Loehle and Scafetta calculate 0.66°C/century for AGW

Guest post by Craig Loehle and Nicolas Scafetta

Human Effect on Climate Clearly Detected
(but is 0.66 deg C/100yr since ~1950!)

Loehle, C. and N. Scafetta. 2011. Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Historical Time Series. Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5:74-86.

The study is available via free open access at http://benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V005/74TOASCJ.htm (links to full paper and supplemental information, both PDF, follow at the end of this post)

How do we detect the influence of humans on the climate system? Current methods based on climate models are unfortunately circular: their estimate of human effects is only valid if the models are correct, but the models make certain assumptions and also are fitted to the historical temperature record. A model-independent estimate of climate response is needed and is provided by this study.

The climate change attribution problem was addressed using empirical decomposition. Previously observed cycles in solar motion and activity of 60 and 20 years were used to develop an empirical model of Earth temperature variations. The model was fit to the Hadley global temperature data up to 1950 (the time period before anthropogenic (GHG+Aerosol) emissions became a significant forcing mechanism), and then extrapolated from 1951 to 2010 (Fig. 1A). The residuals (Fig.1B) showed an approximate linear upward trend after 1942. It is assumed that this residual upward warming has been mostly induced by anthropogenic emissions, urbanization and land use change. The warming observed before 1942 is relatively small and is assumed to have been mostly naturally induced because anthropogenic (warming + cooling) forcing would approximately compensate each other before 1950.

Figure 1.

The resulting full natural plus anthropogenic model (below, Fig. 2) fits the entire 160 year record very well. Residual analysis does not provide any evidence for a substantial cooling effect due to sulfate aerosols from 1940 to 1970. In fact, the cooling observed during that period is well predicted by a natural 60-year cycle, which from 1940 to 1970 was in its cooling phase and contributed about 0.3 oC cooling, plus an estimated +0.66 oC/century anthropogenic Note that a quasi 60-year cycle is visible in the global temperature since 1850 and has been observed also in numerous multisecular climatic records. New solar activity proxy models developed in the paper suggest a mechanism for both the 60-year climate cycle and a portion of the long-term warming trend. About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by this natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase. Figure 2B shows the components of the signal in our model.

Figure 2.

A 21st Century forecast (below, Fig. 3) suggests that climate may remain approximately steady until 2030-2040, and may at most warm 0.5-1.0°C by 2100 at the estimated 0.66°C/century anthropogenic warming rate, which is about 3.5 times smaller than the average 2.3°C/century anthropogenic warming rate projected by the IPCC during the first decades of the 21st century.

Figure 3.

Conclusions

1) The estimated AGW component matches theory, since the log of an exponential rise in carbon dioxide should give an approximatelinear trend (as in fact the climate models do). The timing of AGW effects (beginning in 1942) also matches expectations.

2) The fitted components match solar model forcings within their uncertainty.

3) The estimated sensitivity matches a no-amplification (neutral) climate sensitivity, or even a slight negative feedback case.

4) Warming due to anthropogenic GHG+Aerosol of 0.66 oC/Century is not alarming, in comparison to the IPCC protected 2.3 oC/Century This 0.66 value is an upper bound in our estimation (due to possible poorly corrected UHI and LULC effects that may explain part of the observed warming trend since 1950).

5) Cooling/flat temperatures till 2030 are likely (as also predicted by others).

6) Our result matches the historical record better than any other attribution study and better than GCM outputs.

============================================================

Loehle & Scafetta 2011 (full paper PDF)

Loehle & Scafetta Supplemental Info (PDF)

About these ads

678 thoughts on “Loehle and Scafetta calculate 0.66°C/century for AGW

  1. I’ve been wondering for a long time why a scholarly paper evaluating recent warming with past warming in order to determine anthropogenic attribution, why it’s been so long in coming. Even without statistical analysis, the instrumental temperature trend (starting around 1700 with pretty good global coverage by about 1850) was pretty clear to me and others: recent warming that the IPCC has attributed almost exclusively to AGW is mostly a continuation of a longer term, uneven (cyclical) warming trend. I hope that this paper gets the attention it deserves. I’m looking forward to what, if any, fault, the IPCC, Hansen, Gavin S, et al can find with it.

  2. Seems to me that the anthropogenic warming indicated here depends on your confidence of the post 1950 warming as reported by Hadley, but if those results have been manipulated i.e. early 40’s warming suppressed and post 1970 warming enhanced, as the graph would appear to show, then there has been no anthropogenic effect at all. How would these result change if you tossed in the results of Watt et al on deterioration of the met stations ?

  3. This is, I think, built on some faulty assumptions, but one of the most serious I can think of is that there are not longer “periodicities” in the climate and weather on time scales that could cause the apparent “boost” to warming in the latter half of the century to be misinterpreted.

    I do agree that there is a modest human impact on climate, mainly clear in the latter half of the twentieth century, and mainly manifested by “mild-ing” or decrease in extremes (little warming in summer, mostly in winter) I’m not convinced that this is a good way to isolate the signal.

  4. I still can’t figure out how that temperature increase rate was the same early on as it is now when there is so much more co2 in the atmosphere. Shouldn’t the temperature increase be accelerating with the accelerated increase in CO2?

  5. The paper will be thoroughly refuted. I do not know as yet by who, or on what grounds, or where the definitive refutation paper will appear. But it will be refuted and dismissed in no time, never to be talked about again (except by “deniers” and “flat-earthers”). That is thankfully the way we operate in climate science. Trust us, we’re scientists. Everything is under control. Nothing to see here, move on.

  6. Fine, but we still need to discount the relative contributions of the GHG components, i.e. what contribution of the 0.66/century is CO2 vs H2O and other polyatomic GHG’s.

  7. Another study that lacks the Science part…

    “pretty good global coverage by about 1850″

    Lol! that is the only thing to do when we are talking about 0.xº differences

  8. AGW rate of .66 – but same rate for too long a period of time means it’s not AGW but just mostly GW out of the little ice age. I would expect an increase in the rate of rise the world became more industrialized in the 20th century to be able to label the .66 as simply AGW. All in all a nice step towards a more realistic assessment.

  9. There is no physics at all in this, any more than in the IPCC-supported modelling. 1) there is no greenhouse effect of atmospheric warming due to increase in CO2:

    Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

    so there is no mechanism for AGW. 2) The satellite tropospheric and sea surface (SST) data differ from the HADCRUT surface temp anomaly, with the present temperatures of both right at the same level as in 1991 (while Fig. 1 here shows an increase over 1991 of about 0.25 °C). This also brings up the subject of 3) possible deliberate positive adjustments in the HADCRUT data, in the last 20 years at least. 4) The use of the Beer-Lambert law, behind conclusion no. 1 in the article, is problematic, since that law is valid only in the absence of multiple scattering, and any “greenhouse gas” IR in the atmosphere is generally scattered many times over (it is simply the IR portion of the heat transfer in the atmosphere, which is diffusive, not directed) — yet another fundamental misunderstanding by the “consensus”. 5) Akasofu and others touting the multidecadal ocean oscillations theory already claim a 0.5 °C/century rise from the Little Ice Age, since the mid-to-late 17th century, while the modelling in this article shows only about 0.2 °C/century for that effect, so it seems they are underestimating it substantially, and simply giving its contribution to AGW.

    I’m sorry, this is more farce, probably done because it allows the “lukewarmers” to claim their 1 °C per doubling of CO2 is “true”, or “most reasonable”. It is not; there is no greenhouse effect as claimed by the climate “consensus”. Period.

  10. It seems too simple to be true to me. As analysis of past data it may work but many other decompositions are no doubt possible too (I’ve seen too many of them already). And extrapolating it to 2100 is as unsafe as with any other model.
    Anybody can say human influence is not linear. Personally I believe it’s far from linear in fact. But “certain people” will gladly replace it by a different curve, preferably exponential or at least 2nd order, giving them exactly the forecast they want to have anyway.

  11. Although I haven’t reviewed the paper yet, this seems like a plausible approach.

    It seems that we have seen similar #’s on this blog from other climate realists; 0.66 deg C/century, from Spencer maybe? – if any one can recall similar #’s please post the number’s & source. I believe this was in relationship to a sensitivity / feedback article, which concluded observed feedback from CO2 is far less than used in most GCMs. It would be interesting if two different approaches from 2 different climate realists came up with similar answers – it would give me more confidence on a realistic answer on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    The question I would have is if there are other longer wavelength signals in there as well – which is very plausible – which would make the 0.66 deg estimate a high side estimate. Combining this with modeling feedback, you might be able to come up with a unique solution for CO2 sensitivity.

  12. I’ll bet that if you include a 309 year natural cycle in this simple model, the .66 residual will vanish. Try it on the high resolution Greenland ice core data.

  13. Can someone please advise me (none scientist) does this “This 0.66 value is an upper bound in our estimation” mean that that is the maximum they think it can be?

  14. Craig:

    “but the models make certain assumptions and also are fitted to the historical temperature record. A model-independent estimate of climate response is needed and is provided by this study.”

    I can find no evidence that models are “fitted” to the historical record.Everything I have read or seen indicates that the models are calibrated to meet certain output variables. For example, radiation at TOA. can you provide a cite on this?

    Steve

  15. I would like to thank Antony for the post.

    In brief one major issue addressed in our paper is to determine whether the “science is settled” argument advanced by the AGW climate modellers is accurate. The comment from the critical readers clearly suggest that they are having some problem in locating the physical cause of the ~20-year and ~60-year oscillation in their climate models they are familiar with.

    These people are very right that those models do not reproduce those oscillations.

    However, as proven in our paper and in the numerous references of our paper, ~20-year and ~60-year oscillations are very clear and present in the climate system. Consequently, it appears that the “science is settled” argument is false.

    The big problem is that because the current IPCC AGW models do not reproduce these cycles, a large part of the observed warming since 1970 is not due to AGW forcings, but to natural cycles. This in turn implies that the climate sensitivity to AGW emission has been largely overestimated, we believe by a factor of about 3.5.

    Thus, for example, the climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling might be around 1 C, not about 3.3 C, which is the average estimate of the IPCC. However, the IPCC acknowledge an ancertenty between 1 and 10 C.

    So, I woud invite the readers to objectively read our paper and our numerous references. If there are clear error, we are wrong. But if the climate does present the cycles we say that it presents, then I believe that the AGW supportes need to acknowledge that afterall their argument that “the science is settled” is false. So, everything should be studied with responsibility.

    I may also suggest the reader to give a look at the presentations at the 6ICCC conference. There is also a talk of mine about these cycles at

    http://climateconference.heartland.org/watch-live/

  16. What is missing (you can’t get everything in one paper) is the cyclical downturn on the multi-centennial scale. i.e. – if there is GW out of the Little Ice Age, then somewhere down the line comes GC that would naturally lead into the next Little Ice Age. Due to the uncertainty caused by lack of physics in the AGW hypothesis, the future past 2030 could also take a nose dive. Ain’t that a kick in the pants: 10 cents worth of AGW holding up the climate parade.

  17. Some reminders:
    1) 0.66 deg C is per century, the sensitivity to doubling is more like 1 to 1.2 which matches Spencer and other low-end estimates
    2) This is not a polynomial fit to the data. We factor out the natural cycles based on solar activity first, then identify the human signal.
    3) People really should read it first, it is a paper rich with data and citations.

  18. Mosh: You call it calibration, I call it fitting. One of the most glaring examples is the correlation between model sensitivity and the amount of sulfate aerosols assumed as input (which keeps sensitive models from running away from the data).

  19. At least from the summary, it appears they’ve skipped the logical way to pry out the influence of UHI. They haven’t compared fully rural locations with urban locations. We know that most of the fully rural locations show no particular trend in the last 50 years, while most of the urban locations do. From that you can determine that most of the upward trend in the average of all locations was from UHI.

    They might have accounted for this in some other way, but it’s not obvious from the summary here.

  20. Craig and Nicolas, very nice.

    If there is a longer solar forcing (direct or indirect) cycle, say from Dalton to a possible repeat of Dalton soon, would your work fit within that longer cycle?

  21. “It is assumed that this residual upward warming has been mostly induced by anthropogenic emissions, urbanization and land use change.”
    1. Never assume.
    2. Urbanization and land use change would serve primarily to skew the temperature record upwards, not have any noticeable effect on overall temperatures.
    0.66°C/century for AGW is probably far too generous.

  22. EMD has been used to analyze the temperature record previously. See
    Wu, Zhaohua, Norden E. Huang, Steven R. Long, and Chung-Kang Peng. 2007. “On the trend, detrending, and variability of nonlinear and nonstationary time series.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (38): 14889 -14894. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701020104.

    Abstract reads
    Determining trend and implementing detrending operations are important steps in data analysis. Yet there is no precise definition of ‘‘trend’’ nor any logical algorithm for extracting it. As a result, various ad hoc extrinsic methods have been used to determine trend and to facilitate a detrending operation. In this article, a simple and logical definition of trend is given for any nonlinear and nonstationary time series as an intrinsically determined monotonic function within a certain temporal span (most often that of the data span), or a function in which there can be at most one extremum within that temporal span. Being intrinsic, the method to derive the trend has to be adaptive. This definition of trend also presumes the existence of a natural time scale. All these require- ments suggest the Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) method as the logical choice of algorithm for extracting various trends from a data set. Once the trend is determined, the corresponding detrending operation can be implemented. With this definition of trend, the variability of the data on various time scales also can be derived naturally. Climate data are used to illustrate the determi- nation of the intrinsic trend and natural variability.

    The results are consistent with this paper. They don’t fit linear trends to separate sections of the record though

  23. I am interested in what happens if they run their calculations backwards. In addition to seeing what may happen in the future, see if he model shows what happened 1,000 and 2,000 and 3,000 years ago. I will then believe that the model has some predictive value. The same would apply to all of the other models

  24. Please take a look at the signal components we detected. The amplitude for the 60 yr cycle is 3x larger than the 20 in the solar wobble data, and also in the fitted model to temperature. Quite a coincidence. The linear anthropogenic signal starts in 1942, which makes sense, is linear which matches GCM output (look at IPCC graphs, they are linear) and matches theory since log saturation of an exponentially rising CO2 level will be linear. The slope matches what we expect for sensitivity in the absence of feedbacks. The model predicted the downturn at 2000 based on fitting only up to 1950. So there sure are a lot of coincidences in the results if it is just garbage.

  25. I agree with many commentators above: even if Scafetta’s guesswork is less alarmist than the IPCC barefaced lie, it is still a guesswork, fitting computer models to designedly altered and cherry-picked “data.”

    There is no verifiable way to calculate the anthropogenic component of the alleged “climate change,” and there is no way to prove that such a component exists at all, or is not totally compensated by various feedback mechanisms.

  26. Calibration to output is what engineers call cheating or fitting. Calibration to inputs is what we call honest.

  27. Nick says:
    July 25, 2011 at 11:42 am
    Being older, crustier. cynical and intolerant? :-) Is .66 C coincidence?

    +0.66 C is not a coincidence.

    Now +0.666 C on the other hand…

  28. I know climate is not linear but…
    1910-1945: 1.29 deg/century
    1975-2000: 2.00 deg/century
    1945-1975: 30 years of flat temperatures
    (2.00-1.29)*0.70 = 0.50 deg/century (the 0.70 means 70 years of warming in a century)
    So assuming each century has 30 years with no + or – gradient, the trend of 0.50 deg/century compares well to 0.66 deg/century.
    1. How can you establish a fair baseline for temperature changes when the little ice age ended only by 1850, almost the same year when temperature baselines begin?
    2. The CO2 increase has been going on for some time (much longer than from 1945 when human contributions started becoming more significant). If CO2 does lead to warmer temperatures don’t you have to back out the effect of natural warming caused by CO2 increases that were introduced prior to man’s influence?
    3. None of this math is real anyway.
    4. According to Wikipedia (gasp) the LIA lasted from 1550-1850 AD with three very cold periods, 1650, 1770 and 1850. How can you start looking at trends the year after a multi-century cold period and get anything other than warming?

  29. Steven Mosher: “I can find no evidence that models are “fitted” to the historical record.”

    Every model has a different sensitivity and they all claim to “match” the observed surface temperature changes over the last century. They do this by using different levels of overall climate forcing, usually they adjust the amount of aerosol cooling. How one could then call the resulting match to the historical record anything other than a “fit” is beyond me. As for citations for the fact that models use the aerosol forcing necessary to get a decent match, I think that the most obvious work on this subject was by Kiehl:

    https://www.atmos.washington.edu/twiki/pub/Main/ClimateModelingClass/kiehl_2007GL031383.pdf

    Now, I don’t think there is anything “wrong” with using the aerosol forcing this way. They just want to show that their models can reproduce the historical record with “reasonable” assumptions. This is unfortunately being misinterpreted by many as the models being right, rather than them being possible given what we know and the range of uncertainty in forcings. The sensitivity of the models is, as I think you are saying, constrained by it’s parametrizations, which are bounded by observational data on TOA radiation data etc. (although not all very tightly constrained) but this is not what is being questioned about the models, rather the issue is whether the model hindcasts matching historical temperatures to some degree is evidence that they have correct physics, or is merely a result of modelers making the choices for inputs which will produce a reasonable result. Obviously no modeler is going to input into their model forcings which don’t reproduce the observed changes, but if those forcings happen to be more correct, then the model “match” to the historical record is for the wrong reasons physically. It is therefore nothing more than a statistical fit, and a spurious one at that. Logically since all the models have this same approach applied to them, all claiming to reproduce the historical record, at most one of them can have the correct aerosol forcing and at most one the correct sensitivity. All others then are spurious fits. I would say that most likely none of the models are exactly correct and even reasonably correct, so I just go one model further, kind of like atheists brag about going one God further ;) concluding that their historical matches are physically virtually meaningless.

  30. Don D.: we do mention that the 0.1 deg/century upward trend may be part of a long cycle.
    Bruce Cobb: we argue that the 0.66 deg C/century is an upper bound–the reviewers made us take out our attempt to estimate and subtract this factor
    Willem de Lange: thanks for the reference. We see a reason to split the data because of the introduction of a new forcing (human) around mid-century. This is what allows us to detect it.

  31. This is an extremely valuable effort. If the sensitivity apparent in this work is still too high it will become increasingly evident with time.

  32. Craig Loehlec says: 2) This is not a polynomial fit to the data. We factor out the natural cycles based on solar activity first, then identify the human signal.

    Do you think there are enough data to decide what is the most accurate model for the human effect? At ClimateEtc, Judith Curry cited a paper that had a decomposition for the natural cycle and then an exponential function for the residual (human effect.)

    Can you estimate the human-related trend as a function of CO2 concentration? With or without taking account of the sensitivity to doubling? Could you estimate the time to achieve 99% of the effect of the doubling?

    These are not criticisms of your paper (criticisms which I’ll eventually read elsewhere). I accept the basic soundness of your approach.

  33. ‘At least from the summary, it appears they’ve skipped the logical way to pry out the influence of UHI. They haven’t compared fully rural locations with urban locations. We know that most of the fully rural locations show no particular trend in the last 50 years, while most of the urban locations do. From that you can determine that most of the upward trend in the average of all locations was from UHI.”

    we know no such thing. In every study I have done or participated in using multiple methods of comparing rural to urban ( the berkeley method, JeffIds method, A common anomaly method, a reference station method, a paired site approach) there was no significant difference between rural sites and urban sites. No claims made to the contrary have published code and data. The only study that indicates anything of the sort is Ross’ study which is a regression model

  34. I agree with Peter Foster’s comment.
    Don’t the authors know about the lawsuit threatened against NIWA the New Zealand official agency by the Climate Science Coalition (CSC) for false lowering of the early record to create a greater warming slope in the New Zealand records. True there was an investigation, but by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology who apparently were playing the same game. The CSC has since been vindicated in their charge. I understand most weather records used for global temperature estimates are similarly altered.

    Indeed, regardless of these machinations, Essex, McKitrick, and Andresen argue, there is no physically meaningful temperature for the earth.

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

    Then we have the false increase in temperature identified by D’Aleo and discussed by McKitrick caused by the decline in the number of stations used to determine the annual average temperature.

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html

    Involvement of national weather agencies in the IPCC through the WMO makes all their work questionable as they strive to defend an indefensible hypothesis.

    The data is inadequate and compromised as to make studies like this meaningless. But then the data was inadequate for construction of the climate computer models from the start and it is still the case.

  35. Alexander Feht says: it is still a guesswork, fitting computer models to designedly altered and cherry-picked “data.”

    No, it is a straightforward test of a hypothesis that is simple to state: a natural process was occurring ever since the end of the Little Ice Age and the beginning of the instrumental record; this process can be (phenomenologically) modeled from the data up to 1950; there has been an additional process since 1950, and this can be estimated by projecting the model estimated on pre-1950 data up through current data, and computing the residuals.

    The only untestable hypothesis is that the natural process up through 1950 persisted much as before. That hypothesis might be tested in the future. For example, it might be convincingly related to measures of solar variation, in which case we would be hard-pressed to say it ended after WWII, or some such.

  36. Hey, it occurs to me that GISS’s fiddling of the instrumental record is a climatic form of Ponzi scheme.

    For every fake increase it becomes harder to find further fake increases until the fateful day that all the exaggeration is exposed for the hot air that it always was. The end is nigh, Jim, but not as we know it.

  37. I defend this approach of fitting the temperature data in order to isolate the possible different physical contributions present. The IPCC approach that a suitably adjusted AGW model alone can explain both past data and be extrapolated forward to 2100 seems a little over-optimistic to me.

    I have also recently made a fit of the Hadley data using a simple logarithmic AGW model (DT=2.5 ln(C/C0)) based on Mauna Loa data plus natural oscillations of 60, 11 and 9 years. The conclusions are similar to the authors and imply that little further warming can be expected before 2030. (Nicola Scafetta also helped point out an error in my previous post !).

    The fit I got is DT= -0.34+2.5ln(CO2(x)/290) + 0.14sin(0.105(x-1860))
    -0.003sin(0.57(x-1867))-0.02sin(0.68(x-1879))

    and the details can be seen here http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2353

  38. “A common anomaly method, a reference station method, a paired site approach) there was no significant difference between rural sites and urban sites.”

    And since we know there is a difference, something is really fishy with the data/adjustments.

    “Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/14/image-the-urban-heat-islands-in-the-northeast/

  39. Steven Mosher-You continue to misrepresent Ross McKitrick’s work as UHI. It is not. It is a study of socioeconomic effects on climate trends. Michael’s example may help in illustrating the marked difference-His example is weather stations in a country like Chad, which must have the paint on their Stevenson screens maintained…except that in a country with such low per capita income I hardly think springing for the cost of maintaining paint on a weather station is a priority. So for these and any number of reasons, one would expect that there could be correlations between temperature trends and measures of socioeconomic development. If one looks at this, and controls for various climatic factors like latitude, the “dryness” of a gridcell, it’s proximity to the ocean, and even the contemporary trend in satellite data, one can predict the surface temperature change pattern only if one includes the socioeconomic variables, and these variables account for, in total, signficant warming impact. Urban-Rural comparison isn’t going to encompass all socioeconomic factors or all climatic factors relevant for determining the trend associated with development or lack thereof. The regression model was put through huge numbers of statistical tests to see if it was reasonable, it passed all the tests, factors were considered that might reduce the significance of the results, there remained significant correlations with socioeconomic variables. This was WAY beyond just UHI. All urban-rural comparison might tell you is that UHI itself is not the big factor responsible for these observed correlations…well fine. So it’s some other factor. It’s one that is not obviously determinable from comparing subsets of data with one difference in their properties.

  40. Craig Loehle, this is what I was referring to, that was posted at Climate Etc:

    On the time-varying trend in global-mean surface temperature

    Zhaohua Wu • Norden E. Huang • John M. Wallace • Brian V. Smoliak • Xianyao Chen

    Abstract. The Earth has warmed at an unprecedented pace in the decades of the 1980s and 1990s . In Wu et al. (2007) we showed that the rapidity of the warming in the late twentieth century was a result of concurrence of a secular warming trend and the warming phase of a multidecadal (~65-year period) oscillatory variation and we estimated the contribution of the former to be about 0.08C per decade since ~1980. Here we demonstrate the robustness of those results and discuss their physical links, considering in particular the shape of the secular trend and the spatial patterns associated with the secular trend and the multidecadal variability. The shape of the secular trend and rather globally-uniform spatial pattern associated with it are both suggestive of a response to the buildup of well-mixed greenhouse gases. In contrast, the multidecadal variability tends to be concentrated over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere and particularly over the North Atlantic, suggestive of a possible link to low frequency variations in the strength of the thermohaline circulation. Depending upon the assumed importance of the contributions of ocean dynamics and the time-varying aerosol emissions to the observed trends in global-mean surface temperature, we estimate that up to one third of the late twentieth century warming could have been a consequence of natural variability.

    Climate Dynamics, published online 07 July 2011 DOI

    There’s discussion here: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/14/time-varying-trend-in-global-mean-surface-temperature/

  41. Harry Dale Huffman,

    I read your post on your blog. I think my comment is awaiting moderation. I’ll ask it here too since you posted a link here.

    What phenomenon causes the surface temperature of Venus to reach 460 C? If it’s not the “greenhouse” effect, I’d like to hear a better explanation.

  42. Neil Jones says:
    July 25, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Can someone please advise me (none scientist) does this “This 0.66 value is an upper bound in our estimation” mean that that is the maximum they think it can be?

    Yes. There’s a range, and this is the top end. Any other influences verified (UHI distortions, etc.) would deduct from that.

  43. Craig and Nicola, thanks for the interesting paper. I disagree with the underlying assumption that it is possible to partition causality by your method.

    The method depends critically on some unverified assumptions:

    1. The assumption that the period 1850-1942 represents a constant unchanging “natural” upward trend, with a rate of increase of 0.15°C per century.

    2. The assumption that the signal can be meaningfully decomposed by assuming two linear trends.

    3. The assumption that the fit shown is statistically superior to the fit obtainable by using your 60- and 20- year cycles plus a straight-line trend.

    The first assumption provides your “null hypothesis”. However, I see no justification for that. Are we to assume that an unchanging upward trend of 0.15°C is somehow built in to the planetary climate? We have no evidence of stationarity for the climate. Perhaps that period of almost a century was the result of a long term swing in say La Niña frequency. There’s no reason to assume that the temperature trend of that short period is somehow a global constant.

    The second assumption depends on where you split the dataset. You assume that the first two-thirds of the dataset shows the “natural rise” of the planetary temperature. Why not the first one-third? Or I could argue that the last two thirds show the natural rise, and the early temperatures are warmer because the air was cleaner back then. In any case, the work of Akasufo strongly argues that the globe has gradually warmed (in fits and starts) since the Little Ice Age, at around 0.5°C per century. Why is that not your natural background rise, against which to compare the cycles?

    The third assumption is that a fitted curve somehow has magical properties to forecast the evolution of a chaotic system. Natural cycles are often the overlay of short, medium, and long term components. So even if the chaotic climate were truly cyclical (it’s not), analyzing such a short stretch of it is highly problematic. It is also very difficult to verify. I’d run a Monte Carlo analysis using random ARIMA datasets with parameters equal to that of the temperature dataset (usually high AR and negative MA). Even then you have to be careful. You need to pick from the universe of random datasets those whose 1850-1942 sections have a similar trend to the actual data. That will show you how the recent part of each record varies from that initial trend. My guess (and it’s just that) is that you’ll find lots of random ARIMA datasets that have a trend of 0.15 from 1850-1942, and a trend of around 0.66 after that …

    So that’s my three objections.

    There’s also a theoretical difficulty. You analyzed the entire dataset to extract the cycles. Then you used the cycles to “predict” the last third of the dataset. That raises unexplored issues of data snooping that I’m not clear on.

    Me, I’ve done a huge amount of research in looking at cycles. I started out by looking at cycles in stock prices (I don’t own any, it’s a convenient model chaotic system that’s great for wrecking theories). Then starting a decade or so later I spent a long time looking for cycles in climate. My conclusion has been that if there’s a useable, forecastable signal there, I couldn’t find it. I’ve used Fourier analysis, I’ve used periodicity analysis, I’ve looked for cycles in temperatures and in food prices, I’ve beat on that puppy up, down, and sideways. Only thing I’ve seen is a correlation between the 22-year sunspot cycles and water (floods and droughts). Oh, and perhaps barycentric cycles, although that one is unclear. But those are actual physical cycles, not the result of a Fourier analysis.

    But there’s only one real way to do it. Take a period, say 1850-1942, and calculate your cycles.

    Then run it against the 1943-2010 dataset, and see how it does. That prevents data snooping.

    Extracting the cycles from the whole period, and then arbitrarily “bending” the result in the middle to improve the fit, however, seems like an ad-hoc procedure of dubious statistical validity.

    Finally, I would add that there are mathematical methods for deciding where to decompose a straight line trend into one or more sub-trends. Did you explore those?

    My best to you both, science proceeds in exactly this manner.

    w.

  44. I humbly suggest that some posters may be missing the point of this paper. It is not new science, and looked at from a purist point of view, it may not be good science. Instead, it is the deliberate scientific equivalent of Monckton – using the assumptions (forcing since mid 20th century) and methods (modelling) of the warmists to show that they must be wrong on at least 2 counts (i.e. the science cannot be settled, and CO2 warming must be less than generally assumed).

  45. Once again, the question needs to be asked, “What is the uncertainty in the result?” What is the uncertainty in the slope of the residual? What is the uncertainty in modeled solar forcing which contributes to the uncertainty in the residual?

  46. Juice says:
    July 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    What phenomenon causes the surface temperature of Venus to reach 460 C? If it’s not the “greenhouse” effect, I’d like to hear a better explanation.

    Simple atmospheric pressure. Venus’ atmosphere is almost 100X as dense as Earth’s. Further, virtually no solar radiation reaches the surface past the clouds etc. It cannot “back-radiate” to the CO2 and play photon catch with insolation that never gets there.

  47. I would imagine that Occam would approve – simple & elegant. If you consider feedback = unity, there may be an even more revealing outcome.

  48. I think discussion about the quality of the records is a bit off-topic, and another debate. This paper appears to address a problem in calculating a possible AGW without considering a possible component of natural GW:

    In conclusion, we have shown that the effect of natural oscillations is critical for proper assessment of anthropogenic impacts on the climate system. Since the rapid increase in temperature in the 1980s and 1990s is due partially to natural cycles, then any model-based estimate of climate sensitivity based on elevated greenhouse gases will be too high, a point also made by Scafetta and West [74], Scafetta [8, 18], and Klyashtorin and Lyubushin [44]. The same applies to attribution studies that focus on these decades. Proper consideration of these cycles and of longer natural cycles is also critical for detecting underlying trends. For example, a millenarian or longer period cycles might explain the pattern of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (Loehle and Singer [32]) as well as warming since about 1800.

    I, too, have wondered if there are long period oscillations (over centuries or millennia, maybe) components to the climate. This paper is a good start. IMHO.

    OK S.

  49. Interesting analysis. Key is to see whether or not the natural influences, UHI effects and changes/ “modifications” in temp records are really so clear identificable / recognized that a tiny signal (like 2/3 of a degree over a century) can be identified clearly as caused by humans. I have doubts but I am grateful that the effort is made.

    When looking at the MWP (when “Greenland” was named) the moves in temperatures were significant, and possibly stronger than now – still noone would see any significant human influence there. After all the aerosols are used to make the model (all models) fit to the past, whenever there is a gap – – good to make a model work, but good to explain / predict what is happening? If a model can’t calculate the past with all data at hand but needs “fitted aersols” to comply, what power can it have to explain the future.

    At least the study is firm on flat/declining temperatures to stay till 2030 – a strong contrast over the AGW- scenarios. In a couple of years we know more, and likely this will be one of a few models closer to reality than the “official” ones. To come somewhat closer to reality is a good first step.

  50. To Willis Eschenbach,

    when this kind of anaslysis is done it is better to take the things easy.

    >The method depends critically on some unverified assumptions:
    >1. The assumption that the period 1850-1942 represents a constant unchanging “natural” upward >trend, with a rate of increase of 0.15°C per century.

    We clearly state in the paper that there are other cycles such a the millennial one explaining the MWP and LIA. However, in this paper we are dealing only with the data since 1850. The first approximation that can be done with this data is a linear one which yields to an upper estimate for our 21st forecast.

    >2. The assumption that the signal can be meaningfully decomposed by assuming two linear trends.

    Again we do the simplest assumption. Our figure 2 says that is not a bad assumption.

    >3. The assumption that the fit shown is statistically superior to the fit obtainable by using your 60- >and 20- year cycles plus a straight-line trend.

    We show this in Figure 1.

  51. Let’s do this Socratically.

    Brian,

    Why would atmospheric pressure affect the temperature?

  52. What is so magical/significant about 1942, or for that matter 1950?

    An assumption is made that “something” changed in our impact on climate, but on what basis? That temperatures increased at a higher rate? Yet we all know, or have very strong suspicions that the temperature records used to identify this upswing are at best tainted (by UHI) or worse, manipulated/selected to demonstrate this manmade impact. There are so many studies on this topic that I just cannot comprehend why anyone places such credence on these records.

    And why are we assuming that mankind’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is anything more than verging on immeasurably small? Because of CO2 records from an active volcano island in the middle of the largest body of water on the planet? And that takes us back to the 1950 question again…what did mankind do then to cause an increase in CO2 emissions ( as if it really mattered, anyway)? Don’t anyone say that it was a sudden increase in industrial output. There had been more than enough industrial output from the late 1930s in case anyone has forgotten.

    So many assumptions based on no real evidence.

    Flawed assumptions = fatally flawed models

  53. Bahaha! You guys are in a quandary, aren’t you? You either accept this paper… and thus that AGW is real (if over exaggerated) , or deny this paper is real even though it seems to support your case.

    Oh the decisions!

  54. I’ve read the paper. It appears to be mostly speculation without credible underlining mechanism.
    1. Current temperatures are only 0.6 degree C higher now then they were 300 years ago.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm

    2. It is a bit surprising that scientists attempt to write a supposedly ‘serious’ paper estimating degree of the climate’s natural against the anthropogenic change with this state of knowledge:
    The nature and origin of the AMO is uncertain, and it remains unknown whether it represents a persistent periodic driver in the climate system, or merely a transient feature.
    The PDO goes through warm and cool phases, it is closely related to the (inverted) SOI / ENSO. The causes of the oscillation are currently unknown.

  55. Interesting, but a question:

    Given that the length of the solar cycle matches up very well with global temperatures until about 1980, why did you chose you based period to have begun in the early 1950’s? Seems to me if you’re really looking for an anthropogenic signal in climate, you ought to begin when temperatures diverged from following the length of the solar cycle around 1980. Granted, the “great climate shift” of 76-77 occurred as well about this time, and many would say that warm period of the PDO is really the caused of the warming in the late 20th century, but it would be interesting to hear your rationale for choosing the early 1950’s as the beginning of your measurement period for looking for anthropogenic effects, as from 1950 to about 1980, we have no need of an anthropogenic explanation, as the length of the solar cycle can fit the temperature curve quite well.

  56. As I’ve previously posted, my extensive experience in solar-energy related air-temperature mensuration has shown me that +/-0.1 deg C accuracy takes far more effort than anything done by the current meteorological establishment, and that’s for a single station. As so ably shown by SurfaceStation.org, today’s system is lucky to have +/-1 deg C trustworthiness. To combine all these half-assed measurements into a thermodynamically meaningless ‘average’ temperature of the globe is nothing short of anti-science. When they feed this fakery into bogus computer programs to conjure up end-of-the-world climate scenarios, it becomes criminally fraudulent, a blatant attempt at establishing their beloved USSR-style world government, the ultimate unaccountable authority, restoring feudalism at last. No more pesky voters to disempower them, no more ‘eeeville’ capitalists with their ugly ‘inequities’, no more ‘wasteful’ consumerism, just knee-bent serfs awestruck at their godlike wisdom.

  57. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    July 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm
    “The causes of the oscillation are currently unknown.”

    The oscillation exists even if its causes are unknown.

  58. Karmakaze says:
    July 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Bahaha! You guys are in a quandary, aren’t you? You either accept this paper… and thus that AGW is real (if over exaggerated) , or deny this paper is real even though it seems to support your case.

    Oh the decisions

    ##############
    yup.

  59. Karmakaze says:
    July 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Bahaha! You guys are in a quandary, aren’t you? You either accept this paper… and thus that AGW is real (if over exaggerated) , or deny this paper is real even though it seems to support your case.

    Hi Karmakaze. If you are a regular visitor here, you will see a wide range of acceptances to the CAGW hypothesis. The vast majority dispute the “C”

    However, very few deny GW – although given the poor state of historical records, the fudging of data, the refusal to divulge how “adjustments are made”, the “migration to the coast”, the disappearance of inconvenient stations, the UHI effect etc etc, it’s not surprising some question even our ability to know just by how much – if at all

    But by far and away, given that there is GW – to what extent does mankind contribute to that?

    This paper says 0.66 deg C / century – much lower than other guestimates – and someting completely outshadowed by natural variation – in fact well inside the usual measurement noise.

    I am happy to cautiously accept this paper – and perhaps use it to fend off the next doomsayer.

    So Bahaha to the CAGW scaremongers

    Andy

  60. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    July 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    “The PDO goes through warm and cool phases, it is closely related to the (inverted) SOI / ENSO. The causes of the oscillation are currently unknown.”

    ___
    You are aware of studies that relate the length of the solar cycle to changes in PDO? Ocean cycles and solar cycle match up quite well until about 1980…then, not so much.

  61. peter foster
    “How would these result change if you tossed in the results of Watt et al on deterioration of the met stations ?”

    The surface stations paper showed NO impact on Tave. That is, there was no difference in Tave between well sited and poorly sited stations.

    Second. The land is only 30% of the total, as the paper notes the cycle they find is found in the SST, where there is no UHI.

  62. @ Karmakaze
    1. Spell-checker is your friend.
    2. AGW is real: the questions are about its cause, magnitude and predictions for the future.
    3. i assume you thought of the name Karmakaze: did you consider its obvious meaning or was it spell-checker’s fault?

  63. nicola.

    The GCM are unlikely to reproduce the cycles because they start from equilibrium spin up states. the real question is do any of the individual RUNS demonstrate these cycles. They will be able to match the “timing” of the cycles , If and only if the[y] are initialized with values that match the actual conditions when they start. So the test should be do they exhibit these cycles ( in individual runs NOT ensembles ) and do they match the amplitude. I dont suggest they do, but the way to determine that is to look at individual runs.

  64. Nicola and Craig,

    Like Willis I wonder why you didnt use the period 1850-1950 to look for cycles.
    Many of us have suggested that before.
    Also, as others suggested it would be interesting to see how this retrodicts.. back to a few million years.

    Also, since SST has recently been corrected what is the effect of that?

  65. Craig and Nicola: You’ve presented a very limited number of paleoclimatological reconstructions to confirm a 60-year cycle, which appears to be the backbone of this paper. Do other paleoclimatological studies support a 60-year cycle or is the 60-year cycle limited to the handful of studies presented? Does the “PDO” in the referenced paleoclimatelogical paper represent the SST of the North Pacific or the PDO as defined by JISAO? Also the Black et al (2007) Cariaco Basin Sea Surface Temperature reconstruction data…
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/black2007/black2007.txt
    …(which is based on their 1990 samplings) does not appear to bear any similarity to the data from Black et al (1990) you’ve presented in your Figure 4a. Why?

    Your model appears to be very dependent on the spatially incomplete sea surface temperature dataset (and soon to be obsolete) HADSST2. (Land surface data between suppliers is basically the same for the latitudes of 60S-65N.) How would the results differ with the interpolated SST products from the Hadley Centre (HADISST) and NOAA/NCDC (ERSST.v3b)?

  66. I’ve seen “Karmakaze” infesting a couple of threads here and just a word of caution – don’t feed the trolls.

    Simon Rika, aka Karmakaze who outed himself here http://dprogram.net/2009/08/27/startling-new-evidence-that-the-swine-flu-pandemic-is-man-made-2/#comment-25838

    has had a colorful existence on blogs telling other people how stupid they are and how smart he is. He fancies himself some sort of international journalist.

    Don’t feed him, he’ll hijack the thread.

  67. Steve Mosher
    Were you referring to McKitrick, Ross R. and Nicolas Nierenberg (2010) <a href=
    Socioeconomic Patterns in Climate Data. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 35(3,4) pp. 149-175. DOI 10.3233/JEM-2010-0336?

    JOHN R. CHRISTY et al. find:

    Our results indicate that the central San Joaquin Valley has experienced a significant rise of minimum temperatures (3°C in JJA and SON), a rise that is not detectable in the adjacent Sierra Nevada. Our working hypothesis is that the rapid valley warming is caused by the massive growth in irrigated agriculture.

    Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change? JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 19 © 2006 pp 548 – 563

    Anthony Watts finds UHI is alive and well Jan 31, 2010.

    Goodridge (1996) showed temperature trends increase with county size in California. Goodridge, J.D. (1996) Comments on “Regional Simulations of Greenhouse Warming including Natural Variability” . Bull, Amer. Meteorological Society 77:1588-1599.
    See D’Aleo 2009 summarizes:

    He found for countires (sic) with a million or more population the warming from 1910 to 1995 was 4F, for counties with 100,000 to 1 million, 1F and for counties with less than 100,000, no change (0.1F).

    UNITED STATES AND GLOBAL DATA INTEGRITY ISSUES

    Christy & Goodridge 1995 show GISS selected stations have higher temperature trends compared to the full distribution of California stations. See SInger NIPCC vs. IPCC 2011 Fig. 13, Fig. 14 p 14 from HTCS (1997)

  68. Hi Gates
    Nice to hear from you again.
    I think that neither the AMO, PDO or ENSO are much to do, on decadal scale, with the solar output, not at least as one is currently measured and known to science, be it TSI, UV or the solar wind.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AP.htm

    Couple of little ‘gems’

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm

    The CET summer were cooler in 1990’s then in 1700’s, CO2 apparently works only in the winter. Hmm, not so, only in last 10 years, and only by 0.3 degree C above the natural pressure differential.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/WPd.htm

    How do we know that the pressure differential is natural?
    Simple

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm

    Now you might say the CET is not typical of global trends. Well, nowhere is typical for global trends, and I would go as far as to say that if yours or anyone else’s hypothesis is in conflict with the longest ,most analysed and most accurate world temperature record, it is time to go back to drawing board.
    When Dr.s Loehle & Scafetta have a hypothesis to fit the CET records, then we have to take it seriously, till then I have strong reservations.

  69. Leif-I must concur that the use of various sinusoidal models is not a convincing way of isolating signals. Although periodicities are “identified” how reliably consistent they are in the past is not assessed; to be sure, they get a good fit with them to the recent record. Then say that there is reason to believe these cycles have been present long in the past, but the graphs they show for this don’t actually include any assessment of how well these cycles really reproduce the variability of the data. Figure 4 A and B really aren’t very impressive, the “cycles” look inconsistent in amplitude and sometimes out of phase by several degrees. If they have a hypothesis of further features of those data sets that explain this, why isn’t this mentioned?

