Nicola Scafetta Lief Svalgaard SSB

[By day two of the discussion, Lief brings up the SS Barycenter crux of the discussion that was not mentioned in the paper.]

nicola scafetta says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:03 am
In my paper under scrutiny I am specifically talking of the temperature of the Earth more than of solar activity.
As you seem to think that the variation of the temperature is caused by the variation of solar activity, I focus on the cause rather than on the efect.

My argument was not that the barycentric speed of the sun was “directly” responsible of the climate oscillations
As I read your paper [and other papers of yours] you say that solar activity is directly responsible for climate changes [with the exception of the most recent changes that you now say mostly is AGW.

So, it is not true that for me “the solar velocity has nothing to do with anything”. As I said in my paper many times, the barycentric speed of the sun can be used as just a “proxy in the frequency domain” for what is causing the climate oscillations
Since the velocity of the Sun contains much the same frequencies as the tidal forces [that you now believe is directly responsible for solar activity] you can use the velocity as a ‘proxy’ for the tidal forces, said proxy you claim is just a convenience device for easier calculations rather than the cause of anything. You might as well calculate the tidal forces directly [which is not hard to do, as you well know]

My argument is a perfectly valid argument, dear Leif, and it is supported by data analysis results.
By now it is not clear what your argument is. I’ll try to paraphrase what I think you are saying: the planets raise tides in the sun’s interior. These tides modulate [or even cause] solar activity. Solar activity thus have cycles driven by the planets. Solar activity causes most of the climate change we observe, except the last 50 years or so, where most of the change is man-made.

So, open your mind.
I tend to be more receptive to ideas that are supported by physics rather than by the “unknown” cosmic forces or processes you advocate.

Probably in the 16-17th century and before you would also have strongly denied that the ocean tides were caused by a lunar influence.
Not many people in the 16th century would have said that that the tides were raised by the moon’s gravity. Name one for me. In the 18th century, Newton’s theory about the tides seemed to become generally accepted and there was no ‘camp’ that denied that that I could belong to.

Filed under: In other online forums,Natural Processes — by Richard Holle @ 3:40 am on July 27, 2011

Comments

There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment