "new" warmth in the 1958-88 interval happened in those months in the 1980s (notably around June 1982, July 1983, August 1984, and late Sept to Oct 1 1985, June 1970 was one of the few outliers in producing this warmth).

Then the second half of the fourth quarter which is more or less the prime AGW interval (1989 to 2019) showed a marked increase over all previous data but as you can see the increase was held to 0.6 C deg in the portion of the J-year defined as 3-5 months after Jupiter oppositions or 1-3 months before Jupiter conjunctions (the portion of earth's orbit where we have passed the Sun-Jupiter connection and even if that curves forward slightly, we are through that forward flex curve which corresponds to about months 12 and 1 (J-Dec into the next J-Jan). The recent increase is a little over 1.0 C deg in the months around both conjunctions and oppositions. It stays relatively high in that portion of the J-year where the earth is approaching Jupiter opposition (unlike the portion after those events).

I will at some point tabulate the frequency of daily record highs in the CET against this Jupiter-centric time scale. That will likely show a clustering of these records around Jupiter alignments at 6.5 (conventional) month intervals (on average). 

Going back into the excel file now to get that ready for inclusion into a post, however, the above table is really the foundation of what that is going to show, you'll be able to see how the data sets are arranged and quite a few other details of this postulated process. 

(an added observation, the smaller segment of warming in q4(1) looks very much like the opening phase of some larger process in the graphical presentation in the file -- and it corresponds to (mostly happening shortly after) the strong 1982-83 El Nino and the widely noted anomalies in North American data around Dec 1982 which would be roughly equivalent to J-June in this system, a month after a Jupiter conjunction event). 

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Roger J Smith

[JeffC]

2 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

It would be a matter of debate what might constitute proof of a signal in the CET (or any other) temperature record from an external source such as Jupiter. And once demonstrated, any such signal could hypothetically be the result of some process driven by Jupiter or a process mainly controlled by the Sun as modulated by Jupiter. 

Imagine that we had a calendar that was Jupiter-centric and not solar-centric. (There are monthly moon-cycle calendars but these are really solar in their foundations since seven additional lunar months are added every 19 years to keep these calendars in sync with the solar year). 

To match my data set as you will soon have the opportunity to inspect, my proposed Jupiter-centered calendar J-year will have 12 months of 33 days each, with the date of Jupiter opposition on the 8th of "J-November" which is day 338 of the J-year. To keep that happening every J-year, J-December will be the leap month, and its length will vary from 32 days to 41 with an average of 36 days. (note that "J-February" would be equal to all the other months at 33 days also).

If this were the case, you would have runs of 3-4 years (for example 2015 to mid 2018) when Jupiter's oppositions were in February, March, April and May where J-December would be relatively short, then intervals a few years later with longer J-Decembers when the oppositions of Jupiter were somewhat further apart. To orient yourself to this a little more in the here and now, 2012 plus Jan 2013 would have been a J-year and the 2012 opposition date (Dec 3rd) would then be J-Nov 8th of that J-year. So the J-December of that year would essentially have been Jan 2013. Now that Jupiter oppositions are moving towards their longer separations, the J-years would be a few days longer and the J-Decembers that fall around Aug 2020, Sep 2021 and Oct into Nov 2022, will be 40 or 41 days long. And we are currently at the start of a new J-year. The previous one ended on the 11th of August which was J-December 36th. The J-opp was on June 10th (or J-Nov 8th) and the next one is on July 14th of 2020. So today is the 4th day of J-January in this Jupiter-centric calendar.

So after reducing the entire daily CET data set to anomalies by solar calendar date averages, what would be the average temperature anomalies in each of the twelve J-months as defined above? I show them in this table, for the entire 248 year data set, and for each quarter, and within the last quarter, the two equal halves of that last quarter.

The final column shows the increase for q4(2) (1989-2019) over the mean of all data.

... all data are in C deg and derived from mean daily anomalies relative to 1772-2019 daily averages ...

