Shock Study: Atmospheric CO2 Levels Change with Planetary Movements
New study by Australian geophysicist shows astonishing tie-in between official UN global climate data and planetary alignments. Climate scientists have never before noticed this undeniable link.
Official measurements of global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperatures show a first order correlation with movements of the Sun, Earth and Moon over a 42-month planetary cycle (synodic period), suggesting a new and previously overlooked (non-human) driver of climate change.
Researcher, Bevan Dockery, has previously published a study examining climate and CO2 levels confirming a skeptical position that carbon dioxide is not a driver of climate change. Dockery’s latest study, if confirmed by other scientists, further undermines consensus science assessments of the role of CO2 in climate. If anything, climate change drives levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Dockery explains:
“My previous study described the time relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration [1] at the Mauna Loa observatory compared to the satellite lower troposphere Tropics-Land temperature [2]. It concluded that increased CO2 concentration has not caused temperature to rise but that the temperature is a significant control on the emission of CO2.
The conclusion has since been duplicated by analysis of the CO2 concentration data from Macquarie Island, in the Southern Ocean [3], and from the Mt Waliguan Observatory on the Tibetan Plateau, China [4].”
Additional analysis of updated Mauna Loa data gave the following autocorrelation function for both the annual rate of change of the CO2 concentration (red line) and the satellite lower troposphere Tropics Land monthly temperature (blue line):
The CO2 data covered the period March 1958 to October 2017 while the satellite Tropics temperature data was from December 1978 to October 2017. Considering the different lengths of the time series, the variables show a striking match in their periodic response. The fact that neither autocorrelation function decreases with increasing lag shows that both time series are not stationary in the statistical sense and dictates that the First Order Autocorrelation Model be applied as was done in the first contribution, 2016/12/16.
The matching response can also be seen in the Fourier Transform amplitude spectrum for each, as shown below:
There is a prominent maximum in both spectra at a frequency of 0.0234 cycles per month, that is, a wavelength of 42.7 months which corresponds to the 43.2 month average interval between the maxima in the correlogram, allowing for the coarse one month sample interval for each of the time series.
Remarkably, the 42 month period was known by the Israelites 2500 years ago, being mentioned in the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation in the New Testament of the Bible. It is the synodic period for the Sun, Earth, Moon combination whereby the three form the same configuration every 42 months. This is not to be confused with the Earth – Moon synodic period of 29.5 days which applies to the conjunction of the Earth and the Moon with respect to the Sun.
Furthermore the 42 month period is similar to the El Nino cycle and may be the source of the heat that drives this event. This is in agreement with the paper from Geli Wang et al [5] who used wavelet analysis to detect a 3.36 year cycle in the Central England Temperature dataset, which they attributed to the El Nino Southern Oscillation.
The maximum with the second greatest amplitude on both the temperature and the CO2 rate of change is at a frequency of 0.033 cycles per month, that is, a period of 30.12 months.
The third greatest amplitude on the temperature response is at a frequency of 0.012 cycles per month, that is, a period of 85.3 months, while for the CO rate of change it is at a frequency of 0.0097 cycles per month, that is, a period of 102.4 months. It may represent the synodic period of Mercury and Venus being the near coincidence of 20 cycles of Mercury and 5 cycles of Venus which has a period of 95 months.
The fourth greatest amplitude on the temperature response is at a frequency of 0.057 cycles per month, that is, a period of 17.7 months. There is a coincident local maximum on the CO2 rate of change. This may be due to the 19.2 month synodic period of Venus.
Accurate predictions as to the period and source of the local maxima in the amplitude spectra are not feasible due to the course sample interval of one month, the short time series of only 467 months and the use of uneven monthly sample intervals which were 28, 29, 30 or 31 days in length.
This has been partly resolved by using the weekly Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration time series as proxy for the atmospheric temperature. Unfortunately this was not ideal either as there were breaks in the time series that have had to be filled by interpolated values.