  70. This edifice was built upon an ultra-simple model of two superimposed deterministic cycles. That model does not well match observed data, but the authors chose their model over the data, while the IPCC effectively chose data instead.

    Regarding faith in cycles, I read an interesting paper a few days ago by Vincze & Janosi (2011) in Nonlinear Progress in Geophysics, “Is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) a statistical phantom?” (their answer is basically, yes).

    “Abstract. In this work we critically compare the consequences of two assumptions on the physical nature of the AMO index signal. First, we show that the widely used approach based on red noise statistics cannot fully reproduce the empirical correlation properties of the record. Second,
    we consider a process of long range power-law correlations and demonstrate its better fit to the AMO signal. We show that in the latter case, the multidecadal oscillatory mode of the smoothed AMO index with an assigned period length of 50–70 years can be a simple statistical artifact, a consequence of limited record length. In this respect, a better term to describe the observed fluctuations of a smooth power-law spectrum is Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV).”

  71. The conclusion from Vincze & Janosi (2011):
    “We repeat again, there is no doubt that low frequency SST variability is a prevailing feature of oceanic dynamics. Both DFA and Fourier spectral analysis suggest that the dominant time scales are indeed span over decades, because they have the strongest spectral magnitude. However both DFA and Fourier spectra exhibit a continuous power-law shape without the apparent presence of one (or more) well defined oscillation frequency. As we have demonstrated, filtering has a side effect of giving enhanced weights of low frequency components, and limited record lengths can easily lead to the impression of strict periodicity.”

  72. Leif Svalgaard writes,
    “The paper is cyclomania at its worst”

    That’s pretty much what I meant, but you said it with a lot fewer words.

  73. Friends:

    Let us be clear, there are apparent cycles in the climate record. But it is not known whether or not
    (a) they are real (i.e. they are harmonic oscillations and/or forced effects of real phenomena)
    or
    (b) they are merely apparent (i.e. all varying data can be represented as a sies of oscillations).

    The best one can do with a chaotic (or quasi-chaotic) system is to identify a set of apparent oscillations and to extrapolate them. This can work for some time (as several stock market predictions have shown) but is prone to be misleading in the medium or long term (as all stock market predictions have shown).

    The Loehle and Scafetta method may work as a predictive method for the short-term but has high risk of being wrong in the longer term if no mechanisms governing its cycles are identified.

    And if the method is not predictive then it is an incorrect model. But an incorrect model cannot identify processes (e.g. AGW) that contribute to changes in the time series.

    Hence, I consider the analysis of Loehle and Scafetta to be interesting but should be subject to much caution until the cause(s) of its 60 and 20 year cycles are identified.

    Richard

  74. nicola scafetta says:
    July 25, 2011 at 3:05 pm
    The oscillation exists even if its causes are unknown.

    Dr. Scafetta
    Sort of, but not of kind you are suggesting:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm

    There is a very good and strong physical reason while so called oscillations in the North Atlantic are much longer then those of North Pacific, but by the time you reach the Equatorial Pacific, there is bit of a mix-up.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A&P.htm

    Planetary cycles are not something that the Earth takes to very kindly.
    According to Dr. S. I was a ‘supreme cyclomanic’, so I welcome you to the ‘cyclomania clinic’. However, despite it there are places for well define cycles:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

    but sorry to say, climate does not appear to be the most receptive.
    I have provided few links, in this and the earlier post addressed to Mr. Gates, you may ignore them, on the other hand if you care to take a careful link, you may see some sense in my comments.

  75. Leif,

    You dismiss this paper as ‘cyclomania at its worst’ yet in previous discussions with me you have averred that all of observed climate change is a result of internal system variability.

    How can such internal system variability occur other than in the form of multiple, variable and overlapping cycles such as the authors are attempting to unravel?

  76. Willis & Mosher: we did not fit the cycles to the whole data set, we did as you suggested: fit the cycles to the first period to 1950 then applied them to the second half. The residuals (lack of fit) after 1950 suggested an unidentified forcing which we attributed to human activity.
    We do not ascribe “magical properties” to a fitted curve. We observe that there is a regular orbital oscillation of the sun–this orbit pattern is fixed and calculable. We assume that this MAY somehow affect solar output/magnetic field etc. We then test if this pattern matches the temperature pattern. So you object to something we did not do. If there are even longer cycles, this would give the long slow rise. We show in figure 1 that the “linear + cycles” model gives a bad fit, which is fixed when we assume that human forcing started around roughly mid-century. Given the long fit period and the match up with Scafetta’s new solar model, we do not think our extrapolation of 90 years is outlandish.
    The effect of the newly released SST data by Hadley looks to me by eye like it would enhance the 60 yr signal, but I only learned of it last week.

  77. From the post:

    “4) Warming due to anthropogenic GHG+Aerosol of 0.66 oC/Century is not alarming,…”

    “Anthropogenic GHG+Aerosol” – what portion of that 0.66 oC/Century rise is directly attributible to Anthropogenic CO2 emissons only?

  78. Craig Loehle
    Your still making an assumption that CO2 was the main driver of recent warming when the observations show a 4-5% reduction of cloud cover during the 1990s that was responsible at least 75%(0.3degC or 0.7W/m2) of the observed warming in the satellite period. That puts the CO2 contribution at about 0.1degC over 30 years which means either strong negative feedback or as the recent unpublished spectral analysis paper suggested a halving of the initial CO2 forcing from 1.2degC for doubling to around 0.6degC.
    Note each doubling has half the effect of the previous doubling or you violate the beer lambert law not to mention having a problem with 50% of the energy absorption being caused by the first 20ppm of CO2. Some idiot clearly doesn’t know the difference between the absorption of energy and absorbance and used the wrong one when they claimed each doubling has the same effect.

  79. Stephen Wilde says:
    July 25, 2011 at 4:07 pm
    How can such internal system variability occur other than in the form of multiple, variable and overlapping cycles such as the authors are attempting to unravel?
    Internal variability isn’t necessarily cyclic, nor forced by the Sun. In a short interval you can find coinciding quasi-cycles. These tend to disappear in the longer term [e.g. by extending their analysis back another hundred years]. Now, enthusiasts have a standard counter to that argument, namly that their cycles are real, but ‘intermittent’ [i.e. come and go].

  80. Stephen Wilde says:
    July 25, 2011 at 4:07 pm
    in previous discussions with me you have averred that all of observed climate change is a result of internal system variability.
    No, I have always said that a 0.1K solar cycle caused change is to be expected [and many people claim they have found it]

  81. Willis said:

    “Only thing I’ve seen is a correlation between the 22-year sunspot cycles and water (floods and droughts). ”

    Given that solar cycle lengths vary I think that is good enough for a 20 year cycle.

    The 60 year cycle for the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation (NOT PDO as Bob keeps reminding us) seems pretty clear from the anecdotal evidence that we do have going back several centuries.

    There is also a clear 500/1000 year cycling right back to the Minoan Warm Period at least.

    I think it is quite enough to work from just those three sets of cycles and propose that the 20 year and 500/1000 year cycles are solar induced with the 60 year cycle being a product of internal ocean mechanics which can either be in phase or out of phase with either or both of the solar cycles.

    Due to the phasing changes it is easy for correlations to be confounded but they are there nonetheless and need to be unravelled. This paper is a tentative step in that direction.

    As to the mechanics of both top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences on the surface air pressure distribution (and thus the movements of the climate zones) I have dealt with that in detail elsewhere so here suffice it to say that all climate change is simply the surface air pressure distribution shifting to accommodate those three primary solar and oceanic cycles. The outturn may be affected to some degree by other forcing agents but not by much.

  82. just for Leif!!! the utimate cycles or cycles with trend:
    See these sythesises:

    http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/search/label/temperature%20synthesis

    Synthesis of temperature HADCRUT3V using cycles!!!!!

    these tables:
    period – amplitude – phase
    With Trend
    10.1027 0.034637599 6.87
    11 0.043331925 -75
    14.8995 0.033178542 4.87
    21.1 0.046919237 4.37
    59.75 0.107447989 3.07
    118.5 0.048809315 95.17

    Purely Cyclical
    0.5012 0.036054 8.3
    10.0693 0.030061 6.7
    11 0.038659 -69
    14.9497 0.030069 5
    21.2083 0.048414 4.45
    60.0833 0.119432 3.05
    317.0533 0.395701 2.3

    “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”.
    Attributed to von Neumann

  83. [Snip. Comments about HAARP are against site Policy – no matter how HAARP is spelled. ~dbs, mod.]

  84. Leif and his ‘cyclomania at its worst’

    Just a historical note from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schwabe

    “For 17 years, from 1826 to 1843, on every clear day, Schwabe would scan the sun and record its spots trying to detect Vulcan among them. He didn’t find the planet but noticed the regular variation in the number of sunspots and published his findings in a short article entitled “Solar Observations during 1843″. In it he made the suggestion of a probable ten year period (i.e. that at every tenth year the number of spots reached a maximum). This paper at first attracted little attention, but Rudolf Wolf who was at that time the director of Bern observatory, was impressed so he began regular observations of sunspots. Schwabe’s observations were afterwards utilized in 1851 by Alexander von Humboldt in the third volume of his Kosmos.”

    If we were living in the middle of the 19th century, would Leif be more like Wolf or would he be more like the other solar scientists that at the time were believing that the sunspot occurred randomly and that no solar cycle existed and were accusing Schwabe of cyclomania?

    See, Leif, Nature is not random nor unordered. It is ordered in some way. The fact that there might be cycles, in addition to be reveiled by data analysis, is probably the simplest of the hypotheses that can be made.

  85. ItsIt matches for only one and a half wave-lengths of chaotic data. ??
    It only includes 2 forcing curves.. that’s ok, I’m sure there are only two cycles acting on the climate, and I’m sure they are sine curves !!
    and you want to extrapolate your fitted curve and try to draw out some sort of extra linear forcing after the 1950’s. ??
    then say its human caused ?????

    whatever !!

  86. There are clearly cycles in the oceans.

    The ENSO and the AMO are the most obvious examples but there are many, many more.

    It is a liquid. It flows. It is composed on different temperatures, salinities and densities which makes it move. It is also driven by the winds and the rotation of the Earth and confined by continental margins. It evaporates, is replenished by rain and rivers and icebergs and subject to different levels of solar radiation.

    It circulates in short loops and long systems and sinks at the poles. The thermohaline ocean circulation may take up to 1,000 years to complete but there are also smaller loops in this system. Most of the clouds on the Earth form over the ocean and the equatorial warmth drives the water vapour system.

    The Sea surface is also about 5.0C warmer than the Land surface (something which seems to be little understood).

    That is the definition of a dynamic system which may have all kinds of different cycles and it is not hard to see how this could leave any number of cycles in the surface temperature record.

  87. steven mosher says: “The GCM are unlikely to reproduce the cycles because they start from equilibrium spin up states. the real question is do any of the individual RUNS demonstrate these cycles.”

    Refer to the (slow moving) gif animation that shows the observed (HADISST based) versus individual IPCC hindcast/fprojection ensemble members for the AMO (North Atlantic SST Anomalies Minus Global SST Anomalies):

    It’s from this post:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/492/

  88. cyclomania … is that where we pretend the only cycle is ENSO? I mean, if a cycle can cause .7C up and down swings … it must be impossible for there to be longer cycles.

  89. Thank you Craig and Nicola for your informative and enlightening paper.

    There are several points that are notable.

    1. There is much evidence to suggest there is a 60 year cycle in the temperature record and ocean cycles that are probably interrelated.

    2. The solar velocity as measured about the SSB coincides with the 60 year cycle seen in the temperature and ocean records.

    3. The TSI reconstructions are still an area of incomplete understanding.

    Of interest you mention:

    We clearly state in the paper that there are other cycles such a the millennial one explaining the MWP and LIA. However, in this paper we are dealing only with the data since 1850.

    I am wondering if your model includes the solar effects of EUV and long term solar reduction as seen in grand minima? By putting together the PDO/ENSO/TSI/EUV factors, would the anthropological proportion be even smaller?

  90. Craig Loehle posted poste the following on JC’s site
    July 25, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    “”””””Let me summarize so far. Two average scientists happen to stumble onto something really cool with no funding. Not geniuses but it seems like an important result. Some are complaining that we didn’t cite every possible paper. Too bad. Some don’t like cycles. Some complain without reading it. Multiple objections about things that show poor reading comprehension (like which period we used for fitting the solar cycle part of the model). Lots of accusations of bias and dishonesty. Lots of insulting statements about it being “lousy” and stuff. Many people expect a new study to cover all possible ifs-ands-or-buts, but in the real world it is one step at a time.”””””

    ————————-

    Craig,

    I prefer to respond to you here instead of JC’s place. : )

    Nicola & you are performing science in an open, transparent manner. You are present to discuss your paper in a direct manner with whoever chooses to show up.

    You are being independent in an anally consensus climate science era. {Anthony – apologize for the uncouth word, but it seems most appropriate}

    You are to be congratulated no matter the criticism you will get, that is science.

    John

  91. The suggestion that recent warming is anthropogenic due to divergence from a simple 60/20 year curve fit over a mere 100 years ignores prior divergence from both competing models of distantly past temperature, one being a hockey stick that shows a slow decline instead of incline prior 1850 and the other showing two similar “non-cyclical” spikes in the Roman and medieval periods. If the simple 60/20 cyclical model breaks down when extended prior to 1850 (or a century or two before that if you posit a slow rise from the 1600s), then present divergence is yet another angel dancing on the head of a pin in a world gone mad.

    The 60 year cycle correlates recently with the AMO but a proxy reconstruction of the AMO back to the 1500s looks a lot like the response of a chaotic system to cyclic forcings:

    Reference: http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/GeophysResLetters_Gray_04.pdf

    I graphically summarize this paper minus the mathematical lipstick and flurry of footnotes:

    Truly bad art, con art really, once it has had some sort of faddish influence amongst the chattering class, stays in the history books indefinitely, being talked about endlessly, and is still pointed out to school kids as being best of class. One confidence trick transformed temperature into all the rage. Anthropogenic indeed: were it not for that original graph, that upside down urinal, none of this great climate critical empire would exist to feed the courtly intellectual needs of a bunch of early-retired propeller heads.

    That the CET record (http://i.minus.com/idAOoE.gif) and a simple average of tide gauges (*actual* sea level: http://i.minus.com/idFxzI.jpg) both show no recent divergence from a simple linear trend, combined with the fact that especially the later is universally ignored in skeptical books and seminars (and the Ocean reference page here) suggests that both sides of the “debate” are in it for the debate itself for reasons I am becoming disinterested in now that serious conservative commentators have taken up the skeptical cause.

    I think Howard T. Lewis III above is one of the sanest commenters here, at least in his first paragraph. That online skeptics are so hyper-normal, imagining that the whole world revolves around a gentleman’s “debate” allowed Orsekes and Hoggan etc. to paint skepticism any color they wanted and thus successfully create the great meme that they were robotic slaves of oil money influence.

    -=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

  92. Juice says:
    July 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    Harry Dale Huffman,

    I read your post on your blog. I think my comment is awaiting moderation. I’ll ask it here too since you posted a link here.

    What phenomenon causes the surface temperature of Venus to reach 460 C? If it’s not the “greenhouse” effect, I’d like to hear a better explanation
    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    The surface temperature of Venus appears to be generated by pressure; the surface pressure on Venus is about 92 times that of Earth.

    The fact that it is pressure (and not backradiation generated by GHGs – the atmosphere of Venus is just under 96% CO2) that governs surface temperature is supported by the fact that there appears little if any diurnal range. This is noteworthy since nighttime on Venus lasts approximately 122 Earth days, ie., one side of Venus is in darkness for about 122 days and not receiving Solar irradiance and yet this dark side is as warm as the sunlit side!

    As I understand matters, the pressure temperature relationship holds sway on other planets such as Jupiter.

  93. nicola scafetta says:
    July 25, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    To Willis Eschenbach,
    when this kind of anaslysis is done it is better to take the things easy.

    >The method depends critically on some unverified assumptions:
    >1. The assumption that the period 1850-1942 represents a constant unchanging “natural” upward >trend, with a rate of increase of 0.15°C per century.

    We clearly state in the paper that there are other cycles such a the millennial one explaining the MWP and LIA. However, in this paper we are dealing only with the data since 1850. The first approximation that can be done with this data is a linear one which yields to an upper estimate for our 21st forecast.

    Here’s the problem. Your null hypothesis is that the climate is naturally warming through the century by about 0.15°C/century. But you haven’t provided a scrap of evidence to back up that assumption. All you have shown is the first two-thirds of the record has that trend. But that says nothing about your null hypothesis. And the evidence (Akasufo, the general warming since the LIA) says that the trend of the last few centuries is more like 0.5°C/decade.

    >2. The assumption that the signal can be meaningfully decomposed by assuming two linear trends.

    Again we do the simplest assumption. Our figure 2 says that is not a bad assumption.

    Unless the location (1942) was determined by an objective mathematical procedure, I fail to see how it is anything but an assumption. You cannot justify a random assumption by saying see, it fits better that way. It may do so … but so what?

    >3. The assumption that the fit shown is statistically superior to the fit obtainable by using your 60- >and 20- year cycles plus a straight-line trend.

    We show this in Figure 1.

    No, you do not show it in Figure 1. All that you have shown is that the last part of the data may have a different trend. You have not done a Monte Carlo or other analysis to establish if it is statistically superior.

    Nicola, when I make up a cyclical model like that and I test it against the reserved data, when it doesn’t fit I generally say “bad model, no cookies”. I sometimes say “well, maybe something changed in midstream”. But what I don’t say is THE FACT THAT MY MODEL IS WRONG WHEN FORECASTING THE FUTURE PROVES SOMETHING. Well, it does prove something, but all it proves is that my model isn’t able to successfully forecast the future.

    The fact that your model is incapable of forecasting the future cannot be used as positive evidence of some change in the underlying conditions. It’s just as likely to be the fate of almost every cyclical model—it fits the data it was trained on, and does terribly after that. Just like your model, in fact. This is particularly true when the change in trend just happens to occur right after the time period you have used for training your model. That’s so common in cyclical models as to be a cliche.

    Until you can show us it’s not just that your model is faulty, I’ll hold that you have demonstrated nothing with your model except that it’s a pretty good fit to the calibration dataset, and does abysmally on the verification dataset … join the club.

    And that don’t impress me much.

    w.

  94. Juice says (in an off-topic question):
    July 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    What phenomenon causes the surface temperature of Venus to reach 460 C? If it’s not the “greenhouse” effect, I’d like to hear a better explanation.

    Dry adiabatic compression (and atmospheric temperature lapse rate). The topic was beaten to death, multiple times, with multiple collateral damage, at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/

  95. I’m calling BS on this paper.

    Willis Eschenbasch put it much more politely, and gave a lot of excellent analysis, so I’ll add a view of it from a different angle:

    If Loehle and Scafetta’s paper is correct, then their curve can be cast backwards equally validly as forwards.
    In their curve, temperature increases by 0.2 deg C per 120 years.
    Hindcasting to the MWP, say 1000-1200AD, gives a temperature 1.3 to 1.7 deg C cooler than today.
    Hindcasting to the Roman Warm Period, say 200BC-0AD, it gives a temperature 3.3 to 3.7 deg C cooler than today.

    Not even Michael Mann with his hockey stick could get temperatures that low.

    To put it more politely, it’s tosh.

  96. Their calculations do not mean anything because their entire temperature curve from 1980 on is falsified. Satellite data show that instead of going up steeply the temperature in the eighties and nineties only fluctuated about a mean that stayed constant for twenty years. Thereafter there was a step warming from 1998 to 2002 that lifted global temperature by a third of a degree and then stopped. There was no warming after that but they show an absurd rise that goes higher than the 1998 maximum for the century in their figure 1 part 2. Neither a linear trend nor any harmonic trend make any sense in this long term analysis. During this time there have been break points in the global temperature trend due to natural changes in forces driving the climate. The temperature trends must not be extended past these break points. There was a clear warming from 1910 to 1940 that was associated with coming out of the Little Ice Age. It came to an end in the winter of 1939/40. The temperature dropped and then stabilized for the next fifty years. That should be shown as an essentially horizontal line from the forties to the end of the nineties. The super El Nino of 1998 then brought a short warming spell referred to above but the twenty first century that followed was again a stable period with no temperature rise. It included a six year warm period, the twenty-first century high, and this was followed by a resumption of ENSO oscillations that the super El Nino of 1998 had interrupted. None of this can be fitted to a straight line or to 20 or 60 year harmonic cycles. They do not understand that the peaks in their temperature curve are El Nino peaks that are perfectly natural climate features with a periodicity of approximately five years. They have been with us since the Isthmus of Panama rose from the sea and are likely to stay for the foreseeable future. They, and not some greenhouse fantasy will control the temperature for the rest of this century. To educate yourself about all this read “What Warming?“ available on Amazon.

  97. To the authors of the paper:

    The paper is pretty much what conclusions I have come to, except:

    1. you have largely left out solar heat time lag effects. A paper by Usoskin comes to a solar time lag using proxies over the last 1000 years or so, of about 20 years, which would lower the effect of c02 even further during the late 20th century, after the increase in solar activity from 1750 to about 1950+.
    2. Note this solar heat lag is observed both daily after solar max (temperature max about 2pm, not noon), and in the seasons (temperature max about 6 weeks after summer solstice). It would also occur on the century scale.