Month ___ All data ___ q.1 ___ q.2 ___ q.3 ___ q.4 ___ q.4-1 ___ q.4-2 ____ q4-2 minus mean all data

J-Jan ___ +0.026 ___ -0.329 _-0.239 _-0.050 _+0.720 _+0.389 _+1.064 ____ +1.038

J-Feb ___ -0.129 ___ -0.212 _-0.372 _-0.186 _+0.252 _ -0.020 _+0.534 ____ +0.663

J-Mar ___+0.005 ___ -0.091 _-0.347 _+0.117 _+0.341 _+0.102 _+0.587 ____ +0.582

J-Apr ___ -0.019 ___ -0.229 _ -0.258 _+0.057 _+0.355 _+0.173 _+0.544 ____ +0.563

J-May ___+0.099 ___ -0.487 _-0.177 _+0.312 _+0.751 _+0.253 _+1.266 ____ +1.167

J-Jun ___ +0.079 ___ -0.135 _-0.240 _+0.280 _+0.409 _+0.071 _+0.760 ____ +0.681

J-Jul ___ -0.127 ____ -0.446 _-0.421 _-0.097 _+0.445 _ +0.034 _+0.890 ____ +1.017

J-Aug ___+0.111 ___ -0.086 _-0.145 _+0.068 _+0.607 _ +0.121 _+1.111 ____ +1.000

J-Sep ___ -0.098 ___ -0.423 _-0.407 _-0.024 _+0.461 _ +0.153 _+0.780 ____ +0.878

J-Oct ____-0.032 ___ -0.267 _-0.311 _+0.292 _+0.158 _ -0.443 _+0.780 ____ +0.812

J-Nov ___+0.094 ___ +0.055 _-0.201 _+0.136 _+0.387 _-0.129 _+0.921 ____ +0.827

J-Dec ___+0.007 ___ -0.267 _--0.327 _-0.155 _+0.776 _+0.461 _+1.107 ____ +1.100

______________________________________________________________________________________

(this summary can be found at KL-KT 1051-1062 in the excel file to be posted)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Here's an overview of what this summary shows.

There has always been a faint J-year signal with peaks in months five and eleven (at the conjunctions and oppositions of Jupiter). The mean amplitude of this two-wave phenomenon is 0.2 C deg, but it weakened considerably to almost no signal in q.2 (1834-1895). The amplitude in q1 was about 0.4 deg, a little larger than in q3 and the first half of q4, although what catches my eye in q4(1st half) is that the data show either no warming or a cooling from q3 until the last J-month (J-Dec) which is considerably warmer (and that warmth continues into the following J-January). Inspection showed that most of that "new" warmth in the 1958-88 interval happened in those months in the 1980s (notably around June 1982, July 1983, August 1984, and late Sept to Oct 1 1985, June 1970 was one of the few outliers in producing this warmth).

Then the second half of the fourth quarter which is more or less the prime AGW interval (1989 to 2019) showed a marked increase over all previous data but as you can see the increase was held to 0.6 C deg in the portion of the J-year defined as 3-5 months after Jupiter oppositions or 1-3 months before Jupiter conjunctions (the portion of earth's orbit where we have passed the Sun-Jupiter connection and even if that curves forward slightly, we are through that forward flex curve which corresponds to about months 12 and 1 (J-Dec into the next J-Jan). The recent increase is a little over 1.0 C deg in the months around both conjunctions and oppositions. It stays relatively high in that portion of the J-year where the earth is approaching Jupiter opposition (unlike the portion after those events).

I will at some point tabulate the frequency of daily record highs in the CET against this Jupiter-centric time scale. That will likely show a clustering of these records around Jupiter alignments at 6.5 (conventional) month intervals (on average). 

Going back into the excel file now to get that ready for inclusion into a post, however, the above table is really the foundation of what that is going to show, you'll be able to see how the data sets are arranged and quite a few other details of this postulated process. 

(an added observation, the smaller segment of warming in q4(1) looks very much like the opening phase of some larger process in the graphical presentation in the file -- and it corresponds to (mostly happening shortly after) the strong 1982-83 El Nino and the widely noted anomalies in North American data around Dec 1982 which would be roughly equivalent to J-June in this system, a month after a Jupiter conjunction event). 

 

Gonna need some peace and quiet to work through this!