The 3062 data points were padded with values of zero at each end to give the Fourier amplitudes for 4096 data points. Once again the greatest maximum was at a wavelength of 42.82 months and is considered to be the heat source for the El Nino event.
Other local amplitude maxima were at wavelengths of:-
29.56 days attributed to the Moon’s synodic period of 29.53 days,
27.18 days attributed to the Moon’s sidereal period of 27.32 days,
573.44 days attributed to the synodic period for Venus of 583.94 days,
225.76 days attributed to the sidereal period for Venus of 224.7 days,
367.59 days attributed to the sidereal period for Earth of 365.256 days,
796.44 days attributed to the synodic period for Mars of 778 days,
699 days attributed to the sidereal period for Mars of 687 days,
404 days attributed to the synodic period for Jupiter of 399 days.
It is notable that both the synodic and sidereal periods of the Moon are apparent in the weekly series. An explanation for the synodic period is that each New Moon reduces the incoming Sun’s radiation to the Earth and its atmosphere as it passes between the Sun and the Earth.
For the sidereal period, it may be the effect of the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit as the Moon varies between the perigee of 363,100 km and the apogee of 405,700 km.
Evidence that the 42 month cycle causes the El Nino event is seen in the responses over the South Pole as shown below. Once again the time series are of different lengths with the annual rate of change of the CO2
concentration (red line) covering the period June 1957 to December 2016 and the satellite lower troposphere South Pole Land monthly temperature (blue line) covering the period December 1978 to October 2017.
There is an obvious difference between the time series. The periodic nature of the annual rate of change of the CO2
concentration repeats the wavelength of that from Mauna Loa while it is barely discernable for the South Pole satellite lower troposphere temperature series.
The power spectra confirm the difference as seen here:
The peak in the amplitude spectrum for the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration remains at the wavelength of 42.7 months.
However the power spectra for the satellite lower troposphere temperature has the 42.7 month peak in fourth spot with greater amplitude peaks occurring at wavelengths ( in decreasing amplitude ) of 64 months (which may be the synodic period for the Moon and Mercury and/or Jupiter ), 26.9 months (which may be the synodic period for Mars and/or Jupiter) and 10.7 months (which represents 11 synodic cycles of the Moon).
The reduction in the 42.7 month peak is reasonable considering the fact that the Sun’s rays are practically tangential to the polar surface or do not impinge on part of that surface for months at a time and the Moon’s orbit is inclined at 5E to the elliptic.
The CO2 concentration over the South Polar region has been, on average, 2.2 ppm less than over the Tropics for the 58 years of recording during which time the concentration at the South Pole increased by 86.8 ppm and at Mauna Loa the increase was 88.3 ppm with the difference being statistically significant at the 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} level.
The clear similarity between the autocorrelation function and the power spectra for the two time series, temperature and rate of change of CO2 concentration, from the Equatorial zone support the original contention that the temperature drives the rate of change of CO2 concentration.
As the Tropics has the highest average temperature it must produce CO2 at the greatest rate. That CO2 must diffuse North and South away from the Equator into the Polar regions. As the solubility of CO2 increases with decreasing temperature it must be precipitated at the Poles within the ice and snow or as dry ice when the temperature is below its sublimation point of -78 degrees Celsius. That is, there may be a continuous circulation of carbon from the Equatorial Zone, through the atmosphere as CO2, to the Poles where it is locked into the Polar ice sheets until those sheets move sufficiently far from the Pole to melt.
The CO2 is then concentrated in sea water and may return to the Equatorial zone via the Earth’s oceans. That is, the Tropics is a source for the atmospheric CO2 and the Polar regions are a sink.
The conclusion remains as before, namely, that a rise in CO2 concentration does not change the atmospheric temperature of the lower troposphere but the temperature determines the rate of change of CO2 concentration.
Added to that is the new conclusion that there is a prominent 42 month cycle for the temperature due to the synodic period of the Sun, Earth, Moon configuration which then causes the same cycle in the rate of change of CO2 concentration and is expressed in the Earth’s climate as the El Nino event.