    Some of the late 20th century warming is therefore from a solar heat lag from the increase in solar output from 1750-1950+, meaning C02 effect is even weaker than in your paper above.

    I agree that mid 20th century stasis is part of the PDO /60 year cycle, as is the flat T 2000-2011.

    Good stuff.

  98. Dear Eschenbach
    I am sorry that you are not impressed.

    However, the 20 and 60 year cycles are there. We califrated the model from 1850 to 1950 and predicted the temperature modulation since 1950.

  99. I’d like to point out that the AMO (which is a detrended Index) and Hadcrut3 (also detrended in this case) are almost exactly the same line going back to 1871 on a monthly basis.

    The odds of this being a coincidence are astronomical given the number of datapoints. The only question is, is the AMO an independent cycle or does it merely reflect the global temperature. I can’t think of a reason why the AMO always reflects the global temperature down to a monthly scale. One might also ask how much the ENSO influences this since there is also a correlation between the two cycles.

    Then one should also note why the northern and southern hemispheres have such different cycles. If CO2 or the Sun was the primary driver of the climate, there would not be such a difference in the trends/cycles in the two hemispheres.

  100. It is what it is. The paper is of value, no matter how narrow the focus. I’m no great fan of “wiggle-matching,” as some here will recall, but there is nothing wrong with this “what-if” approach as a starting point for further study. Obviously you can’t please everyone, nor is there any need to–this is science, not a plebiscite. Leif’s too-clever cyclomania comment is beneath him.

  101. Mike Jonas does not understand how to read a paper.

    We never said that a linear trend approximation should be appropriate for ever, but we also are talking about millenarian cycles. However, for modelling temperature since 1850 the linear approximation is fine enough if we do not go too far in the past nor in the future. Just for a few decades is fine enough.

  102. Mike Jonas says:
    July 25, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    I’m calling BS on this paper.

    It is a pity you did not read the detail. The authors clearly state the long term solar effects have not been factored in (grand minima)

  103. Dear Scarfetta:

    However, the 20 and 60 year cycles are there. We “califrated” the model from 1850 to 1950 and predicted the temperature modulation since 1950.

    You have me, (the humble engineer that keeps pacemakers and nuclear plants going) flumoxed. How do you califrate a model?

    Max

  104. Geoff Sharp: look in the appendix and Scafetta’s other papers for your question.
    Willis: sorry a different POV on signal decomposition. It is known that GHG did not become significantly elevated until about mid century. That is, one of the factors in our model did not operate continuously over the entire period. We let the data decide exactly where that point is, and it says 1942–I did not pick 1942.
    Mike Jonas: we assert that the linear warming from 1850 forwards is part of some long-term pattern which we do not choose to characterize. In my paper with Singer we show evidence for 1200 and 1500 year cycles–and not enough data to pick which (or both?) are more valid. A 1000 yr cycle over 100 yr looks linear. Thus you can’t back-extrapolate forever, it is out of the domain or our model.

  105. @Mosh : “The GCM are unlikely to reproduce the cycles because they start from equilibrium spin up states.”

    At spin up, I assume they immediately represent the enormous energies involved in, for example, moving the ocean around. I mean if they started from scratch in that respect, you’d expect energy to be expended in getting all that movement going. And that would make earlier parts of the run cooler wouldn’t it?

    So I’m thinking at spin up the model must be in a certain “real” initial state including all the momentums and so on, and ideally it would follow reality from that point forward hence I’m not sure your reasoning for whether the models will or wont reproduce cycles is valid.

  106. Are there also the same cycles in, say, Moberg or Lungvist’s reconstructions? While these aren’t up to the same snuff as observed data, to be sure, they may be an additional test of whether these are actually cycles present in the global climate or just an apparent feature of the recent data? I’d also mention Loehle’s reconstruction, but it smooths too much to find the twenty year “cycle”, perhaps in the constituent data the proxies are constructed from if smearing is a concern.

    Another suggestion: what spatial patterns are associated with the various “signals” and what does this imply about mechanisms?

  107. So- because the mechanisms for the apparent cycles are not known and because apparent cycles are just that and may not reappear, we are back to square one. Because the mechanism best understood is the greenhouse gas effect following Tyndall and Arrhenius, it is the 800 pound gorilla. How absurd. and how convenient for those who want to claim CAGW by dismissing the known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Let’s travel from the poorly understood to the obvious. Can any of you look at the temperature reconstruction from the beginning of the instrumental record until 1950 and eyeball a trend? Knowing nothing about statistics, chaos theory, or climate science- what would you bet, on your dime, the temperature trend would be from 1950 (the date the IPCC most often cites as when the anthropogenic forcings became dominant) until now based on the 1850-1950 or even Would you bet that the temps would go down (negative trend line), stay the same as they were in 1950, continue to increase at a similar rate to the previous 100 or 200 years (or more http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=76&u=15820428 ) or increase faster than the trend line of the recent past. I think the most under-rated part of climate science is good observation which was Darwin’s genius. I think there is only one sensible answer to the above questions, and that the 1950- 2011 trend line has to be compared against it, knowing full well that a trend line is never set in stone, but always changing. With so many unknowns, I think the above simplistic approach with it tentative conclusion is far less sexy, but more valuable and less subject to modelling biases than the IPCC models- all of them.

  108. We developed a hypothesis. The outcome of our analysis was not only a remarkable fit to the data, but a fulfilled prediction for flat temps after 1998, and a detected AGW signal that matches theory in terms of timing, shape etc. As well, the relative magnitudes of the 2 cycles were the same for the solar motion and temperature cases. This would be an extraordinary coincidence. But many people here seemed angry before they even read it. Why might that be?

  109. If you look at any Holocene temperature reconstruction you will see chaotic ripples on a wavelength of somewhere between 200-500 years. If these are not considered in your analysis…….. I’m sorry, but while this paper is certainly a far better attempt than the Mann style of fudge, there is no way you should be drawing the conclusions you are drawing.

  110. Craig Loehle says:
    July 25, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    Willis & Mosher: we did not fit the cycles to the whole data set, we did as you suggested: fit the cycles to the first period to 1950 then applied them to the second half.

    That’s good to hear, Craig … but that means that you are identifying sixty year cycles in a fairly sketchy hundred year dataset. I think Mr. Nyquist had something to say about that.

    The residuals (lack of fit) after 1950 suggested an unidentified forcing which we attributed to human activity.

    As I mentioned above, when that happens to me, I attribute it to a bad model. As I remarked above, cyclical models typically go off the rails starting right at the end of the calibration period. Yours is no exception.

    We do not ascribe “magical properties” to a fitted curve. We observe that there is a regular orbital oscillation of the sun–this orbit pattern is fixed and calculable. We assume that this MAY somehow affect solar output/magnetic field etc. We then test if this pattern matches the temperature pattern. So you object to something we did not do.

    Sorry for my lack of clarity. Since no one has shown that fitting a curve, regardless of complexity, works with chaotic data (see the thousands of failed attempts with the stock market), claiming that it works at all is ascribing magical properties to it. I mean truly … do you really think that a couple curves plus a linear trend can really forecast the future evolution of the climate? Because your model says otherwise.

    If there are even longer cycles, this would give the long slow rise. We show in figure 1 that the “linear + cycles” model gives a bad fit, which is fixed when we assume that human forcing started around roughly mid-century. Given the long fit period and the match up with Scafetta’s new solar model, we do not think our extrapolation of 90 years is outlandish.

    No, you don’t show that. You show that cycles plus a linear trend of 0.15 only fits the early part. But you don’t show the combination of the empirically determined cycles with a “best fit” trend. I’ll do it when I get time if you don’t see what I mean. Nor have you shown (unless I missed it) exactly how you determine where the trend changes, nor how you determined statistical significance.

    My advice, again, would be to generate some sample ARIMA data and find out what the odds are of getting a “kinked” graph like that of the global temperature. Otherwise, you have no idea if such a trend change is rare or not. My guess is not, but then I haven’t run the numbers …

    w.

    PS – I made the time. Here’s an example of what I meant about how your two-trend solution has to be statistically better than the solution with a single trend:

    I calculated the cycles using 1850-1950, as you did, and then used a trend of 0.42 for the entire reconstruction. Unless your two-trendsolution gives a fit that is statistically superior to mine, Occam’s Razor suggests a single trend. And given the inherent autocorrelation of the cyclical model, it will be very hard to show your model is better with such a short dataset.

    Note that I make no claim that this is an accurate model of the climate, as I think cyclical models are mostly worthless (because we can’t see if they work into the future, and in any case most of them don’t).

  111. Proof reading arrgh! Should read-
    What would you bet, on your dime, the temperature trend would be from 1950 (the date the IPCC most often cites as when the anthropogenic forcings became dominant) until now based on the 1850-1950 trend or longer trends? Would you bet that the temps would go down (negative trend line), stay the same as they were in 1950, continue to increase at a similar rate to the previous 100 or 200 years (or more http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=76&u=15820428 ) or increase faster than the trend line of the recent past. This just by eyeballing the trend line.
    BTW, I think it is justified to use the 300 year records from London, Berlin, etc. My hypothesis is that the longer the temperature trend, the closer it will approach a global temperature trend. Obviously a 10 year trend from one small corner of mother Earth may be very different from the global trend, but a 100 year trend or 300 year trend? Does anyone want to try and refute that hypothesis?
    Using this reasoning, the trend line of 1950 to present consists of the assumed projection of the past trend line plus any additional forcing from anthropogenic causes. The result is not much different from the Loehle and Scarletta conclusion, and it’s based on a simple analysis that even a politician could understand. Oh, you want truth instead of a tentative conclusion like this? Sorry, you better find a religion like CAGW.

  112. Hi Willis Eschenbach,

    did you note that your model is not too far from our model in figure 1?
    did you note that a 62-year cycle and a 22-year cycle are not too far from our cycles?

    read my other 2010 paper, if you want more informations.

  113. TomT says:
    July 25, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    Synthesis of temperature HADCRUT3V using cycles!!!!! […]
    10.1027 0.034637599 6.87

    How can you possibly be wrong with such impressive precision…

  114. Willis I would argue that your model has systematic error. Do you object to even the idea that there might be AGW? Plus you are assuming chaotic dynamics but we are asserting the possibility that the REGULAR 60 and 20 solar orbit (oscillation/wobble) cycles have an effect.

  115. nicola scafetta says:
    July 25, 2011 at 4:39 pm
    would Leif be more like Wolf or would he be more like the other solar scientists
    Wolf was also a planetary cyclist in the beginning [originated the planetary hypothesis in fact], but in his later years came to his senses and realized that it didn’t held water…

  116. Gents: this looks an awful lot like the analysis by Pat Frank that appeared here not too long ago. It is likely that the criticism I posted in reply is valid in response to yours as well: that the departure from the secular cyclical pattern appears in the land record but not the sea surface temperatures.
    I suggest using the new HadSST3, which fits the ca. 1950 pattern much better than SST2.

  117. My experience with process control led me to this basic conclusion several years ago when I first saw the temp vs CO2 concentration graph for 1850-2005. Approx 60 year cycle (30+, 30-) with about a 0.58 deg C/century linear trend. The CO2 concentration increase is obviously only a minor factor, if any.

    I would like to see figure 1 with two overlays: first CO2 concentration, then global population. The worlds population probably remained fairly steady during WW2. Since 1945, global population has risen significantly. Can either of the authors produce the two graphs I suggest?

    Bill

  118. Willis says, “I think cyclical models are mostly worthless (because we can’t see if they work into the future, and in any case most of them don’t).” If we want understanding NOW, then all climate models are close to worthless because it will be impossible to invalidate them (or find enough empirical evidence to support them) during my lifetime (old as dirt here) and probablys yours, too.
    But even worse, the cyclical models and others are for the present detrimental to the tentative conclusions we can make about the longer 100, 200, or 300 year instrumental temperature trends and the recent 1950 to present (era of primary anthropogenic forcing) by just looking at the trends. I think most here are looking at the trees and missing the forest. In the long run understanding everything about the trees will help us understand the ecology of the forest, but that’s way in the future.
    Since you and I probably exhibit confirmation bias and expectation bias and other forms of cognitive bias, I’d have a a group of intelligent, non- scientists with no knowledge or expectations look at the temperature trends. This disinterested approach, IMO, gives us as much confidence in how the longer and shorter trends compare (therefore implying AGW forcing if the more recent warming trend is exceeds the long term trend) as is possible. Sorry, there’s so little we can know for sure. If you’re uncomfortable we ambiguity, try a more established science or perhaps mathematics. Oh, but the funding! I forgot about that. Yes, we have very good understanding now and are just a few more hundreds of billion$ from even much better understanding!

  119. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 25, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    “I think Mr. Nyquist had something to say about that.”

    The Nyquist criterion is sufficient, but it is not necessary. And, a curve fit over a given length of data does not require the sampling theory at all, though it does affect the quality of the fit.

    “I calculated the cycles using 1850-1950, as you did, and then used a trend of 0.42 for the entire reconstruction.”

    That is entirely reasonable, but I look at their fit as providing an upper bound assuming AGW is real and significant.

    What needs to be done here is a full statistical treatment using a Kalman filter. The “cycles” are not really deterministic. They are responses of lightly damped modes of the Sun-Earth climate system.

  120. The post war boom plus the advent of the electronic age (and massive dissipation made ubiquitous). The post war boom meant: suburbanization, GHGs, etc. GHGs alone are a contributor but not the whole enchilada.

  121. David,

    yes I am refering to that paper by Ross. I find it unconvincing and have spoken to him about it. Primarily his choice of regressors.

    Christy’s paper:
    1. limited in geographic scope and has more to do with rather extreme changes in land use
    2. uses COOP data whose data quality is often suspect
    3. no code. no data. no interest

    Anthonys’ transect of Reno. nothing new there. Doesnt make the case for a global corruption.

    Here is what you have to do.

    1.Find a study that compares stations GLOBALLY.
    2. It has to use an objective measure or urban contamination. In other words It has to present a method for objectively determining that a station is urban or rural.
    3. You have to show that the trend in the rural stations is statistically different from the trend in the urban stations.
    4. the have to post the code and the data.

    The Ross comes the closest to doing this, but again, I don’t find his regressor very compelling ( literacy, for example)

    I’ll just repeat That I wound be surprises if the UHI effect is in the 10-15% range. ( I’ve said about .15C before, about 50% of what Ross thinks ) Thats of the LAND record. which is 30% of the whole. so, mouse nuts in this argument

  122. Andrew
    “Steven Mosher-You continue to misrepresent Ross McKitrick’s work as UHI. It is not. It is a study of socioeconomic effects on climate trends. ”

    Yes, looking at the regressor’s, I do find that literacy is a predictor of higher trends.
    Is that “hot air?”
    In all seriousness I don’t find the approach Ross took as being very compelling. He and I disagree about that but we are still friends. he’s a good honest analyst. As i’ve said many times I think the truth lies somewhere between Jones and Ross. FWIW

  123. I realize this is a little off topic, but since Dr. Scafetta is here, one of the references he makes in the paper/supplement is to:

    N. Scafetta and R. C. Willson (2009), ACRIM‐gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05701, doi:10.1029/2008GL036307.

    I was wondering if he and Dr. Willson have anything to say about the criticisms of the Krivova et al that they used the incorrect solar proxy model to bridge the gap? See here:

    Krivova, N. A., S. K. Solanki, and T. Wenzler (2009), ACRIM-gap and total solar irradiance revisited: Is there a secular trend between 1986 and 1996?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L20101, doi:10.1029/2009GL040707.

    Personally I don’t think that a proxy model proves a whole lot about TSI but they are claiming that yours and Dr Willson’s recent argument for ACRIM is based on misapplication of their model. Do you agree? I find quite often that when there are disputes like this in the literature certain “camps” come out with their “response” to any inconvenient paper and the rebuttal never gets a hearing. Having noticed that you had no published response, I was curious if this perhaps meant that you and Dr Willson have not been able to get one accepted? There argument of course doesn’t mean that ACRIM is wrong, I still think the most damning evidence against PMOD was Doug Hoyt’s letter in your supplementary material, and they only criticize your application of their proxy model.

  124. Tim>

    “So I’m thinking at spin up the model must be in a certain “real” initial state including all the momentums and so on, and ideally it would follow reality from that point forward hence I’m not sure your reasoning for whether the models will or wont reproduce cycles is valid.”

    No,

    in 1850 the ocean had a certain state. (momentums as you note) the atmosphere has a certain state, clouds were at a certain state. PDO, AMO, all were at certain states.

    THOSE STATES are not the starting point for a GCM run. The model is spun up until it reaches steady state for the external forcings at that time. not, the internal states. for example, if it happened to be midway through an el nino in 1850, THAT STATE is not part of the initial conditions. There are no good observations from 1850 to set the model to that state. In current day practice you CAN initialize to a known state, so that is one approach for decadal prediction.

  125. Well they have officially detected man made global warming allright…made by man at the NCDC…

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

    “The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming…”

    “The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming…”

    “The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming…”

  126. “Craig Loehle says:
    July 25, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    We developed a hypothesis. The outcome of our analysis was not only a remarkable fit to the data, but a fulfilled prediction for flat temps after 1998, and a detected AGW signal that matches theory in terms of timing, shape etc. As well, the relative magnitudes of the 2 cycles were the same for the solar motion and temperature cases. This would be an extraordinary coincidence. But many people here seemed angry before they even read it. Why might that be?

    I think you struck a whole bunch of nerves at once. That’s a good sign. I’m sorry I missed the part about only fitting to 1950 ( read too quickly). I like nicola papers better when you’re on board.

  127. Bob Tisdale.

    That’s really cool. You should see which ones correlate well. I think one other researcher did something along those lines. Clearly some get the timing right .. id be interesting to look at them

  128. Leif:
    “Now, enthusiasts have a standard counter to that argument, namly that their cycles are real, but ‘intermittent’ [i.e. come and go].”

    hehe like gremlins

  129. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 25, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    The paper is cyclomania at its worst

    ################
    tallbloke might differ. ( just kidding rog)

    Leif, what do you make of the part about solar proxies…

  130. Mosh says “In current day practice you CAN initialize to a known state, so that is one approach for decadal prediction.”

    And these are the runs that ought to faithfully exhibit any significant climatic cycles.
    However…

    Mosh says “The model is spun up until it reaches steady state for the external forcings at that time.”

    Spun up from what initial state? Its entirely likely if not probable that our climate is in one of many possible phase locked states and each different one is again likely if not probable to exhibit quite different behaviour to forcing changes.

  131. One more thing re Mosh’s observation “In current day practice you CAN initialize to a known state, so that is one approach for decadal prediction.”

    If major climatic semi-cyclic variations like ENSO don’t naturally emerge from the model and instead have to be parameterised and arbitrarily forced then IMO the model is utterly worthless.

  132. The model of Loehle and Scafetta fails to reference the set of independent statistical events by which the claims that are made by this model about the outcomes of these events might be refuted by observation of a sampling of them. It follows that their model is not: a) refutable or b) “scientific.”

  133. Since statistics form such a large part of this paper, some nice standard deviations would be nice. Never mind how you would calculate such a number without adequate observations, you obviously have great faith in your data with a precision to hundreths of a degree.

    So, where are the error bars ? You have a small problem. Since .66 degrees is within the limits of observability (instrument error for mercury in glass) for the historical instrumentation, your “point 66 degree” increase is basically plus or minus nothing.
    By all means explain how that is wrong.

  134. To somebody who doesn’t have a professional axe to grind, gentlemen, your learned arguments look exactly like those of the scientists who brawled about the Piltdown man’s origin without realizing it was a fake in the first place.

    Yes, there is an anthropogenic signal in the late 20th century data! The crowd of government-financed alarmists artificially introduced this signal by excluding Canadian, Siberian, high-altitude and other “inconvenient” measurements from data sets, by various “adjustments” fitting the desired outcome, by placing meteorological stations on airport tarmacs, at air conditioners’ exhausts and in other artificially heated places, and by blatantly omitting, negating, and even reversing (as in prof. Mann’s case) actual results.

    Talk about the blind describing an elephant! The elephant is right before your eyes, in full view. It’s a bright pink balloon, filled with nothing but hot air.

  135. Craig and Nicolas,
    Thank you – a very nice analysis if the data.
    May I add two complicating factors.
    Factor one – which has already been mentioned – UHI has not been properly accounted for. As others have said, in rural locations, there is not much evidence of warming at all.
    Factor two – there have been a number of allegations that the data for the 1930’s has been slightly, every so gently downplayed.
    Factor three (of two) – rather an addendum and also mentioned already your findings do not accord with Roy Spencer’s satilite data. THat needs to be reconciled.
    Factor four (also of two) – a second PS so to speak – I have not seen a rigorous coverage of logarimthmetic effect of CO2 on temperature – when does that start, when CO2 was 280 ppm or did it start when temperature was zero degrees Kelvin?
    Finally factor five – does all the residual 0.66 degrees celcius absolutely HAVE to be due to humand activity or could it jusy, possibly, possibly be dure to as yet undiscovered natural causes? Why blame poor humans when the climate is so poorly understood?

  136. What about the longer term milankovitch cycles that cause the glacial/inter-glacials?

  137. An excellent start: I would remind all detractors that “we” (the experiment was done by men far more elegant than I) only found the nucleus of the atom by observing alpha particle strikes on the detector in places the observers did not expect them. No theory for the responses. No explanations. No reason for them to be found in that region. But they were there – and that observation began the explanation for a “theory” of why some alpha particles were “bounced” backwards while almost all penetrated the substance.

