Jupiter and Saturn can explain the swings of the Earth’s temperature
On December 21, 2010 was a peculiar astronomical coincidence. It was the darkest day of the year and Saturn and Jupiter were in conjunction. Conjunction means that, from the Eath's ground, celestial bodies take the same line, in this case they appear in almost one piece. If cloudiness permitted, these planets were visible around 4 p.m. just above the horizon in the south-southwest from the moon to the right. There was little time to detect the phenomenon, as the planets disappeared behind the horizon in about half an hour.
The last time planets were this close together was in 1623, almost at the same time that my semi-empirical climate model SECM began (1610). My headline is a little provocative. The peak of global temperature is limited to starting at the beginning of the little ice age and the final moment is about a year in 2050, if there is no upward change in solar activity.
Opponents of my climate models will probably think that Ollila has now left climate models with a final gallop when referring to the effects of astrology. It is not about astrology; it is about astronomy and the mathematical equations that are led by them. It must be said that the temperature effects of my model on these cosmic factors, i.e. in cases of the sun and planets, are partly based on empirical observations.
SECM – Semi Empirical Climate Model
My SECM model is a holistic model that includes four factors affecting global temperature: solar activity, greenhouse gases, AHR (Astronomical Harmonic Resonances), or Astronomical Harmonic Vibrations and Volcanoes. 99.97% of the energy that sustains global temperature comes from the Sun, and small changes in solar activity affect global temperature. As for carbon dioxide, my model gives only a third of the temperature effect given by the IPCC model (TCR/TCS: 0.6 °C versus 1.8 °C). The effects of volcanoes are purely empirical, and I do not predict the future based on them. This time I do not present mathematical equations, but they can be found in my original article, Reference 1.
Temperature trends since 1610
There is no generally accepted consensus on what the change in global temperature has been like since 1610. So, I have calculated my own temperature trend based on some of the most well-known temperature estimates, Figure 1.
Figure 1. Temperature trends since 1610. My own temperature trend is T-EST and is the average of the three other trends in the figure.
Briffa et al.'s trend is based on tree ring values, Moberg et al.'s trend is based on annual growth rings of trees and sediments, and the Ljungkvist curve is based on values calculated using 9 different methods. After 1880, direct temperature measurements are available, Figure 2.
Figure 2. Temperature trends since 1880.
In my own temperature trend T-Rec, I have used the average of trends of Budyko and Hansen from 1880 to 1980 and from 1980 onwards UAH satellite measurement. It will come as no surprise to those following the official temperature trends that the GISS and Hadcrut4 curves will be considerably colder between 1980 and 1970 than the those of Budyko and Hansen, see Figure 2. (yes, yes, the same Hansen who initiated climate change hysteria in the US Senate).
TSI (Total Solar Irradiance)
I have often addressed the fact that the IPCC climate model currently gives temperature value that is about 30-50% higher than the average warming value of the 21st century of 0.85 degrees. According to the IPCC model, warming is about 98% caused by humans, i.e. by greenhouse gases. The reason for the IPCC model error is in cosmic factors, i.e. the Sun and planets (Jupiter and Saturn), which are missing from the IPCC model.
Figure 3. Presentations by a few solar scientists on trends in the sun's TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) values.
This field of science, solar research, is independent of climate change science, but of course, they have a connection. It is quite clear that solar scientists are inherently in opposition to the IPCC, whose presumption is that there has been almost no change in the Sun’s activity. The University of Oulu has a strong team of Sun and northern lights researchers, the most well-known of whom are Mursula and Usoskin.
Figure 3 draws attention to a large variation or difference between the estimates of different researchers. As a starting point for my own model, I have chosen Lean's estimate on the grounds that it follows my temperature trends T-comp most closely. Professor Lean is probably the most respected solar scientist.
As shown in Figure 3, changes in solar activity coincide quite well with the small ice age of 1650-1700 and the Dalton minimum in the early 19th century. Analysis of empirical data shows that the solar irradiation power (TSI) is strengthened through changes in cloudiness caused by the sun itself. This confirmation is weakly nonlinear, but roughly speaking, temperature changes caused by TSI changes are amplified by a factor of 4.2 due to cloudiness changes. Figure 4 shows changes in TSI, albedo, and cloudiness in certain periods of time.
Figure 4. TSI, albedo and cloudiness in certain periods of time.
In addition to the change in solar radiation, how much of a change in cloudiness is needed to explain the increase in temperature by 0.5 degrees from 1665 to 1703 for the period 1987-1991, when the effect of greenhouse gases has been eliminated? A direct TSI change can explain 0.12 degrees and the rest of 0.38 degrees can be explained by the change in cloudiness from 69.4% to 66%. Changes in cloudiness are therefore quite reasonable and realistic.
AHR – Cosmic Harmonic Vibration
Another cosmic force that affects global temperature cyclically is Astronomical Harmonic Resonances (AHR), which moves the gravitational center of our solar system. The culprits of this phenomenon are the giant planets Jupiter and Saturn. A little history of developing the AHR model. The Russian team of researchers Ermakov et al. was the first to publish in 2009 that 40-400 tons of space dust enter the Earth's atmosphere every day. Using correlation analysis, they found a good correlation between Jupitern’s and Saturn's cycle times of 11.87 and 29.4 years. Cycle times lead to the synodical cycles of about 29-21 years and 60-62 years. Right now, we are close to the peak of that larger cycle on December 21, 2020.
Scafetta analyzes the AHR phenomenon further and his theoretical explanation for this is that the cycle of planets causes a resonant-like variation in the amount of dust that arrives on Earth. My own contribution to this is that I have studied what astronomers may have found in space dust. As early as 1975, researcher Gold calculated that dust particles in our solar system spirally travel toward the Sun, but some of them are trapped by the gravity of the planets, forming a toroid or a doughnut ring-shaped cloud of dust in their orbit around the sun, Figure 5. With the help of IRAS satellites, the existence of the dust cloud has been registered and confirmed. The earth's position within this cloud of dust varies between 0.8 and 1.3 AU (AU is the earth's distance from the sun).
Figure 5. A cloud of dust on the earth's orbit.
Dermott et al. calculated that as the earth "plows" in its orbit through this cloud of dust, its wake has a higher dust content, and this observation has also been confirmed by satellite measurements. In school, we were taught that planets orbit around the sun on their ellipse-shaped orbits, and the Sun is stationary without any movements. No, it is not. The giant planets Jupiter and Saturn move a little bit the solar system's gravitational mass center. I found a NASA program called Horizons that allows anybody to calculate changes in solar speed in terms of the center of mass.
The developed further this AHR mechanism based on the changes in the sun's speed in terms of the center of the solar system, Figure 6.
Figure 6. The change in the sun's speed in terms of the mass center of the solar system.
I calibrated this change in speed variation to temperatures using empirical data, i.e. the maximum point of 1941 +0.185 ° C and the 1962 mini-point -0.15 ° C. I have used an ex-experience value of 0.34 degrees. It was only a few years ago that it became clear that these planets have shaped the Earth's orbit almost in a circular shape, making the conditions for life here much better.
Impact of volcanoes
The effects of volcanoes are purely empirical and include the well-known largest volcanic eruptions Tambora 1815, Krakatau 1883, and Novarupta 1912.
SECM model results
The result of my SECM model up to 2010 is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. SECM model results 1610-2010. Temperature change normalized to zero between 1630 and 1690.
Figure 7 illustrates the effects of each factor on temperature and the combined result. The SECM model gives a correlation coefficient r2 = 0.9 compared to the temperature measurement and the standard error of the estimate is 0.09 °C. Not bad when you consider that the model starts from 1610, which the IPCC does not even want to think about, that is, before 1750 there were almost no changes in temperature when the greenhouse gas effect was zero and the sun is a standard powered star.
In Table 1, I have calculated the averages for each century as well as 2015, how different factors have influenced temperature changes.
In the 2010s, the Sun's impact has been about 45%, AHR's about 20%, and greenhouse gases about 15%.
Figure 8 shows a forecast for this century based on the constant TSI after 2020.
Figure 8. SECM model forecast until 2100. Temperature change normalized to zero in 1880.
Figure 8 shows four scenarios for this century. The maximum temperature will occur around 2020, and the temperature will then start to decrease very slightly. Over the next 5-10 years, we will find out whether this so-called “Cosmic theory” is right, i.e. whether global temperatures are falling.
The development of solar activity, or TSI value, plays a decisive role. Personally, I consider Shepherd et al.'s double dynamo model is the best Sun model so far, because it explains the history quite well, Figure 9.
Figure 9. Shepherd et al.'s solar model.
During the next solar cycle, which has just begun, the correctness of the model will be seen. I have seen a forecast where the next solar cycle is predicted to be exceptionally strong, unlike in Figure 9. Science has not yet reached a consensus on this issue either.