Furthermore cycles in the temperature spectrum may relate to orbital cycles of the planets indicating that, at least in terms of years, the orientation of the planets with respect to the Sun may determine the changes in the Earth’s temperature.
That is, climate change is the result of the continually changing position of the Moon and the planets relative to the Earth and the Sun and has nothing whatsoever to do with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Referrences:
[1] http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/primary_mlo_co2_record
[2] http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
[3] http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/pub/data/current/co2/monthly/mqa554s00.csiro.as
.fl.co2.nl.mo.dat
[4] http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/pub/data/current/co2/monthly/wlg236n00.cma_no
aa.as.fl.co2.nl.mo.dat
and http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/pub/data/current/co2/monthly/wlg236n00.cma.as.
cn.co2.nl.mo.dat
[5] Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental
temperature record. Geli Wang, Peicai Yang & Xiuji Zhou
Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 46091 (2017), doi:10.1038/srep46091
Bevan Dockery, B.Sc.(Hons), Grad. Dip. Computing, retired geophysicist, formerly: Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, Member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Member of the European Association of Exploration Geophysicists, Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Trackback from your site.
Robert Beatty
| #
What an interesting article, and great work finding a correlation between the 42 month synod and atmospheric CO2 levels.
I suspect the relationship between the synod alignment may have a gravitational influence. If so, the alignment will cause movement along the submarine spreading ridges which in turn will release heat into the ocean. Extra heat will cause CO2 to be released from the sea as per Henry’s Gas Law
It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between shallow seismic activity and the 42 month synod cycle as this could indicate such a relationship exists.
My work on an allied subject checked for an association between Atlantic storms due to raised sea surface temperature, and seismic activity along the mid Atlantic Ridge. The results are shown at http://www.bosmin.com/SeismicWeather.pdf
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
My work to date has only dealt with orbital periods. There is still considerable study to be done with regard to changes in ellipticity and the precession of the orbits of the planets and the Moon as per the Milankovitch cycle causing the ice ages.
Reply
Simon
| #
Have you seen the work by David Dilley (global warming oscillations.com) ?
The climate change alarmists (who said that global warming caused the recent extreme cold in the USA) will no doubt counter your work by saying that CO2 causes the planets to move!
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
Science does not care about credentials.
Science does not care how many sets of initials and acronyms follow your name.
What science cares about is that its rules are understood and followed.
A physicist understands and follows the rules of physics, designs and assembles a nuclear device and detonates it in the desert proving his applied science works.
A chemist understands and follows the rules of chemistry, designs and mixes a rocket fuel which launches a missile and payload into orbit proving his applied science works.
A mechanical engineer understands and follows the rules of machine design and combustion, designs and fabricates a gasoline fueled heat engine that powers a car down the road proving his applied science works.
A “climate scientist” does not understand or follow the rules of science and consequently the radiative greenhouse effect, aka RGHE, misapplied science does not work.
RGHE theory exists to explain why the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. Not so. The average global temperature of 288 K is a massive WAG at the ”surface” beneath the atmosphere. The w/o atmospheric temperature of 255 K is a theoretical S-B ideal BB calculation at the top of – the atmosphere with a 30% albedo. An obviously flawed RGHE faux-thermodynamic “theory” pretends to explain a mechanism behind this non-existent with/without phenomenon.
The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool. As albedo increases, heating and temperature decrease. As albedo decreases, heating and temperature increase.
Over 7,800 views of my five WriterBeat papers and zero rebuttals. There was one lecture on water vapor, but that kind of misses the CO2 point.
Step right up, apply science, I did.
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/19972-Space-Hot-or-Cold-and-RGHE
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15855-Venus-amp-RGHE-amp-UA-Delta-T
Reply
oldbrew
| #
Re: ‘27.18 days attributed to the Moon’s sidereal period of 27.32 days’
It’s closer to the lunar draconic month = 27.21222 days.
That’s ‘the period in which the Moon returns to the same node of its orbit’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Month#Types_of_months_in_astronomy
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
Oldbrew, you may be right. I did not think of considering the draconic period.