    NOT having a “theory” of why there is a 22 + 60 year cycle had NO relationship as to WHY there is a 20 + 60 year cycle. For that matter, Mendeleev had no “reason” for the periodicies he observed (First!) in the Periodic Table, and only later could “theorists” catch up with is “charts”. But he “modeled” the positions as accurately as known, THEN waited for the electron shell “theory” to catch up to his “cycle mania.” Compared to most climate science, this is “real” thought. And I congratulate BOTH observations (plots, if you will) of a constant steady rise + 22 year + 60 year cycle, compared to a constant rise plus a 20 year + 60 year cycle plus a (potential) CO2 influence of a “new” rise …. Hmmn. Now the math begins.

    But I would remind BOTH (Willis and the authors) that they are only “almost” at the solution: The Little Ice Age was at the low point “about” 1650. Or 1600. Or ended in 1850. Or something. We have been climbing from it ever since. The MWP peak was “about” 1000. Or 1050. Or 1100. Or 1150. Or something.

    Since the combination of a 1000 year cycle (900 year cycle?) (Slightly-changing millennium cycle of “about” 900 years????) and the 62 + 20 year cycle put us in a very uncomfortable spot. We are within one 60 year cycle of the Modern Warming Periiod maximum, or are at that maximum now, masked by a start in CO2 warming (?) beginning in 1942 as in this paper.

    I recommend very strongly that the 60 + 22 year cycle be “accepted” as an “observation of fact” and projected back through the other proxies as a “wobble” or “periodic bias” in the whole mass of 800-odd supposed temperature records that have been postulated from the period 200 BC through 2100. From that long-term record of an oscillating short term cycle, in a paper or investigation separate from this short period investigation of 160 years, I recommend the writers then determine what the long term period best fits. And while it may not be a “perfect” sine wave either: going constantly from uniform peaks to uniform troughs back to uniform peaks, it will be some pattern that can be used. And, whatever the real millennium oscillation is found to be, it is important that the expected time of the next peak (what the next element will be in Mendeleev’s Period Table) be determined.

    From that prediction of the Modern Warm Period Peak – EVEN IF IT IS NOT FROM A “THEORY” – one can fill in his predictions for the next century. In 1915 through 1924, the continents were predicted to have drifted by nothing more a globe and “cycle mania” of moving plots around … while the experts scoffed. Because there was no reason or way for them to have moved.

    But they had been moving for 4 billion years. Without a “theory” to support the “cycles” that were relatively accurately plotted first.

  138. nicola scafetta says:
    July 25, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    Thank you for your comment. You say:

    Dear Eschenbach
    I am sorry that you are not impressed.

    However, the 20 and 60 year cycles are there. We cali[b]rated the model from 1850 to 1950 and predicted the temperature modulation since 1950.

    I appreciate the clarifications. I understand that those cycles currently exist, although they are not exactly sixty or twenty years. However, we differ on what that means.

    You can easily find such cycles in a variety of chaotic systems, like say the stock market. The problem is that the cycles come and go. When you look at chaotic systems, you’ll often find what look like cycles. But the problem is, they don’t last. You may find a period with say a sixty and a twenty year cycle, but then the twenty year cycle fades out and is replaced by a thirty-five year cycle. Or the sixty year cycle simply narrows over time and becomes a fifty year cycle.

    So yes, what appear to be cycles exist, at a variety of scales. But unless you can figure out what makes one cycle come and another go, that means nothing.

    Like many attempts to predict chaotic systems with cycles, your model deviates from reality as soon as it leaves the calibration data. As I said, this is so common as to be a cliché with cyclical systems. I would have to have a whole lot of faith, I mean a really solid list of reasons to believe in a particular cycle-based prediction system to ever claim that going off the rails immediately upon leaving the calibration period meant anything more than a mis-specified model …

    One thing I learned from my elder brother is that it’s easy to predict the future … as long as it’s like the past …

    That is my essential problem with cycle-based systems applied to chaotic systems. Doesn’t mean the cycles aren’t there. It’s just that if the climate really ran on such cycles, the future would always be like the past … and I doubt that very much.

    My best to you,

    w.

  139. Bill Illis says:
    July 25, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    I’d like to point out that the AMO (which is a detrended Index) and Hadcrut3 (also detrended in this case) are almost exactly the same line going back to 1871 on a monthly basis.

    I mistrust comparing indices that are based on temperature (El Niño 3.4, AMO) to global temperatures of which they are a part … the default assumption would have to be that they are related, since one contains the other.

    w.

  140. Leif Svalgaard wrote (July 25, 2011 at 4:23 pm) “[…] I have always said that a 0.1K solar cycle caused change is to be expected […]”

    Are terrestrial spatial derivatives uniformly zero in your 0.1K/SC conception? And if SC changes in length, does 0.1K/SC remain constant in your conception?

  141. nicola scafetta, Geoff Sharp, etc – OK maybe I should have calmed down a bit before commenting, but I don’t think I was far off the mark. The paper talks about 20- and 60-year cycles in the sun. Somehow the 11- and 22-year cycles have disappeared (maybe I missed that bit), but maybe there are also solar cycles of various other lengths, eg. ~88-year and ~200-year (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/nilef-20070319.html) and no doubt many others between and beyond those numbers. See David Hathaway’s “Solar activity varies on a wide range of time scales from milli-seconds to millennia” (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20041217_LongTermSolar.ppt p49).. Few of the variations are likely to be nice smooth regular curves and they may have variable length, so you have a right mess..And that’s only the solar cycles, we haven’t even touched on the major ocean oscillations, ENSO, volcanoes, or a raft of other possible factors that could seriously distort your very short base period (and the next few decades too, of course). You can’t forecast as far ahead as a decade because you can’t know what other cycles/factors might be involved, and you can’t forecast less than a decade because you don’t know what any of the short-term factors are. Actually, you can’t forecast anything anyway, because you are curve-fitting to something that looks like a mere 1 1/2 cycles of something, without a prediction-capable mechanism, and without anything that cross-checks it to anything outside those 1 1/2 cycles, on top of which the supposed underlying linear trend might be part of some other cycle and hence not linear at all,.

    Basically, what I am objecting to is the forecasting part of your paper. I’m quite happy to accept that there are things that look like cycles of something, and until you know what they are and how they work you can’t possibly ascribe virtually all of the 20thC warming to CO2 because there are two upward phases of this something in the 20thC and only one downward one. But that isn’t what you have argued. You have taken what looks like 1 1/2 cycles of something in the 100 years 1850-1950, and projected it over the next 50 years in the blind hope that it will go on doing what it was doing.

  142. It appears to be data fitting as needed, but since not all inputs are used/known, the weighting applied to what they have is most certainly wrong.

  143. Craig Loehle says:
    July 25, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    Willis: sorry a different POV on signal decomposition. It is known that GHG did not become significantly elevated until about mid century. That is, one of the factors in our model did not operate continuously over the entire period. We let the data decide exactly where that point is, and it says 1942–I did not pick 1942.

    Thanks, Craig. It’s not clear what you mean by “significantly elevated”, or from when? You need to remember that the forcing decreases with increasing concentrations (logarithmic relationship). As a result, by 1930 the forcing increase was already a third of the total to date (2010). A third of the way to the current situation, that seems like a significant elevation to me. My point is, you need reasonable ex-ante criteria.

    Next, you say you “let the data decide” where the inflection point was located when you broke one trendline into two. Unfortunately, for some reason my data is never that communicative, so I use various mathematical methods to break one trendline into two trendlines, or into three, or more. So my question remains unanswered—how did you choose the location of the inflection point?

    Best regards,

    w.

  144. nicola scafetta says:
    July 25, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    Hi Willis Eschenbach,

    did you note that your model is not too far from our model in figure 1?
    did you note that a 62-year cycle and a 22-year cycle are not too far from our cycles?

    I do note that, and knew it when I did it. I’m sorry my writing isn’t clear. The difference is in what you think it means.

    Nicola, you are fitting a fairly simple dataset (n=158 or so). To do so, you started with the following variable parameters:

    Cycle 1 Amplitude
    Cycle 1 Phase
    Cycle 1 Period
    Cycle 2 Amplitude
    Cycle 2 Phase
    Cycle 2 Period
    Linear trend

    Now, as either your or my figure shows, using those seven parameters we can do a kinda reasonable job of matching up to the real data. Now here is my question:

    If we add another parameter to the equation, will the fit be better?

    The answer to that question is “duh”. So getting a better fit by adding one more parameter (two linear trends instead of one) MEANS NOTHING. If you divide it up into three trend lines, it will get better yet. Are we surprised?

    w.

  145. Craig Loehle says:
    July 25, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    Willis I would argue that your model has systematic error.

    As far as I know, every cyclical model has systematic error. Adding more parameters will reduce that error. Not sure what your point is here.

    Do you object to even the idea that there might be AGW?

    No, I don’t. I object to the idea that we can detect AGW using that a model that only provides good results during the calibration period and not during the verification period.

    Plus you are assuming chaotic dynamics but we are asserting the possibility that the REGULAR 60 and 20 solar orbit (oscillation/wobble) cycles have an effect.

    I fear I’ve never heard of any REGULAR 60 and 20 year solar orbit cycles. I got pretty deep into the math of the barycentric orbit of the sun, wrote an Excel spreadsheet to calculate the barycenter by actually calculating planetary positions as a matter of fact, no small bit of spreadsheeting requiring a host of specialized user functions.

    But I never found any regular 60 and 20 year “solar orbit cycles”. The barycenter is affected by all of the planets, although the giant planets affect it more. The orbits of the planets are not generally mutually divisible. This results in a very complex and constantly changing dance of the sun around the solar barycenter … but not regular 60 and 20 year orbit cycles. Not sure what you mean by that. What am I missing here?

    w.

  146. Mike Jonas says:
    July 25, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    nicola scafetta, Geoff Sharp, etc – OK maybe I should have calmed down a bit before commenting, but I don’t think I was far off the mark. The paper talks about 20- and 60-year cycles in the sun. Somehow the 11- and 22-year cycles have disappeared (maybe I missed that bit), but maybe there are also solar cycles of various other lengths, eg. ~88-year and ~200-year (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/nilef-20070319.html) and no doubt many others between and beyond those numbers. See David Hathaway’s “Solar activity varies on a wide range of time scales from milli-seconds to millennia” (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20041217_LongTermSolar.ppt p49).. Few of the variations are likely to be nice smooth regular curves and they may have variable length, so you have a right mess..And that’s only the solar cycles, we haven’t even touched on the major ocean oscillations, ENSO, volcanoes, or a raft of other possible factors that could seriously distort your very short base period (and the next few decades too, of course).

    No, I disagree: You’re going at the problem backwards. Or criticizing it backwards more accurately.

    See, the first thing to do is do determine what the temperature trend during the recent thermometer period (1850 – 2011) actually is,
    and what patterns or trends represent “data” in those trends (what the earth’s temperature/climate really was during this period),
    and what represents random “noise” (day-to-day, year-to-random changes in the “weather” that do NOT represent “climate change”),
    and what represents experimental error in the plots (UHI increases in the temperatures, thermometer loss and loss of USSR data, “metadata” “M” (minus) records getting skipped that inflate winter temperatures, differences in sea records from different measuring techniques, sea records vice land records, extrapolated land records over hundreds of km, surface temperature errors from lousy stations and lousy maintenance of surface records and stations, false and malicious time-of-observation bias changes in the information.)

    Then, and only then, can you begin to filter out the information from the chaff in the original numbers. CAGW theory assigns ALL increases in the record to man-caused CO2 increases, and required that the past warm periods and cold periods be erased because they could not be fit into the theory that Mann and Hansen and the IPCC need to propagate for their continued tax money and power bases.

    You are assuming that all periods or cycles in the earth’s temperate come from solar influences, and go off about what are correct reservations about the many different solar cycles of different amplitudes and periodicities. But those solar cycles are irrelevant. Right now. What the solar cause or influence might be on the observed 22 + 60 year cycle in the earth’s temperature is not known. And it is irrelevant as well. We don’t know the reason there is a 22 + 60 year cycle … (plus a longer one they are not plotting) but the the first thing to do is to get the earth’s trends correct. THEN, and only then, begin to try to link solar cycles – of whatever length and amplitude – to the real cycle on the earth. It is dead wrong to criticize a trend of earth-measured temperatures just because none of those earth cycles match any (known) solar cycles.

    Here, a portion of the increase in temperature since 1942 has been filtered out of the original data by assuming there is a linear rise from the LIA plus a 60 year and 22 year cycle, and that increase has been plotted as a simple linear increase beginning in 1942. This increase is then theorized to come from CO2 from burning fossil fuels. None of these relate to any solar cycles – since the root cause of the short 60 + 22 temperature cycles is not worthy of concern at this point. That can be determined later. For the next twenty years, this model may – or may not – be determined to be more accurate than others.

    But it is absolutely more accurate than modeled GCM data squished from manipulated records that require periodic convenient up and down changes in aerosol content in the world’s atmosphere so the model output matches past manipulated temporarily records … aerosol measurements that have never been previously promoted until the constants in GCM models required year-by-year changes. The future will tell what is correct.

    Further, the relationship to the AMO, PMO, El Nino;s for any other “symptom” of the earth’s is not important. Yet. Later, when the signal is extracted from the random noise, from the measurement error and the deliberate measurement errors, and all of that extracted from the millennium temperature changes, can the “chicken and egg” relationship be considered. Does the PMO cause the 60 year cycle, or are both a symptom of some other cause, does the the 60 year cycle cause the PMO and AMO? Do sunspots change the cloud covers, or do cloud cover changes from sunspot changes change the PMO and the AMO? Do the cyclic solar current changes change the magnetic shielding and that changes the sunspot count? Or do the magnetic currents that change the sun spot behavior change the cosmic ray shielding at the same time, but neither causes the other? Those causes – or lack of causes – do not matter at this time as a critique of this paper, because we don’t know the real trend yet.

    OK. It is a start: Now, I challenge the writers to determine what part of that simple linear increase since 1942 is random weather, what part is data manipulation and data error in measurements, and what part is from changes in the underlaying long term millennium cycle since the LIA, and what part “might” be from CO2 changes in the atmosphere.

  147. steven mosher says:
    July 25, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 25, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    The paper is cyclomania at its worst

    ################
    tallbloke might differ. ( just kidding rog)

    Heh. Leif’s problem is that he knows the sharp spectral lines are there in the solar proxies, but has no explanation for them. Whereas we have managed to reproduce the Lean TSI proxy to an R^2 value of 0.99 using a fit of seven cycles that are all near known paleo periods and planetary cyclic periods.

    It’s not definitive, but it’s a good start:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/

    200 comments and counting

  148. steven mosher says:
    July 25, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Leif:
    “Now, enthusiasts have a standard counter to that argument, namly that their cycles are real, but ‘intermittent’ [i.e. come and go].”

    hehe like gremlins

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 25, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    You can easily find such cycles in a variety of chaotic systems, like say the stock market. The problem is that the cycles come and go. When you look at chaotic systems, you’ll often find what look like cycles. But the problem is, they don’t last. You may find a period with say a sixty and a twenty year cycle, but then the twenty year cycle fades out and is replaced by a thirty-five year cycle. Or the sixty year cycle simply narrows over time and becomes a fifty year cycle.

    You guys do not understand stochastic systems. This is precisely how a system of lightly damped modes of a system described by partial differential equations with random input behaves. Precisely. This is how the real world works. I see it every single god**ed day analyzing structural resonances. Cycles come and go. For a given time period, they can look similar to a steady state oscillation, but eventually, they are randomly amplitude and frequency modulated.

    It is wholly unremarkable, standard workaday, cut and dried, basic, elementary stuff. If I had any hair left, I would be tearing it out over all this foolishness. In a room of my peers, there would be no question about it, just affirming nods and sympathetic murmurs. I tried explaining it to Leif once, but he does not understand it and does not want to understand it. You probably won’t either, but I’m telling you what is, regardless of how you receive it.

    The example I gave to Leif is the Sun spot cycle. As I showed here, the Sun spot cycle is dominated by two processes with resonances corresponding to periods of roughly 20 and 23.6 years. A simple two-mode system can be used to model the process, as shown here. The resonances are driven by random inputs which, for all practical purposes, can be modeled as white noise. When I simulate this system, I get results which qualitatively look very similar in character to the actual Sun spot data, as here, and here.

    As you can see, the cycles grow and fade over time. This is what real world systems do. If I had the time, I could formulate a Kalman Filter which I would prime with the historical data, and I could then project optimal estimates and associated uncertainty bounds for the process forward (or backward) in time. But, I do not have the time. I am busy doing important things which actually have application in the real world – besides which, like primitive people who cannot be made to believe that there is no Rain God, I’d likely only get grief for my efforts to enlighten (like I got from Leif). But, it just kills me to see neophytes to the world of stochastic systems analysis make such a hash of things, laughing up their sleeves at things they do not understand, when it is so simple, and has been known for decades, and is done every day in scientific and technical trades the world over.

  149. Looking at Hadcrut3 data and comparing 23-year sections 120 years apart (ie. two of Loehle&Scafetta’s 60-year cycles apart), I’ve got a beautiful correlation. One series starts in 1858, the other in 1978. The series are called “series 1″ and “series 2″ but I’m not saying which is which. They are rebased for visual comparison but otherwise unaltered. One of them varies more month-to-month, but that’s possibly due to different measurement standards or thermometer counts in the two periods. One of them is well before the “CO2 age”, the other well inside it.

    It is possible that with a bit of “team”-like “adjustment” for, say, selected volcanoes I could get an even more impressive correlation.
    If I had done that graph in 2001, ie. with data up to date, I would have been on pretty safe ground predicting a few years ahead. Wouldn’t I?
    Here is the same data brought up to today:

    In just 2 years, it blew open by nearly half of the 0.66 deg C that the Loehle&Scafetta paper talks about.

    That was just a bit of fun, working with predictions from short base periods without a mechanism.

    But here’s another question : Looking at the first graph, we have a 23-year period starting in 1978 – right when man-made CO2 global warming was supposedly going full bore – and it is virtually indistinguishable from the 23-year period starting in 1858. Does this suggest that the effect of man-made CO2 is zero? Does the fact that the correlation blows apart in the next 2 years show that the divergence has nothing to do with CO2 (the AGW effect can’t idle along for 23 years and then suddenly jump up in 2 years).

    Or is the answer that the dice just happened to fall that way?

  150. Several statistical analyses have shown that the data is not stationary and in a working paper not yet accepted by any journal Beenstock & Reingewertz showed that, “… greenhouse gas forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, previous claims that carbon emissions permanently increase global temperature are false. Although we find no permanent effect of greenhouse gas forcings on global temperature, there appears to be a temporary, or short-term, effect. We show that this temporary effect can easily be mistaken for a permanent one. Polynomial cointegration tests show that the putative permanent effect is induced by the spurious regression phenomenon. Because the effect is temporary, recent global warming should be interpreted as a short-term response to increased carbon emissions, which is expected to be reversed in the future.” (http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf)

    The “near future” in this context relates to a time following deceleration in the rate of growth in global GDP as developing countries catch up to developing countries. In context, this probably means 50 years from now the increase in AGW would be undetectable.

    In effect, there is AGW but there is no point doing anything about it.

  151. Analysis or synthesis of any waveform by application of periodic functions is well understood method. It is application of the results to the physical processes where the pitfalls are, since underlining mechanism has to be clear and convincing.

  152. OK, I ran the numbers. I made 10,000 pseudo-temperature records of 158 years, using an ARIMA (auto-regressive moving average) red-noise with the parameters set to match those of the HadCRUT3 records (ar = 0.9673,ma = -0.4591). I calculated the trends (in degrees per century) for the first hundred years and compared them to the trends for the last 58 years. I looked to see how large the difference was, and compared that to the differences in the early and late trends (0.15 and 0.66 degrees per century, a change of 0.45° per century) in the Loehle/Scafetta results.

    Out of the 10,000 “red-noise” pseudo-temperatures, some 8.3% of the random data had trend changes that were larger than the changes in the Loehle/Scafetta results above. This gives us a p-value of 0.083.

    In other words, the change in trend is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, there’s almost one chance in ten that such a trend change is just a random occurrence.

    I attach the code in R.

    w.

    regm =function(x) {lm(x~c(1:length(x)))[[1]][[2]]}#trend
    regmfirst=function(x){ #trend first section
    x=x[1:l1]
    lm(x~c(1:length(x)))[[1]][[2]]
    }
    regmlast=function(x){ #trend last section
    x=x[(l1+1):length(x)]
    lm(x~c(1:length(x)))[[1]][[2]]
    }

    instances=10000 # number of records
    instlength=158 # length of each record
    l1=100 #years initial sectopm

    rand1=matrix(arima.sim(list(order=c(1,0,1), ar=.9673,ma=-.4591),n=instances*instlength),instlength,instances) #create pseudotemps

    randbox=(rand1-mean(rand1))*tempsd/sd(rand1) # standardize to mean of zero and sd of 1
    plot(randbox[,3],type="l")

    myresults=apply(randbox,2,regmlast)-apply(randbox,2,regmfirst)*100 #get difference first and last trends
    length(which(abs(myresults)>(.66-.15)))/instances # get percentage with change greater than Loehle/Scafetta change

  153. Bart says:
    July 26, 2011 at 12:13 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 25, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    You can easily find such cycles in a variety of chaotic systems, like say the stock market. The problem is that the cycles come and go. When you look at chaotic systems, you’ll often find what look like cycles. But the problem is, they don’t last. You may find a period with say a sixty and a twenty year cycle, but then the twenty year cycle fades out and is replaced by a thirty-five year cycle. Or the sixty year cycle simply narrows over time and becomes a fifty year cycle

    .

    You guys do not understand stochastic systems. This is precisely how a system of lightly damped modes of a system described by partial differential equations with random input behaves. Precisely. This is how the real world works. I see it every single god**ed day analyzing structural resonances. Cycles come and go. For a given time period, they can look similar to a steady state oscillation, but eventually, they are randomly amplitude and frequency modulated.

    Since that is exactly what I said, I fail to see what you are tearing your hair out about. Near as I can tell I agree with you.

    w.

  154. Willis:

    In my opinion, the Loehle and Scafetta analysis is “interesting” food for thought because it provides a challenge to justify the ‘real’ existence of its postulated dominant 20 and 60 year cycles. But I think its attempt to estimate the recent magnitude of AGW is a ‘bridge too far’.

    However, you seem to be rejecting their analysis in total when, at July 25, 2011 at 5:28 pm, you write to Nicola Scafetta:

    “The fact that your model is incapable of forecasting the future cannot be used as positive evidence of some change in the underlying conditions. It’s just as likely to be the fate of almost every cyclical model—it fits the data it was trained on, and does terribly after that. Just like your model, in fact. This is particularly true when the change in trend just happens to occur right after the time period you have used for training your model. That’s so common in cyclical models as to be a cliche.

    Until you can show us it’s not just that your model is faulty, I’ll hold that you have demonstrated nothing with your model except that it’s a pretty good fit to the calibration dataset, and does abysmally on the verification dataset … join the club.”

    And that don’t impress me much.”

    I agree with bluntness for clarity but – with respect – I fail to see the need for harsh words such as, “you have demonstrated nothing” when you could have said the same thing in less personal terms. Indeed, I had said it in less aggressive words above at July 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm where I wrote:

    “The best one can do with a chaotic (or quasi-chaotic) system is to identify a set of apparent oscillations and to extrapolate them. This can work for some time (as several stock market predictions have shown) but is prone to be misleading in the medium or long term (as all stock market predictions have shown).

    The Loehle and Scafetta method may work as a predictive method for the short-term but has high risk of being wrong in the longer term if no mechanisms governing its cycles are identified.
    And if the method is not predictive then it is an incorrect model. But an incorrect model cannot identify processes (e.g. AGW) that contribute to changes in the time series.

    Hence, I consider the analysis of Loehle and Scafetta to be interesting but should be subject to much caution until the cause(s) of its 60 and 20 year cycles are identified.”

    Something can be an over-reach but still contain elements worthy of investigation. I think the Loehle and Scafetta analysis is an example of this.

    Richard

  155. Cycles that come and go over time but never quite disappear forever are nonetheless real and useful especially if they can be linked to causative mechanisms.

    It is not valid to simply relegate them to the category of ‘noise’ or say that they are merely ‘random’.

    There could be a degree of randomness on short timescales as regards any ongoing modulation by other variable or chaotic influences but they remain present in the background nonetheless.

  156. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 25, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    But I never found any regular 60 and 20 year “solar orbit cycles”. The barycenter is affected by all of the planets, although the giant planets affect it more. The orbits of the planets are not generally mutually divisible. This results in a very complex and constantly changing dance of the sun around the solar barycenter … but not regular 60 and 20 year orbit cycles. Not sure what you mean by that. What am I missing here?

    Have you looked at solar velocity?

    I am surprised by your tone Willis, I was hoping you might be different to some of the other guest authors found here.

  157. The atmospheric CO2 content for the 19th century has long been estimated using proxies and models both of which can be wrong. It is forgotten that atmospheric CO2 content was actually measured in the 1800s both in the UK and France, Italy and Germany. All records show roughly similar data, which would be expected given that CO2 does not mix as well as other lighter gasses, so some variation would be expected.

    Levels of up to 490ppmv have been found in this data set and no readings as low as what is considered as safe today, 250-300ppmv. So claims that our production of CO2 is pushing the atmosphere over the edge are false.

  158. I feel like a kid that’s wandered into the teachers lounge.

    I’ll be happy though when the models with there stats apps. are put back in the (x)Box where it belongs and someone does some actual science. Does no one own a bunsen burner anymore?

  159. The sad thing is that natural climate cycles do exist and have existed for billions of years.

    Right now, we are in the Holocene Age – a period of recently above average temperatures – a typical interglacial period of 15-25,000 years, which have occurred around a dozen times in the past 2.6 million years of the Pleistocene Age.,

    Within each interglacial period, there are warm and cold cycles. As Anthony so clearly illustrated in a post about two weeks ago, the temperature in this particular warm cycle, which began around 1850, is about average for the ~15 warming cycles we have seen during the Holocene.

    Nearly all sceptics believe the activities of man have had an influence on recent (past 50 years or so) global temperatures, but this influence has been small to very small, perhaps a maximum of 0.2-0.3 degrees Centigrade.

    The people who really understand historic climate cycles are the geologists in the private sector (the ones in the government sector don’t count as they mostly have to sing to the AGW song sheet or lose their jobs/grants/careers etc). Almost none of these people believe in the looming AGW disaster, as preached by the IPCC, the Team and other ‘climate scientists’. Why? Answer: because they are real scientists, who shudder at the ‘climate scientists” practices of data manipulation, data secrecy and the philosophy of cherry picking and ignoring inconvenient facts.

    So the study/models shown here may well be approximately correct, but at least there was no attempt at manipulation of original data, or of hiding the original data and its method of interpretation.

  160. Thanks Nicola and Craig for presenting your work. I think it is an interesting way of looking at a relatively brief period and will be interesting to see how it looks a little later on. People who propose that you are presenting this as a formula to be applied to all of history or all of the future need to learn to read, in my opinion.

  161. Just a suggestion to try and cut through an apparent impasse but could anyone devise some sort of integration of solar and ocean variations so as to produce a measure of the likely net effect on climate at any given time and only then try to fit it to observed climate changes ?

    A second step would then be to try and link that net effect to the surface air pressure distribution at any given time.

    I’d expect a great deal more from such an analysis than the current thrashing about but I have some doubts as to whether such an exercise is currently feasible with existing data and models.

    If someone would stump up a few million pounds and a research department to play around with I’d be happy to assist.

  162. Craig and Nicola concluded their post with, “6) Our result matches the historical record better than any other attribution study and better than GCM outputs.”

    Actually, two and a half years ago I replicated the Global Surface Temperature record from about 1900 to present using only NINO3.4 SST anomalies, volcanic aerosol and sunspot data. My results also include the year-to-year wiggles. Do yours?

    The graph is from the following post:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/reproducing-global-temperature-anomalies-with-natural-forcings/

  163. Hi there,

    the main criticism I have is that the study is a “business as usual” one. In extenso, it projects what would happen if everything remains the same as it has been up to now – not including the emergence of new feedbacks for example. It is an estimate of past anthropogenic contributions to the warming, not the future ones. Let me explain.

    It all becomes very clear when comparing the HadCru temperatures vs the linear regression of the signal before 1950, that can be seen in Figure 1. From 1900 to 2000, the change in temperatures has been 0.8 degrees (approximately) and the linear pre-AGW trend is 0.1-0.2 (still approximate). So, OF COURSE, you get an AGW contribution of about 0.6 per century.

    But in your approcah, if one completely ignores about pre-AGW warming and applies the same procedure, the conclusion would be that the warming is 0.8, still much less than IPCC projections. Does that mean that it is supposed to remain 0.8 for ever? That is the sort of questions the more complex models try to solve. Your approach is the simplest (and optimistic) one, as it basically says: yes, it will remain like this. So, even without natural cycles, you would reach the conclusion that IPCC is exaggerating the warming. But that’s because you start from the a priori hypothesis that warming will remain linear.

    I think your study does not answer the aforementioned question. In summary, I think that what you REALLY calculated is the AGW contribution to the warming in the 20th century, not more than that. And you get a figure of 0.66/0.8=82.5%. Which is close to what is said in the IPCC reports.

  164. A nice reminder of your work, Bob.

    The only thing that I would contend could be added would be long slow cumulative changes in solar output other than raw TSI namely changes in the mix of particles and wavelengths over longer periods of time such as MWP to LIA to date and which seem to have some effect on surface pressure distribution and global albedo so as to alter solar shortwave into the oceans and thus affecting the energy available to the ENSO process.

    Although the sunspot effect may very well be minimal over 100 years or so the cumulative effect over 500 years does seem capable of providing a background temperature trend that eventually does rank significantly as compared to ENSO on its own. Indeed I think it is possible that over such longer periods of time the sun itself alters the strength of the net ENSO signal to produce long term warming or cooling trends in the troposphere globally.

    This is not a criticism of your work or a request that you go beyond your current interests. It is merely a suggestion to other readers that your ENSO work might fit very well into a larger global climate scenario.

  165. I found the paper interesting and so too the comments.

    Personally, I cionsider that part of the reason why the AGW ‘theory’ took off was because someone (inappropriately) put a straight fit throgh the temperature records and concluded that there was an upwards trend. when you look at the usual data sets, I cannot see why anyone would seek to put a straight line through the temperatures between late 1800s and to date. Just eyeballing the usual data sets, one see that there are upward and downward trends such that one would either put some sinusoidal line/wave through it or a series of upwards and downwards straight lines.

    Whilst correlation does not amount to causation and whilst the causes may be unknown, just eyeballing the usual temperature data sets does suggest that there are factors at play which have some cycular base.

    I am one of those people who are very sceptical of the land based temperature record. I consider that it has been so bastersized by adjustments, poor siting, station drop outs, inevitable UHI etc. that it is unreliable. I do not know whether it is warmer today than it was in the late 1800s or 1930s, and I do not consider that the temperature record is sufficiently robust to lay this uncertainty to rest. I consider that it is probably warmer today than it was back in the mid to late 1800s but I would not wish to go more than that nor to put a figure on it. If we are coming out of a LIA, one would expect the temperature to be somewhat warmer and for there to be an overall upward trend since the mid/late 1800s. Is all this natural or is some of it anthropogenic? Again, I am of the view that the data is not robust enough to answer that question. It would not surprise me if changes in land use have had some effect. I would notaltogether rule out pollution or the manmade emissions of GHGs as may be having had some effect but I am very sceptical of this and consider that if this has had an effect it is minor only. To me, the prime suspect behind any real warming is changes in cloud cover which may have reduced albedo and may have allowed the oceans to absorb more solar energy.

    Is this study useful in establishing the anthropogenic extent of rising temperatures. Well yes and no as has been pointed out in many of the comments. I would just add that the first two graphs suggest very little in the way of anthropogenic influence.

    If on the first graph, one were to put a straight line fit for a 35 year period between 1908 to 1943 (ie., before substantial manmade CO2 emissions) and another straight line fit for a 35 year period between 1960 and 1995 (ie., when manmade emissions are said to be significant), those lines would run parallel to one another and the gradient of the later line would not be steeper than the gradient of the earlier line thereby suggesting that the data does not show an increased rate of warming during the period when there was anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The first graph does not suggest a significant anthropogenic contribution.

    Ditto, the second graph. The second graph actually has a straight line running from 1910 to 2010 and the rate of change does not suddenly increase post 1940/1945/1950 (whenever it is claimed that the rapid rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions took place). The second graph does not support the contention that anthropogenic influence is significant.

    I would like to thank the authors for the post and there further comments/replies. An interesting read.

  166. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 2:05 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 25, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    But I never found any regular 60 and 20 year “solar orbit cycles”. The barycenter is affected by all of the planets, although the giant planets affect it more. The orbits of the planets are not generally mutually divisible. This results in a very complex and constantly changing dance of the sun around the solar barycenter … but not regular 60 and 20 year orbit cycles. Not sure what you mean by that. What am I missing here?

    Have you looked at solar velocity?

    Yes … didn’t find any regular 60 or 20 year cycles there either.

    I am surprised by your tone Willis, I was hoping you might be different to some of the other guest authors found here.

    My apologies to Craig and Nicola for what upon re-reading is harsh. I raised what I thought were three very cogent objections. I asked a few clear and pointed questions about statistics and confirmation of significance and how they chose the inflection point.

    To date, I don’t feel that my issues have been addressed. My questions have assuredly not been answered. They have not justified the use of the early part of the period as their null hypothesis. They have not shown statistically that adding an eighth parameter to a cyclical model which already has seven parameters improves the fit more than would be expected (an additional parameter always improves the fit). They have not told us how they chose the inflection point. I still don’t know where they get the cycles of an even sixty and twenty years. They have not told us why we should trust a model that goes off the rails as soon as it leaves the calibration data and enters the unknown.

    However, that’s no excuse for being impolite. It’s just I’ve gotten this kind of gentle evasion from other authors and I don’t react well to it. I know Craig Loehle, and he’s a great guy, and I image Nicola is as well. You are right, I should adjust my compass deviation to correct for that. I’m just not sure why my questions aren’t getting answered. How did they analyze statistical significance?

    Finally, I still say that their method involves data snooping. They have arbitrarily set the trend of the post-calibration reconstruction equal to the trend of the post-calibration data. Isn’t that data snooping? I mean, your model goes off the rails as soon as it leaves the data it was fitted to. So rather than say “bad model” you say “Ooops, gotta change the trend to match the observed trend” and now it fits the data?? … I’m sorry, Geoff, but I just don’t see that as a valid statistical procedure, and I know of no polite way to say that.

    Is there truth in cycles? Sure. I suspect that the barycentric movement of the sun has an effect on the climate. But the barycentric cycle is horrendously complex, and is assuredly not a combination of simple 60 year and 20 year cycles. Even the “regular” 11 and 22 year sunspot cycles vary in length by (from memory, it’s late) around 10-15% or so.

    w.

  167. Willis, Geoff, Leif et al.

    I can see Leif’s objection to the idea that movement of the solar system barycentre has a significant effect on an object the size of the sun but is it necessary to propose an effect on the sun for Earth’s climate purposes?

    With a planets the size of Jupiter and Saturn involved would it not be sufficient to propose that the movement of the solar system barycentre has a direct effect on the internal mechanics of the Earth’s oceans? Over and above the lunar effect that is.

    There are three cycles mentioned in the above paper. 20 years or so relates near enough to the solar cycles (who implied cycles don’t exist?) and the 500/1000 year cycle fits well to the solar changes seen from 1600 to date despite Leif’s continuing efforts to put them in an ever reducing perspective.

    That just leaves the 60 year ocean cycling which doesn’t fit solar changes well but does fit with barycentre changes.

    So if we attribute the ocean behaviour on a 60 year cycle to planetary movements doesn’t that square the circle?

    It also gives us a degree of seperateness/independence between ocean and solar cycling that goes a long way to explaining the correlation problems which would then most likely arise from phasing differences between solar and oceanic variations.

  168. Here’s the problem in a nutshell:

    As you can see, both cyclical solutions fit the data about as well, just differently; but one has 20 year cycles and the other has 30 year cycles.

    Do either of these fittings of cycles and trends to the data demonstrate anything valuable about the climate system? I don’t think so.

    w.

  169. Decomposition of historical spectra of temperature anomaly proxies is for sure a better method to solve the global climate code than many others. This is recognizable from the laws of physics which tell us, that any heat flow has a real heat source and each heat peak has its very real reason. But the scientific method for decomposition of time spectra is not as shown here some time periods adopted from small time windows from history, but as Bond et. al. 2001 has done, a Fourier power analyze of a long time window using high frequency proxy spectra. It is well known, that there is a main power 1.8 kiloyear time period heat generator beside other modulating the global climate since about 10 kiloyears. The job of physics research is to find the mechanism of exhibit phenomena like the dynamic global climate. But on this way also frequency phenomena, which can be assigned to the source of heat, can be a valuable step on the way to the nature of the unknown mechanism. Here it is a difference whether one deal only with two or some time periods without any relation, or one deals with energies realized by frequencies of moving matter in the solar system as the source of heat flow. Time periods alone say nothing but time. Real moving matter in the solar system addressed with its very real frequency and function can lead to an understanding of the whole mechanism. Taking some few (1, 5 or 8) synodic elements of the solar heat system, it can be shown that the global climate from 3000 BCE to 3000 CE in increments of days can be simulated.

    http://volker-doormann.org/gif/ghi5_had3_1870_2100.gif and

    These are two plots of many I have done to demonstrate in general that the natural climate periods are easy to simulate from real energies of frequenting matter. It is not clear to me, what well known physics is involved in that frequency stuff, but I think if the geometric pattern is fixed to the frequencies in the solar heat system it could be taken as a climate guide for the next millennium, also as long the physical mechanism is not understood.

    In general I agree with that decomposition of historical spectra of temperature anomaly proxies is an alternative path to the mainstream path of the very geocentric view, but as it seems not very clever to extrapolate the measured northern temperatures from the time window February/June into the time range of July/December, it seems to me, that this behavior to fit the nature of climate with simple geometric functions of short time windows is not the top of climate science work.

  170. “The residuals (lack of fit) after 1950 suggested an unidentified forcing which we attributed to human activity.”
    I’m very disappointed to hear Craig Loehle saying this. As Willis pointed out, the more likely explanation is that the model is wrong.
    Craig’s argument seems to be: we don’t know of any other explanation for this warming so it must be carbon dioxide. This is precisely the same argument used by the global warming fundamentalists whose delusions threaten to cost the world trillions of dollars.
    This false argument has been known for a long time, and it caused Darwin to make a fundamental mistake which he later regretted.
    Only when we fully understand all possible climate forcings can that argument be used. But when that happens the argument becomes redundant.
    It’s also a delusion to believe you can forecast the climate a hundred years in the future. The weather can be forecast a couple of days ahead, but that’s about it. Forecasts over any longer time scales are in the fantasy realm of BBQ summers. By the way, back in May forecasters in the UK were saying that June and July would be very hot in the UK. Not. They turned out to be mostly cold and damp. As I type this I’m wearing a sweater.
    Finally, if CO2 does have a significant warming effect, it should show up very clearly in the ice core records. It does not. It clearly shows CO2 following the temperature, due to the effect of the oceans but, as far as I’m aware, the ice core records show not a single instance of temperature following changes in CO2. Very often the temperature and CO2 are moving in opposite directions.
    Sorry, Craig. In the past you’ve done great service in the fight for the truth. But I think this is plain wrong. The evidence of the ice cores says clearly that the temperature forcing of carbon dioxide is so close to zero as to be virtually unmeasureable.
    Chris

  171. “As you can see, both cyclical solutions fit the data about as well, just differently; but one has 20 year cycles and the other has 30 year cycles.”

    That just shows that the 60 year cycles are far more dominant than the difference between 20 or 30 year cycles which is as we would expect from small solar changes from one cycle to another (20/22 years for the complete solar cycle so why choose 30 years?) compared to the very large energy transfers involved in the ocean cycle (60 years or so).

    “Do either of these fittings of cycles and trends to the data demonstrate anything valuable about the climate system? ”

    I think they show that both cycles are underlain by a longer, larger cycle giving a background rising trend over the period for which the solar changes from 1600 to date would be a primary candidate.

  172. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 2:05 am

    @willis

    “”””I am surprised by your tone Willis, I was hoping you might be different to some of the other guest authors found here.””””

    ——

    Willis,

    I was also surprised at your tone. Not really surprised at your critique, just your tone . . . Antagonism?

    John

  173. Peter Miller says:
    July 26, 2011 at 2:25 am
    The people who really understand historic climate cycles are the geologists in the private sector (the ones in the government sector don’t count as they mostly have to sing to the AGW song sheet or lose their jobs/grants/careers etc). Almost none of these people believe in the looming AGW disaster, as preached by the IPCC, the Team and other ‘climate scientists’. Why? Answer: because they are real scientists, who shudder at the ‘climate scientists” practices of data manipulation, data secrecy and the philosophy of cherry picking and ignoring inconvenient facts.

    —–

    I think you’re wrong there, several super major oil companies use climate models as a method of predicting source rock distributions for oil and gas exploration. These “real” scientists enbrace the climate models.

    And with regards to you comment: “Almost none of these people believe in the looming AGW disaster” I think you’re wrong there again. If you’d like to show me an unbias survey that illustrates this that would be great, but I very much doubt that you can.

  174. Paul Vaughan says:
    July 25, 2011 at 10:11 pm
    Are terrestrial spatial derivatives uniformly zero in your 0.1K/SC conception? And if SC changes in length, does 0.1K/SC remain constant in your conception?
    Spatial derivatives are irrelevant for the global temperature. The solar cycle length is roughly inversely related to the amplitude of the cycle, so the integrated effect over a cycle is roughly constant.

    tallbloke says:
    July 25, 2011 at 11:58 pm
    Whereas we have managed to reproduce the Lean TSI proxy to an R^2 value of 0.99 using a fit of seven cycles
    The Lean TSI is not considered a good representation of actual TSI. And you have used two parameters more than it takes to make the elephnat wiggle its tail.

    Bart says:
    July 26, 2011 at 12:13 am
    You guys do not understand stochastic systems.
    Scafetta claims that the system is not stochastic, but strictly forced by completely cyclic input and those cycles are not 20 and 23 years.

  175. http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/CETvsArmagh_long.html

    If I see a model which fits these longest instrumental records, which are pretty much matching the North Atlantic SST since available, which is pretty much matching the whole Northern hemisphere.. what warmed the climate to present levels in 1730s, 1830s, 1940s?
    Besides others, HadCRUT is biased since 1998 by +0,07°C in HadSST2 component as Bob Tisdale had shown. Many NH rural stations show 1940s as warm as today.