[Roger J Smith]

I will probably change the naming system for the 12 equal intervals ("months" as we might think of them) to remove any connection to the earth-year and the assumptions that might come along for the ride, so look for an edit to the previous post to show these as "Jyr-A" to "Jyr-L" ... numbers would cause confusion with other concepts in the theory, and Roman numerals are already assigned to Jovian moons. So the letter system seems most appropriate. 

For the Saturn synodic year of 378.1 days, the system can be modified to alternating 32 and 31 day intervals, with the opposition date coming at Syr-K 5th (compare to Jyr-K 8th), and Syr-L will occasionally be 30 or 32 days rather than 31 but Saturn's synodic year tends to vary within narrower limits than Jupiter's so there is not much of a strain on the length of the leap month. So to compare how the recent past (1989-2019) warms relative to the S-yr, we see a rather similar outcome to the J-yr and this despite the fact that the S-yr is randomly distributed in the data as compared to the J-yr over that length of time. 

Here are the numbers, the anomalies for the J-yr "months" are taken from the table above, and the data for the S-yr months are to be found in column KJ 1051-1062 in the excel file. 

Anomalies in the interval 1989-2019 relative to all data 1772-2019 (C deg)

"Month" (30-33d) _ Jup anom __ Sat anom __ Ura anom __ Nep anom

J/S/U/N yr A _____ +1.064 _____ +0.862 ____ +0.989 ____ +1.019

J/S/U/N yr B _____ +0.534 _____ +0.779 ____ +0.637 ____ +0.914

J/S/U/N yr C _____ +0.587 _____ +0.575 ____ +0.902 ____ +1.053

J/S/U/N yr D _____ +0.544 _____ +1.242 ____ +0.810 ____ +0.635

J/S/U/N yr E _____ +1.266 _____ +0.931 ____ +1.093 ____ +1.237

J/S/U/N yr F _____ +0.760 _____ +1.238 ____ +0.944 ____ +0.929

J/S/U/N yr G _____ +0.890 _____ +0.846 ____ +0.945 ____ +1.201

J/S/U/N yr H _____ +1.111 _____ +0.578 ____ +0.807 ____ +0.583

J/S/U/N yr I ______ +0.780 _____ +0.913 ____ +0.310 ____ +0.508

J/S/U/N yr J ______ +0.780 _____ +0.794 ____ +0.474 ____ +0.351

J/S/U/N yr K ______ +0.921 _____ +1.006 ____ +1.226 ____ +0.704

J/S/U/N yr L ______ +1.107 _____ +0.574 ____ +1.213 ____ +1.196

_______________________________________________________________________

The Saturn year also shows least warming around 4 months after opposition, as well as 3 months after conjunction.

For both sets of data, it should be noted that the warming of 1989-2019 relative to all data is smaller (by about 1/4) than the warming of 1989-2019 relative to 1772-1988 since 1989-2019 is part of all data. 

An example, in J-yr A the anomaly is +1.064. But the anomaly of data from 1772 to 1988 averaged -0.212 so the warming is actually +1.276 C deg from that average. 

I am looking at the data for the U-year and N-year and will add that to the table also. The U-year 12-"month" system will be (5x31 + 1x30)x2 and for the N-year (2x31+1x30)x4. This will make the 12th month in each case occasionally 29 days since the synodic years are about 369.66 and 367.75 days (rather than 370 and 368 which those systems generate). 

You'll see that the warmer periods associated with these two occur near their oppositions. It must be stressed that the data has considerable overlap since Uranus overtook Neptune in 1992-93 and has only gained by about one "month" in the 26 years since then. In other words, there's no easy way to unravel the two signals from this data, it may be mostly one and a bit of the other, or they may be similar despite overlapping. The numbers show a concentrated warming at the months of opposition (which have all been in the range Sept-Nov for Uranus and Sept-Oct for Neptune) and lasting to 2 months after opposition, and a secondary peak near the conjunctions. In both cases, the warming is less robust about two months before opposition, a time of year that has been sliding from about July to September.

At some point later I will post the similar analysis for Mars to show that there is less variation relative to that smaller planet with its presumably weaker ability to interact with either the solar wind or incoming cosmic rays. 