The original data file contained 3062 data values. Fourier Transform of those gave local maxima at 29.16 and 27.17 days. Padding the list with zeros out to 4096 values gave local maxima at 29.56 and 27.18 days. Dividing the data into lists of 512 values each then taking the average of the amplitudes for the Fourier Transform of each list gave local maximum at 29.14 and 27.15 days.
In my view the important point is that the maxima can be attributed to the Moon, an astronomical cause, and not an anthropological cause.
I was initially amazed at the results as I am not aware of any literature attributing changes in atmospheric temperature to the passage of the Moon.
Reply
Todd Cleckner
| #
Bevan Dockery I am fascinated with this work. Are you planning on having it peer-reviewed? Thank you
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
Yes Todd, I am trying to work towards that end.
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
A luminous photosphere of energy radiates from our sun in all directions out across the cosmos. When that sphere expands to the average orbital distance to the earth its dispersed luminous surface radiates a power flux of 1,368 W/m^2 (S-B BB 394 K). But the earth does not orbit in a nice average circle, but in an ellipse with perihelion being closer and aphelion being farther. So how much difference does that make to the climate?
At perihelion (closer) the power flux is 1,415 W/m^2. At aphelion (farther) the power flux is 1,323 W/m^2. The total annual range/change/fluctuation is 92 W/m^2. Yes, 92 W/m^2.
According to IPCC AR5 the radiative forcing added to the atmosphere by the CO2 increase in the 261 years between 1750 and 2011 is 2 W/m^2. Yes, 2 W/m^2. IPCC’S worst^4 case scenario is RCP 8.5, 8.5 W/m^2.
So if an annual 92 W/m^2 fluctuation does not cause catastrophic climatic consequences what possible reason have we to believe that 2 W/m^2 or even 8.5 will?
The annual ToA ISR fluctuation because of the tilted oblique incidence at 40 N is 670 W/m^2. From that we get summer and winter. Who’s afraid of 2 W/m^ or for that matter, 8.5 W/m^2?
(A sphere of radius r has 4 times the area as a disc of radius r. Per K-T et. al. balances, 1,368 / 4 = 342 W/m^2. That’s exactly where that number originates! It’s the planar parallel ISR spread evenly over the entire ToA sphere. That’s not even close to how the earth actually heats and cools.)
Reply
Bob Webster
| #
Nicholas… clever analysis!
Note the “catastrophic climate change” caused by north or south movement in the eastern USA (Boston to Miami): about 1.25˚C (2.25˚F) for each 100 miles.
That’s a total of 14.2˚C (25.6˚F) “climate change” difference between Boston and Miami. Horrors!
If you think that is bad, the seasonal extremes (February to August) in climate (which is the difference you’ve noted) at Atlantic City, NJ, is 21.1˚C (ocean surface) and 22.7˚C (land surface), which translates to 38.0˚F and 40.9˚F, respectively.
Somehow, people manage to survive those catastrophic “climate” changes!
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
Rather fundamental to a solar HVAC ME having to size equipment.
This is the reality that the useless K-T type modeled balances with global ToA averaged 342 W/m^2 power fluxes disregard.
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
Thank You Nicholas, it is good to get another view of the problem. To my mind your figures justify my attributing the spectral peak at 367.59 days to the sidereal period for Earth of 365.256 days.
It would be interesting to know what difference it makes to the power flux when each of the Moon, Mercury and Venus pass between the Sun and the Earth.
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
Watched the partial lunar eclipse from Lake Powell. The impact on sunlight is obvious. The totality’s shadow incoming power flux should be 0.0 W/m^2.. Wonder what the “back” radiation was? Did the ground freeze up at an upwelling flux of 396 W/m^2? Not so I have heard.
The Achilles heel of CAGW/RGHE is this: 288 K – 255 K = 33 C does not work and if that doesn’t work nothing about RGHE works.
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
Thank you Simon. I have now viewed the site and sent copies of my reports to David Dilley but no response as yet.
Reply