  176. If 300 watts of ghg back radiation warms the earths surface by 30 degrees K above thermodynamic equilibrium, 300 + 1.5 watts/m2 of extra co2 induced warming will proportionately warm it by too small an amount to measure.

  177. To those who say there are no physics in this paper…I would say “well duh. ” :) I mean it in a good way here…but it’s not a physics paper…it’s a statistical methods paper attempting to show that any reasonable analysis of the AGW signal cannot begin with GCM verification (circular logic) or simple signal processing (because there are a series of complicated longer-term climate oscillations at work).

    I suspect that you could further refine this research by including better oceanic oscillation information in the predictive model, but this is the approach necessary to understand what, if any, influence humans are having. We need to try to simultaneously account for as many confounding variables as possible and make a prediction for non-human-induced temperature changes before measuring the magnitude of the CO2 signal. I think this paper is problematical only in that it is the first attempt at this kind of analysis…further studies including more natural modes of climate variability will improve the estimate of AGW-based signal.

  178. Leif said:

    “The solar cycle length is roughly inversely related to the amplitude of the cycle, so the integrated effect over a cycle is roughly constant.”

    I see that but I think there is a flaw.

    A single, short, active cycle might deliver about the same energy as a longer less active cycle but one can fit a bit more more than a single short active cycle into the time available for a longer less active cycle.

    So if considering multiple cycles one is no longer comparing apples with apples.

    To illustrate by exaggerating a bit:

    Suppose one could fit two short active cycles into a single, long, less active cycle. The total energy delivered by the two short, active cycles would be greater than the total energy delivered in the single long, inactive cycle would it not?

    Or have I missed something obvious?

  179. Now there’s a whopper!

    I think you’re wrong there, several super major oil companies use climate models as a method of predicting source rock distributions for oil and gas exploration. These “real” scientists enbrace the climate models.

    Models perhaps, but “climate” models? Back to school SteveE!

  180. @Stephen Wilde

    You’re at notable odds with both Piers Corbyn & EOP on lunisolar cycles.

  181. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 25, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    nicola scafetta says:
    July 25, 2011 at 4:39 pm
    would Leif be more like Wolf or would he be more like the other solar scientists

    Wolf was also a planetary cyclist in the beginning [originated the planetary hypothesis in fact], but in his later years came to his senses and realized that it didn’t held water…

    You and discussed this Leif, and it turned out that Wolf still held the view that the planets affected the Sun in the year of his death. Are you claiming he made a deathbed conversion to your faith?

  182. Bill Illis says:
    July 25, 2011 at 5:48 pm
    “Then one should also note why the northern and southern hemispheres have such different cycles. If CO2 or the Sun was the primary driver of the climate, there would not be such a difference in the trends/cycles in the two hemispheres.”

    Bill, is it possible that the relative land / ocean difference in the hemispheres is the cause of such different trends due to the seasonal flux of insolation in January and July? It would appear logical that the additional solar insolation in the SH in January would have a longer residence time within the oceans then the lesser solar insolation in the NH in July, which, after all, lands on a far greater percentage of land, therby affecting the atmosphere more rapidly.

  183. Dear Willis Eschenbach,

    I am sorry but you continue to say no-sense.

    1) you cannot disprove our research by simply using a model slightly different from our, for example using a 62-year cycle instead of a 60-year cycle, and claim we are wrong because you get similar results! Why don’t you use a 100-year cycle instead of a 62-year cycle?

    2) the existence of major quasi 60-year and quasi 20-year cycles are easily detected by power spectrum analysis, see figure 3, 10 & 11 in N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015

  184. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:11 am

    tallbloke says:
    July 25, 2011 at 11:58 pm
    Whereas we have managed to reproduce the Lean TSI proxy to an R^2 value of 0.99 using a fit of seven cycles

    The Lean TSI is not considered a good representation of actual TSI. And you have used two parameters more than it takes to make the elephnat wiggle its tail.

    Indeed Leif, I opened the article with the famous Freeman Dyson quoting Enrico Fermi quoting Johnny von Neumann about the elephant’s trunk (not tail) and the number of free variables required to get it to wiggle. However, if the cycles involved relate to real phenomena, then they are not so much “free variables”, although it’s true that the amplitudes were ‘fitted’.

    Have a read, it’s a fun article

    we have managed to reproduce the Lean TSI proxy to an R^2 value of 0.99 using a fit of seven cycles that are all near known paleo periods and planetary cyclic periods.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/

    200 comments and counting

  185. Doug in Seattle says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:58 am
    Now there’s a whopper!

    I think you’re wrong there, several super major oil companies use climate models as a method of predicting source rock distributions for oil and gas exploration. These “real” scientists enbrace the climate models.

    Models perhaps, but “climate” models? Back to school SteveE!

    ——

    Yes Doug in Seattle, climate models using the Hadley Centre Climate/Earth System.

    Back to school dougie!

  186. SABR Matt commented on Loehle and Scafetta calculate 0.66°C/century for AGW.
    Matt,
    This may be their first attempt, but many others have used non-linear curve fitting techniques to identify possible physical relationships. As Willis points out, it is not a simple task. Take a look at my attempts by clicking on my name.

  187. SABR Matt writes,
    “To those who say there are no physics in this paper…I would say “well duh. ” :) I mean it in a good way here…but it’s not a physics paper…it’s a statistical methods paper”

    But there aren’t really any statistical methods in this paper, either. Compare for example with the Vincze & Janosi paper cited above, which actually is statistical. What Loehle & Scafetta have done is algebraic: subtract two waves and a line from the hadcru data, then call the leftover trend global warming.

  188. Leif Svalgaard says:
    Wolf was also a planetary cyclist in the beginning [originated the planetary hypothesis in fact], but in his later years came to his senses and realized that it didn’t held water…

    Leif, where is the reference, please?

  189. Five reasons while Dr.s Loehle and Scafette are wrong
    During last year or so I collected data relating to the Pacific Ocean (mainly to the currents credited for heat transport in the area of the northern and equatorial regions) as shown here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/POE.htm

    As it can be seen there is some quasi periodic action there, but so called cycles are of different periodicity, phase shift etc. If the underlining cause was a planetary one, then the events would show more uniformity of the response.

  190. Stephen Wilde says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:47 am
    Suppose one could fit two short active cycles into a single, long, less active cycle. The total energy delivered by the two short, active cycles would be greater than the total energy delivered in the single long, inactive cycle would it not?
    Or have I missed something obvious?

    You missed that if energy excess E and cycle length L are inverses, then E*L = constant

    tallbloke says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:06 am
    it turned out that Wolf still held the view that the planets affected the Sun in the year of his death.
    I don’t know where you get that from. Wolf’s final judgement on the matter can be found in part IV of his 1893 Handbuch der Astronomie, where he declares that none of the attempts, by himself and others, to fit the sunspot number with models based on planetary influences has produced satisfactory results.

  191. Bob Tisdale-Your “model” (cummulative NINO 3.4 anomalies) only gets a long term trend because it has a non-zero, positive long term average. What is your basis for this essentially arbitrary factor? Was that region persistently anomalously warm compared to the period before 1850?

  192. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 26, 2011 at 3:44 am

    Yes … didn’t find any regular 60 or 20 year cycles there either.

    Perhaps you were using the wrong data or method?…The solar velocity data that Scafetta uses is calculated from JPL coordinates as well as available in a single JPL field. The red line on my graph is the same as shown in Scafetta’s papers. He has used spectral analysis on this data to produce the 60 year wave.

    If you require the data (1600-2040) I can send it to you in a spreadsheet. This is the crux of the paper in my opinion.

  193. @Bill Illis (July 25, 2011 at 5:48 pm)

    The Atlantic is the small basin surrounded by low-heat-capacity continents (and an Arctic Ocean that is “continental” for most of the year from an atmospheric perspective), so it has higher amplitude and thus higher leverage on stats, including hemispheric & global ones.

    For example, the interannual component of global temperatures relates more strongly to the interannual component of AMO than to either SOI or the interannual component of SOI.

    Please see Figure 5 here:

    Pavolonis, M.J.; & Key, J.R. (2003). Antarctic cloud radiative forcing at the surface estimated from the AVHRR Polar Pathfinder and ISCCP D1 datasets, 1985-93. Journal of Applied Meteorology 42, 827-840.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%282003%29042%3C0827%3AACRFAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    “On the monthly timescale, clouds were found to have a warming effect on the surface of the Antarctic continent for every month of the year, which means that the longwave effect of clouds is larger than the shortwave effect of clouds for every month. This result is in contrast to the globally averaged effect, in which clouds cool the surface on an annual basis […]”

    “Over the ocean poleward of 58.758S, clouds were found to have a warming effect on the surface from March through October in the ISCCP-derived dataset and from April through September in the APP-x dataset.”

    For this factor, the fulcrum is not located at the equator due to the distribution of continents.

    Please also see Figure 4b here:

    Svensmark, H. (2006). The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612145v1.pdf

    All that’s needed to produce nonstationary temporal cycles either side of the fulcrum is seasonal maritime-continent & pole-equator spatial contrast. And we’re only talking about TENTHS of a degree K.

    Regards.

  194. tallbloke says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:15 am
    we have managed to reproduce the Lean TSI proxy to an R^2 value of 0.99 using a fit of seven cycles that are all near known paleo periods and planetary cyclic periods.
    One more time: The Lean TSI is today not considered to be an accurate representation of TSI, so it doesn’t matter how many 9s you have in R^2.

  195. tallbloke says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:15 am
    we have managed to reproduce the Lean TSI proxy to an R^2 value of 0.99 using a fit of seven cycles that are all near known paleo periods and planetary cyclic periods.
    To stay on topic, one might ask if that fit matches Scafetta’s? Perhaps a plot of your fit overplotted with Scafetta’s curve would be appropriate.

  196. Leif Svalgaard wrote (July 26, 2011 at 5:11 am)
    “Spatial derivatives are irrelevant for the global temperature.”

    Spatial derivatives are relevant for FLOW and flow affects regional summaries. The terrestrial surface is not of uniform heat capacity, so spatial aggregation criteria alone can be responsible for observed amplitudes of multidecadal variation.

  197. Any coherent theory of AGW has to deal with the fact that CO2 emmissions were not impacted by the worldwide global recession. During the recession, manufacturing, electricity production, transportation, coal & oil consumption, etc etc declined *significantly*. All the major sources of human-produced CO2 production from fossil fuels declined due to the recession. So where is this in the trend?

    If a great worldwide recession does not move the needle on global CO2 production, neither will a carbon tax, cap and trade, or any other mechanism that taxes carbon produced by industry. widespread outages did not move the needle, so why would we think mere “carbon efficiency” would?

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

  198. Juice says:
    July 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    What phenomenon causes the surface temperature of Venus to reach 460 C? If it’s not the “greenhouse” effect, I’d like to hear a better explanation.

    Solar flux at Venus is 2613.9 W/m², which is 1.911 times that of hitting Earth.

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

    Surface pressure on Earth is 1 atm, which is 1.01325 bar. Table 1. of Atmospheric flight on Venus gives atmospheric temperature of Venus at different pressure levels.

    0.5314 bar (55 km) 302 K
    1.066 bar (50 km) 350 K

    Therefore at 1 atm it is about 345 K.

    Average surface temperature of Earth is 288 K. According to the Stefan–Boltzmann law radiation flux of a black body is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. Therefore terrestrial temperature with 1.911 times more heat to be radiated away would be 339 K.

    The difference is 6 K, which is the additional greenhouse effect on Venus.

    Carbon dioxide content of atmosphere on Venus is 96.5% while it is 0.04% on Earth. It takes more than 11 doubling to get from here to there.

    So, from the example of Venus we can see “greenhouse effect” of carbon dioxide is less than 0.6 K/doubling. Neat.

  199. Hi Craig, always interested to see your work. I have a slightly different take on how I interpret the findings. You are trying to decompose a time series into statistically plausible parts and by doing so providing bounds on the interpretation of the magnitude of those parts. I do not need to believe whether the additional linear trend after 1942 is AGW or something else, by fitting the model in the way you have you can attempt to place a bound on the possible increase per century if that trend were interpreted in that way.

    The periodic functions you fit are fairly clear – I have run my own tests using GISS (up to 2008) to look for the sine wave function with the best fit. To the nearest decade it is 60 years (I actually get a best fit of 66 years to GISS), so my simple test agrees with yours. I did not look for a further component by subtracting the 60 year cycle and fitting a periodic function to the residuals.

    Instead what I did was take your result from Loehle 2007 which gives a 2000 year reconstruction and perform the same analysis – what is the sine wave with the best fit to the 2,000 year data? The answer is about 1560 years (which is where Singers’ 1,500 year cycle comes from).

    If you plot the 1560 years sine wave which best correlates with Loehle 2007 you get an upswing in the GISS data period. Because of the long period of this 1560 year sine wave component, the part of the sine wave over the data length of GISS is indistinguishable from a straight line (OLS linear regression of the sine wave over the GISS time period gives R^2 = 0.9999). This is as valid an explanation of the apparent upward trend in the modern era without invoking any other mechanism to explain a linear trend. Now postulate just one other long period trend (200 years? 400 years?) and you can have a high degree of fit to the modern temperature record with a long term process represented by a periodic but stationary sine wave. Any sine wave with a period longer than the length of the time series (in the case of GISS, about 130 years) will give a fit almost indistinguishable from a straight line fit. Using just 4 sine waves in a periodic but stationary function will give a pretty good fit to the modern day temperature decomposition you showed without invoking any AGW at all.

  200. I do think there is no measureable anthropogenic warming or cooling, just natural, cyclic, warming and cooling. But I want to present both sides of the debate in my page.

  201. Still too much. Purely radiative physics gives 0.2 C. Anything above that requires some pretty serious empirical and statistical analysis. I do not believe we even have the appropriate kind of data to derive a value for AGW.

  202. Interesting post Fred H. Haynie. You have also observed the 20 year cycle. I am in agreement with your conclusions.

  203. RE:Doug in Seattle says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:58 am
    “…several super major oil companies use climate models as a method of predicting source rock distributions for oil and gas exploration. These “real” scientists enbrace the climate models.”

    Many oil companies use source rock prediction models, but they are not “climate” models, they are basin evolution models. One of the parameters is high stand or low stand conditions based on sea level transgression/regression curves which is related to long term climate, but I am not aware of any oil companies that use anything remotely resembling what I understand to be a climate model with forcings, and certainly not one driven by something like CO2, solar or anyhting else, simply because you cannot know the necessary parameters over the millions of years of geological time that you are interested in modelling.

    Can you be more specific and give the name of the software or cite a large (or small) oil company that is doing this?

  204. Doug in Seattle says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:58 am

    “Merlin is a flagship project of Fugro Robertson, based on the application of innovative and genuinely state of the art earth systems modelling to the prediction of source rock facies. The project takes a time slice approach, focussing on five key periods in earth history responsible for ~85% of known source rocks. The methodology is built on detailed, global, palaeogeographic mapping, state of the art palaeoclimate modelling (fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models; A/OGCMs) and palaeotide/wave models to accurately predict source rock environments in the fossil record.”

  205. Loehle says
    :
    2) This is not a polynomial fit to the data. We factor out the natural cycles based on solar activity first, then identify the human signal.

    there is no science here. boo.
    it’s a statistical tribadism of questionable data by the Mystics of Statistics.
    conclusions are based entirely on assumptions which are the AWG catechism – don’t you know how hard i laughed at the ‘dirk gently’ “it’s all there in the static” ? stop smoking those residuals, dood.
    the politicians.in.lab.coats have already shown us they can conjure monsters from residuals – so a couple of you feeding at the same trough can pull out a bunny rabbit.
    you have way too much time.
    i’m really sickt of ‘greenhouse gas’. who needs the halitosis?

  206. Let me go back to Craig Loehle’s statement a while ago “we assert that the linear warming from 1850 forwards is part of some long-term pattern which we do not choose to characterize“.

    You have got an apparent approximately cyclical pattern over 100 years, in which you are able to identify 1 1/2 cycles only. You have no mechanism for the pattern, and you guess at what cycle periodicities to map to it. Having curve-fitted to the pattern, you have not tested it against any adjacent period or in any other way. In all logic, you simply are not allowed to draw any conclusions from any projection of that pattern.

    It is perfectly legitimate to devise patterns like that, and sometimes they can lead to new ways of investigating the underlying phenomena, but you can’t draw any conclusions until you have a mechanism or some kind of independent validation.

    In your particular case, the data following the fitted period diverges immediately. By far the simplest explanation is that your fitted pattern doesn’t work. In the absence of any mechanism or independent validation of your pattern, you quite simply cannot go against that explanation.

    Your pattern was attempting to map global temperature against time, based on some abstract notion of uncharacterised solar cycles, and you only had what appeared to be 1 1/2 cycles to go on. I say “appeared to be” because you can’t be sure that you were indeed looking at 1 1/2 cycles. Look at the data again – the idea that it is 1 1/2 cycles is dependent on the shape of the data prior to 1850. If the temperature was rising prior to 1850 (and you have no clue as to whether it was or not) then you don’t have 1 1/2 cycles. In fact you probably don’t have cycles at all.

    Just look at the difficulty that solar physicists have in predicting solar cycles. We’re on cycle 24 now – not cycle 2 1/2 – and the solar physicists were all over the shop trying to predict it, in terms of when it would start, how high it would get, and how long it would last. As the supposed due date for cycle 24 approached and passed, the predictions were revised over and over again and even now no-one has a clue as to whether any predictions are likely to even come close. In other words, even if you’ve got a whole series of cycles to go on, without a mechanism you can’t make ANY meaningful predictions.

    I apologise for using rather strong language at first, but I was absolutely gobsmacked at your paper and stunned that it could have got through any kind of peer-review. IMHO you had no scientific (or mathematical) basis whatsoever for any of your conclusions.

  207. If short term cyclic climate events are important in determining the magnitude of AGW since temps have been record[]ed then surely the MWP and the LIA point to a much longer cyclic event (=1500 years) that impacts on climate.

    If this planet is recovering from a long period of cooling then describing the underlying residual trends as being linear, not sinusoidal, could well be overestimating the magnitude of AGW.

    Would a 1500 year cycle combined with a 60 year and 20 years cycles describe the ups and downs of the temperature record?

    If it does, do we need AGW to explain the increasing rise of the past 60 years?

    Or;
    …… are our ordered minds seeing something that is not there. Could the very nature of random behaviour be tricking us into thinking that there is AGW or even cycles in 160 years of climate date (which is no more than 5 climate data points (climate data point = 30 year period))?

    To me, the robustness of AGW being observed in the temperature record remains elusive.

  208. The 20 and quasi-60 year cycle is quite easily reproduced when looking at a solar system viewer.

    http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html

    In this case solar velocity is the base data. The further the Sun is moved away from the SSB the faster it goes. When viewing the solar velocity graph the 20 year cycle is very obvious, the outer loop (fast) when J/S together and the inner loop (slow) when J/S opposed. This is basic knowledge and beyond question.

    The 60 year cycle is a velocity peak every third J/S conjunction which looks to occur in a lot of cases looking over 400 years. If this is repeated over longer terms is yet to be established. Most times on every third conjunction of J/S there is a close conjunction with either Uranus or Neptune. If not U/N are in conjunction themselves and are providing extra acceleration at the time. It is all about how far the Sun is pushed from the SSB but once again U&N are the modulating forces.

    The deceleration forces are just as important which no doubt is picked up in Scafetta’s spectral analysis. I think we need to keep in mind this paper has passed peer review.

  209. SteveE – you asser that oil and gas exploration companies have used the Hadley Centre Climate/Earth System for predicting source rock distributions. Please can you provide some evidence of this. I can’t find any connection.

  210. Paul Vaughan says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:06 am
    so spatial aggregation criteria alone can be responsible for observed amplitudes of multidecadal variation.
    can‘ is a weasel word. For your comment to be relevant show that they actually are responsible. As the topic is about global values [ultimately governed by the energy input] the flow within the system is irrelevant.

  211. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:40 am
    “Wolf was also a planetary cyclist in the beginning [originated the planetary hypothesis in fact], but in his later years came to his senses and realized that it didn’t held water…”
    Leif, where is the reference, please?

    Wolf’s final judgement on the matter can be found in part IV of his 1893 Handbuch der Astronomie, where he declares that none of the attempts, by himself and others, to fit the sunspot number with models based on planetary influences has produced satisfactory results. I’m on the road so cannot provide you with the exact page number as my copy of the Handbuch is at home.

  212. Sorry late back to the party, in contrast to some of you I had to sleep.
    racookpe1978, Geoff, Peter Miller– thanks for your comments
    re: error bars. we report the confidence intervals on our model in Table 1. There is also unknown error in the underlying data with vast differences of opinion about what it is. As far as quantifying the UHI and adjustments component, the reviewer made us take it out as only an estimate. We were estimating between 0.1 and 0.2 deg C of the warming since 1970. This would obviously affect the 0.66 figure, which we labeled an upper bound.
    Several comments addressed the complexity of cycles (longer ones, etc) such as Richard Courtney and Mike Jonas. Yes of course. Much more study needed here. The GCM people have billion dollar budgets and huge teams. Nicola and I do not. I don’t even get full time on this. We hope we have stirred up thoughts and improved on some past analyses.
    Willis: apology accepted. We tried to develop a technique of signal detection for the anthropogenic effects that is not circular and does not involve GCMs. There are other attribution studies using different methods. Ours is just one. If you don’t think our methods are good, that is ok. I don’t feel like I need to issue a retraction or anything. I stand by what we have done.