 

[Devonian]

3 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

It would be a matter of debate what might constitute proof of a signal in the CET (or any other) temperature record from an external source such as Jupiter. And once demonstrated, any such signal could hypothetically be the result of some process driven by Jupiter or a process mainly controlled by the Sun as modulated by Jupiter. 

Imagine that we had a calendar that was Jupiter-centric and not solar-centric. (There are monthly moon-cycle calendars but these are really solar in their foundations since seven additional lunar months are added every 19 years to keep these calendars in sync with the solar year). 

To match my data set as you will soon have the opportunity to inspect, my proposed Jupiter-centered calendar J-year will have 12 months of 33 days each, with the date of Jupiter opposition on the 8th of "J-November" which is day 338 of the J-year. To keep that happening every J-year, J-December will be the leap month, and its length will vary from 32 days to 41 with an average of 36 days. (note that "J-February" would be equal to all the other months at 33 days also).

......

I haven't got a clue what you're on about . Jupiter year? It's 11.88 earth years. 33 day month? J month? Leap J months?

Anyway, what I think you've found out is that the atmosphere has and is warming but can't bring yourself to accept the reason for that so have gone looking for another...

[Catacol]

1 hour ago, Devonian said:

I haven't got a clue what you're on about . Jupiter year? It's 11.88 earth years. 33 day month? J month? Leap J months?

Anyway, what I think you've found out is that the atmosphere has and is warming but can't bring yourself to accept the reason for that so have gone looking for another...

Not only is this a staggeringly arrogant response, you also demonstrate you haven't even bothered to read the posts properly at all. Had you done so you would have seen that this is a complex theory (no getting away from that) which is set alongside AGW and not as a replacement. Usually those who don't understand something either choose to ask a question to enable greater understanding, or they keep quiet.

Your kind of cheerful intransigence stifles debate, it does not improve it. If you have nothing constructive to contribute then vacate the thread.

 

[Derecho]

3 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

I will probably change the naming system for the 12 equal intervals ("months" as we might think of them) to remove any connection to the earth-year and the assumptions that might come along for the ride, so look for an edit to the previous post to show these as "Jyr-A" to "Jyr-L" ... numbers would cause confusion with other concepts in the theory, and Roman numerals are already assigned to Jovian moons. So the letter system seems most appropriate. 

 

Thanks for the further comments, personally I'm struggling to keep track of what is going on here. Have you got any graphs along with the data sources to break things down? Obviously the CET is an easy dataset to get but how other things are calculated is something I'm not sure I understand. Visualisation makes things easier to digest and obviously won't be a huge file.

I don't really have much to add to what I wrote above and will reserve further questions until I see the data itself. Clearly you've spent a lot of time putting this together but I have not seen anything to comment.

I think I've said before on other threads I think there is some influence of solar activity on synoptic variations but with other factors at play which complicate the picture much further (hence why we find seasonal + regional forecasting so difficult)... so it is not immediately obvious. I am open to some further consideration of other factors outside our atmosphere on synoptics (e.g look at SSW events) but I think that's all I'll add to now.

Finally, debate is fine but also expect claims to stand to scrutiny if it goes against what all the published literature points towards. That is the way science operates.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[Roger J Smith]

Yes, there will be graphs available in the posted excel file. Still aiming for about 0600h to post that. 

The J-year that I am analyzing is the synodic year or average period (399 days) between Jupiter oppositions. As stated it takes Jupiter 11.86 years to travel once around the Sun. So each year the earth needs roughly 30 to 40 days in addition to its own year to catch up. Slower moving planets further out have shorter synodic years. Saturn 378.1 days, Uranus 369.66 days, and Neptune 367.7 days. Mars on the other hand needs only 1.88 earth years to make its orbit, so it takes earth over two years to catch up (780 days). 

The twelve months that I created were arbitrary divisions of those intervals into twelve equal portions, with slight variations allowed in the twelfth month. To make comparison of them easier, I standardized the synodic year data intervals so that planetary opposition (where we pass each outer planet) takes place early in the eleventh of the twelve months. Since the S-year is shorter than the J-year, the equivalent positions are day 338 of the J-year and day 320 of the S-year. In both cases these will fall in the early portion of month eleven. 

Anyway, look for the file to appear tomorrow in your time zone, I am working on it and the post for this thread this evening here.