  213. Fred H. Haynie says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:26 am

    SABR Matt commented on Loehle and Scafetta calculate 0.66°C/century for AGW.
    Matt,
    This may be their first attempt, but many others have used non-linear curve fitting techniques to identify possible physical relationships. As Willis points out, it is not a simple task.

    In your pdf/ppt presentation, you predict a short-term temperature peak near 2080, and a Modern Warm Period temperature peak coming out of the LIA much later around 2180.

    Why so long? Could you not “falsify” the premise of this presentation (over the near term predictions) by trying the author’s “rising baseline with a 22 year + 60 year cycles plus a AGW ramp beginning in 1942″ into your plots of SST?

    That is, you’ve found several likely combinations of multiple cyclical trends in the Scripps data. But, over short periods of time, different combinations of different waves can also work – given the level of accuracy of the raw data we actually have available. So, will the author’s proposed cycles from the land record fit your SST data over the available 160 time period; and if it does fit, what is “their” near-term prediction for the next 60 years?

    To add even more cooks in the kitchen, which may or may not improve the soup, does Willis’ combined 60 + 22 year cycle fit the SST data shown in your ppt?

  214. Most models depend on something rising in a predictable fashion in the midst of factors that could stall the effects of that rise. That way, future scenarios can be displayed by changing the rate of the metric that is always rising, and stalling can be safely ignored.

    The fly in the ointment, as Bob so well displayed in 2009, is ENSO factors, which are not predictable as a rising metric. They go up, they go down, and they sometimes stay in La Nada territory. They may have cycles and oscillations, but those events are very difficult to predict unless you are in one already. Therefor, if we get to the point of understanding that ENSO factors along with atmospheric oscillations are the major metrics and drive all climate change/weather pattern variations, future scenarios are very difficult to determine. If the future is difficult to determine, the puffery of catastrophic AGW will take its last breath.

  215. Now someone is “gobsmacked” by our work, and not in a good way…and yet others find it interesting. Whatever the merits of our work, we got closer to the data with a lot less handwaving than any GCM, none of which predicted the post 1998 flat temps (but our model did).

  216. Paul Vaughan says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:06 am

    Leif Svalgaard wrote (July 26, 2011 at 5:11 am)
    “Spatial derivatives are irrelevant for the global temperature.”

    Spatial derivatives are relevant for FLOW and flow affects regional summaries. The terrestrial surface is not of uniform heat capacity, so spatial aggregation criteria alone can be responsible for observed amplitudes of multidecadal variation.

    And in response,

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 8:57 am (Edit)

    Paul Vaughan says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:06 am
    so spatial aggregation criteria alone can be responsible for observed amplitudes of multidecadal variation.
    ‘can‘ is a weasel word. For your comment to be relevant show that they actually are responsible. As the topic is about global values [ultimately governed by the energy input] the flow within the system is irrelevant.

    But doesn’t “flow within the system” (significant variations across the “black body” sphere that is radiating into a constant-temperature space) have to taken into account – and not “averaged” into a generic single temperature mush?

    Radiation exchanges energy as a function of absolute temperature difference to the 4th power. Thus, even if you “assume” a day+ night cycle don’t exist, when your radiating body has temperatures that vary regionally from +3 degrees (the Arctic) to +30 near the equator, the regional differences cause large differences in energy loss.

    (273+3)^4 compared to (273+30)^4 …..

  217. Leif Svalgaard:
    “The paper is cyclomania at its worst”

    Well, Leif, for a guy who was suppose to be taking the discreet route when it comes to critizising other climate scientists, you seem to have suddenly lost all of the standards that you previously claimed to have had.

    When I asked you to condemn the work of Michael Mann in using upside down Tiljander data, you refused, claiming that bad science takes care of itself. You said that you couldn’t comment on Mann unless you understood his paper completely. This, despite the numerous ongoing discussions and evidence that was brought to light in the reviews of Mann’s papers.

    […]. A […] because you are oh so willing to jump on climate scientists that go against the orthodoxy, and yet you are unwilling to say squat about the clear abuse of scientists that are following the well paid AGW mainsteam.

    Furthermore, why shouldn’t the movement of climate be, for the most part, some combination of cycles? And what is the problem with identifying the effect of those cycles in order to extract any non-cyclic component?
    [ … ] If you have some legitimate reason to believe that there is an error in the Loehle and Scafetta paper, at least you could clearly point it out instead of just taking a cheap shot.

    [Trimmed, language, personal comments. Robt]

  218. Steve E

    Re: your comments below.

    1. I don’t know if oil companies use climate models for ‘predicting source rock distributions for oil and gas exploration. It sounds like a goofy concept to me, other than to note when you are exploring for “Cretaceous Basins”, the mother lode host of oil and gas deposits, you don’t want to choose one which was originally near the North or South Poles for obvious reasons.

    2. As for geologists, I am a mineral exploration geologist and I know about 30 other geologists with whom I have discussed the subject of so called man made Global Warming. Without exception, they all think the science behind AGW is so suspect, manipulated and bogus that it is unworthy of serious consideration. If I went to the stock market with a prospectus prepared with the scientic integrity of the average ‘climate scientist’s technical paper, it would be dismissed out of hand.

    I just hate bad science and far too much ‘climate science’ is emotion-generating bad science.

    “I think you’re wrong there, several super major oil companies use climate models as a method of predicting source rock distributions for oil and gas exploration. These “real” scientists enbrace the climate models.

    And with regards to you comment: “Almost none of these people believe in the looming AGW disaster” I think you’re wrong there again. If you’d like to show me an unbias survey that illustrates this that would be great, but I very much doubt that you can.”

  219. racookpe1978 says:
    July 26, 2011 at 9:48 am
    But doesn’t “flow within the system” (significant variations across the “black body” sphere that is radiating into a constant-temperature space) have to taken into account – and not “averaged” into a generic single temperature mush?
    The correlations are with the ‘mush’, so any spatial influence should be handled in the averaging phase. Once you have a single mush-value, it is hard to work spatial stuff into that. Furthermore [and that is perhaps the more important point]: the climate [or in this case annual ‘weather’ anomalies] becomes a global average because of the global circulations that over a year pretty much average out any spatial dependence. In any case, unless the spatial interference is clearly quantified, modeled, and explained, that issue is just hand waving.

  220. It’s little more than a joke to think one can predict 50 years of global temperatures based on 100 years of past performance. Ridiculous in fact. Going backward from that 100 year “baseline” period fails to predict both LIA and MWP neither of which had any credible anthropogenic cause and both of which are more extreme than anything that has happened since 1850.

    Get real.

  221. When an article like this is dismissed out of hand (with no actual criticism) as several commenters have done, I conclude that either they have a bias against the particular method (e.g., cycles can’t exist, regression is bad) or don’t like the answer we got. In any case, getting shot at from both sides would suggest we could not have been too biased or we would have made at least 50% of readers happy!!

  222. Willis was obliged to write: “However, that’s no excuse for being impolite. It’s just I’ve gotten this kind of gentle evasion from other authors and I don’t react well to it. I know Craig Loehle, and he’s a great guy, and I image Nicola is as well. You are right, I should adjust my compass deviation to correct for that. I’m just not sure why my questions aren’t getting answered. ”

    It is exactly the timid and emasculated politeness which is crowd enforced on skeptical blogs that sadly prevents many members from seeing the bleeding obvious when it presents itself to them. Here I graphically tear this silly tunnel-visioned study to shreds in a single glance, no maths required:

    “My own common sense, if I reflect, leads me to wholly different results than the conclusion of narrow-minded worldly wisdom and prudent, half-hearted righteousness. Oh, that dawdling, oh, those hesitations, oh, that not believing that good is good, that black is black, that white is white.” – Vincent van Gogh (letter to Theo van Gogh, 1883)

  223. “since the log of an exponential rise in carbon dioxide should give an approximatelinear trend (as in fact the climate models do). ”

    the problem I have here is that there is no influence of increasing GHG’s on global temperatures, or at least none that i could find…

    I just came back from Easter Island.
    I found
    maxima rising at 0.035 degrees C per annum since 1975
    means rising at 0.014 degress C per annum since 1975
    minima decreasing at -0.007 degrees C per annum since 1975

    this brings my estimate of the total global average rate of increase
    maxima:means:minima
    9:3:1

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    So it was the sun or less clouds forcing up the average global temperature.

    Even assuming that the 1 part of the increase in minima was not caused by the sun/less clouds but by man, then this influnce could not possibly be more than
    1/13 x 0.012 = ca. 0.001 degrees C/ annum = 0.1 degrees C/ century.
    (Note that this is the maximum probable human influence that I calculate, it probably is a lot less)

    I am sorry you guys (Loehle and Scafetta)
    It is just the way it is.

    Better stick to this model here:

    I think this model could be right. Only natural warming coming our way, but not in the next few decades. We have some cooling coming up and we must just hope that it does not go the same way as the fifties (too much ice and snow causing some additional cooling?)

  224. My two cents: Willis and Bart are right. Spectrum analysis of noise will see “oscillations” that aren’t from oscillators.

  225. Tilo Reber says:
    July 26, 2011 at 9:48 am
    If you have some legitimate reason to believe that there is an error in the Loehle and Scafetta paper, at least you could clearly point it out instead of just taking a cheap shot.
    There are generally no errors in curve fitting, so there is nothing to point at as far as that is concerned. The problem comes with the claim that the fitted curves represent any real physics and cause-effect relationships. Furthermore, the ‘solar cycles’ come from astrological [astronomical?] considerations, e.g. the 61-year cycle is supposed to be 1/(1/9.93 – 1/11.86), where 9.93 is half the time between conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter (half, because tides are raised also on the other side of the sun], and 11.86 is Jupiter’s orbital period, as was suggested long ago by Brown [MNRAS, vol 60, pages 599-606, 1900]. These tidal influences are highly controversial and have not been generally accepted. The slavish repetition of the same 60-yr segment over and over again is what constitutes cyclomania. Now, that is just my humble opinion and you may disagree, but that you disagree does not make my opinion a ‘cheap shot’.

  226. Tilo Reber says:
    July 26, 2011 at 9:48 am
    When I asked you to condemn the work of Michael Mann in using upside down Tiljander data, you refused, claiming that bad science takes care of itself. You said that you couldn’t comment on Mann unless you understood his paper completely. This, despite the numerous ongoing discussions and evidence that was brought to light in the reviews of Mann’s papers.

    I don’t condemn or comment on papers based on second [or third-, fourth-, etc] hand opinions. There are enough people [including yourself, it seems] that do that so you should have plenty to choose from for your contemplation.

  227. Richard S Courtney:
    “This can work for some time (as several stock market predictions have shown) but is prone to be misleading in the medium or long term (as all stock market predictions have shown).”

    I’m a little bothered by people drawing parallels between stock market cycles and physical cycles. Stock market cycles are mostly the result of human behavioural patterns. They are transient because they are recognized and identified by other human beings. Those that recognize the cycles then begin to invest based upon them. In other words, the cycles are based on behaviour, but the behaviour is changes by the recognition of the cycles. If the cycles were constant, then everyone could exploit them and everyone could make money on them. But as we know, there have to be winners and losers in the stock market. For example, let’s say that there is a strong tendency for stocks of fall on Monday. People recognize that cycle and, in order to avoid it, they get out on Friday. If enough people do this, then Friday gets to be a dump day and people will start dumping on Thursday in order to avoid Friday. The only cycles that tend to remain in the stock market are ones where the effect is so small that it is hard to exploit.

    So, I’m afraid that I can’t accept any conclusions drawn from evidence about what happens in the stock market. It is a completely different animal than the physical world. And I continue to believe that the majority of climactic changes that we observe are due to some combination on cycles.

  228. And exactly what exercise in pseudo-science determined that anthropogenic activities “balanced out” in regard to surface temperature change prior to 1950? Isn’t that just precious. China balanced the anthropogenic book in the past 10 years. Do we have a specific country that should get the credit for balancing the books from 1750 to 1950?

    One of the few things this “study” got right is the logarithmic curve in temperature response vs. CO concentration. CO2 began rising above long term level of 280ppm in the 18th century. Due to the logarithmic decline in surface temperature sensitivity to increasing CO2 there should be a linear trend in temperature increase beginning around 1750 when the industrial revolution began. Anthropogenic CO2 emission has increased since then at the same rate that sensitivity to it has declined. There nothing special that happened in 1950 to unbalance the books nor is there anything special that happened in 2000 to balance them again. These balanced and unbalanced anthropogenic emission periods are nothing but fabrications made to match hypothetical predictions with actual observations.

    Lack of robust peer review in this just-so mockery of science is appalling. I think I’ll start calling these sub-prime papers. Just like sub-prime loans they never should have been inked.
    .

  229. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:50 am

    “You missed that if energy excess E and cycle length L are inverses, then E*L = constant”

    But, the climate will respond differently to the two. For example, a body in convective media whose thermal response is dominated by a single time constant retains heat according to the differential equation

    dH/dt= -H/tau + R

    where H is the heat, R is the input, and tau is the time constant. The frequency response rolls off at -20 dB/decade after the corner frequency f = 1/(2*pi*tau). Thus, holding input energy constant, as you increase the cycle rate beyond this frequency, the amplitude of the heat retained decreases asymptotically to zero.

    The Earth’s heat dynamics also have the linearized form of a low pass filter, and so will respond differently depending on the variation rate of the input.

    Mike Jonas says:
    July 26, 2011 at 8:30 am

    “… you can’t draw any conclusions until you have a mechanism or some kind of independent validation.”

    That’s kind of like saying, “if you see lights bearing down on you on a darkened road, you can’t jump out of the way until you have ascertained the make, model, and color of the vehicle.”

    I agree with those who say the conclusion that AGW is occurring in the latter half of the 20th century, albeit at a lower rate than usually claimed, is not supported. However, the paper does lend credence to the conclusion that, If it is occurring, it is a lower rate than usually claimed. That it is occurring to any significance at all is still up in the air.

    This analysis could be made significantly more robust, though, following the procedure I have given in previous posts.

  230. NikFromNYC says:
    July 26, 2011 at 10:13 am

    “Here I graphically tear this silly tunnel-visioned study to shreds in a single glance, no maths required:”

    You appear to have been too eager to dismiss the results, and did not read carefully enough. I would advise you to remove your graphic until you have taken more time to study the paper.

    Tilo Reber says:
    July 26, 2011 at 10:25 am

    “The only cycles that tend to remain in the stock market are ones where the effect is so small that it is hard to exploit.”

    Yes, there is actual feedback between observation and input there, which destroys the natural dynamics. If you got on the quantitative analysis track early on, before everyone had jumped aboard, you could make a pile of money. Not so much anymore.

  231. Bart says:
    July 26, 2011 at 10:37 am
    tau is the time constant. The frequency response rolls off at -20 dB/decade after the corner frequency f = 1/(2*pi*tau). Thus, holding input energy constant, as you increase the cycle rate beyond this frequency, the amplitude of the heat retained decreases asymptotically to zero.
    Loehle and Scafetta claim there is no lag between their solar cycles and global temperature, what time constant would you propose for that situation?

  232. @HenryP

    I went to great length trying to explain to you that when you observe increasing or decreasing delta in daytime high temperature and nighttime low temperature it is almost certainly due to concommitant trend in absolute humidity. The temperature delta is less with more water vapor and greater with less water vapor.

    Easter Island is located in a southern Pacific atmospheric gyre between the more northerly trades and the southern westerlies. Lying between northern hemiisphere coriolis winds and southern hemisphere is the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). The ITCZ slowly migrates north and south by at least several degrees latitude in a not well understood manner. This migration drags wetter/dryer air masses around with it. In recent decades the ITCZ has been migrating north moving it farther away from Easter Island and as that distance increases absolute humidity over Easter Island will necessarily decrease which necessarily means in increasing temperature delta between daytime high and nighttime low.

  233. Ok Leif Svalgaard.

    Thank you for your comments about planetary influence on the Sun. Please send me the exact reference about Wolf when you will be home.

    Of course you are not proving the planetary-sun relation to be false. You simply state that you are not capable to imagine the mechanism, as other solart scientists have done.

    Who knows what will happen in the future. :)

  234. Berényi Péter says:

    Yes. Thank you for acknowledging that the greenhouse effect exists.

    richard verney says:

    As I understand matters, the pressure temperature relationship holds sway on other planets such as Jupiter.

    The reason that it’s hot at the center of Jupiter is because gravitational collapse causes a huge amount of friction, but we’re talking about 1,000,000 atm, not just 92 atm.

    Ric Werme says:
    July 25, 2011 at 5:36 pm
    Juice says (in an off-topic question):
    July 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    What phenomenon causes the surface temperature of Venus to reach 460 C? If it’s not the “greenhouse” effect, I’d like to hear a better explanation.

    Dry adiabatic compression (and atmospheric temperature lapse rate). The topic was beaten to death, multiple times, with multiple collateral damage, at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/

    It was a question for an off topic post.

    From the link:

    If there were no Sun (or other external energy source) atmospheric temperature would approach absolute zero.

    Yes. So the sun shines on gas and warms it. The same amount of sunlight shines on more gas in the same amount of space (higher pressure) and the temperature is higher. Why is that? It’s called the greenhouse effect.

  235. Peter Miller says:
    July 26, 2011 at 9:56 am

    ThinkingScientist says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:47 am

    Mike Jonas says:
    July 26, 2011 at 8:50 am

    Google: Fugro Robertson Merlin

  236. Oh, and dry adiabatic lapse rates are for columns of air moving upward or downward and it seems like the discussion of the concept was addressing stationary air.

  237. Leif Svalgaard: “I don’t condemn or comment on papers based on second [or third-, fourth-, etc] hand opinions. ”

    I don’t buy that excuse. You have the time to look at Loehle’s paper and you have the time to blog, but you don’t have the time to look at a paper that has received a lot more controversy. The fact is that you won’t respond to Mann’s work because it agrees with the AGW orthodoxy. Nothing else.

  238. NikFromNYC says:
    July 26, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Willis was obliged to write: “However, that’s no excuse for being impolite. It’s just I’ve gotten this kind of gentle evasion from other authors and I don’t react well to it. I know Craig Loehle, and he’s a great guy, and I image Nicola is as well. You are right, I should adjust my compass deviation to correct for that. I’m just not sure why my questions aren’t getting answered. ”

    It is exactly the timid and emasculated politeness which is crowd enforced on skeptical blogs that sadly prevents many members from seeing the bleeding obvious when it presents itself to them. Here I graphically tear this silly tunnel-visioned study to shreds in a single glance, no maths required:

    http://i.minus.com/iej21U.jpg

    A crying shame that it takes a graph to display the folly in taking 100 years of temperature variation and using that as a basis for predicting the next 100 years. Nice graph though. It does indeed shred the paper quite nicely.

  239. Henry@daveSpringer
    OK, I did find humidity (RH) decreasing in Easter island at a phenomenal rate of -0.216% per annum since whilst precipiation increased at almost 2 mm/month/annum (since 1975).
    I am sure there are reasons for this “climate” change and I am sure you are right
    but do you agree with me, as noted by the increase in maxima versus minima, that these changes have nothing to do with an increase in GHG’s on earth?

    Therefore I say again that I can estimate from my tables

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    that human influnence due to the increase in GHG’s must be less 0.1 degreeC or K per century, most probably a lot less..

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-706231

    not so?

  240. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:01 am
    Of course you are not proving the planetary-sun relation to be false. You simply state that you are not capable to imagine the mechanism, as other solart scientists have done.
    I can imagine lots of mechanisms [tides, spin-orbit coupling, barycentric potential, perturbing the tachocline, Jupiter-controlled meteor streams plunging into the sun, Birkeland volcanoes, etc, they, however, fall short of a satisfactory explanation.

    Tilo Reber says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:10 am
    but you don’t have the time to look at a paper that has received a lot more controversy. The fact is that you won’t respond to Mann’s work because it agrees with the AGW orthodoxy. Nothing else.
    You don’t know what I have inclinations to do. I don’t look at Mann’s because many people already have gone over it with a fine comb, because the data is not readily available, because I’m not competent to judge some of the issues [are you?], e..g concerning bristle cone pines, and because it holds little interest for me as the hockey stick is clearly nonsense to begin with. So, I can’t [won’t] give you any professional and considered opinion on the paper.

  241. Dave Springer says:
    July 26, 2011 at 10:29 am (Edit)

    And exactly what exercise in pseudo-science determined that anthropogenic activities “balanced out” in regard to surface temperature change prior to 1950? Isn’t that just precious. China balanced the anthropogenic book in the past 10 years. Do we have a specific country that should get the credit for balancing the books from 1750 to 1950?

    No. The authors are postulating that there was no (measurable) AGW signal prior to their 1942 date, so there would be nothing to “balance out” in the books. They are not claiming that their analysis is valid back through the LIA and MWP. They have said above (in their replies, but not in the paper itself) that that particular AGW signal is bounded by a maximum of .66 C per century, and that the AGW signal may come from (1) a recent CO2 increase – which you are apparently assuming is the sole source), (2) measurement error/bias (UHI and bad thermometer sites) and (3) other causes.

    One of the few things this “study” got right is the logarithmic curve in temperature response vs. CO concentration. CO2 began rising above long term level of 280ppm in the 18th century. Due to the logarithmic decline in surface temperature sensitivity to increasing CO2 there should be a linear trend in temperature increase beginning around 1750 when the industrial revolution began. Anthropogenic CO2 emission has increased since then at the same rate that sensitivity to it has declined.

    No. The difference in the mass of wood burned each year between 1750 and 1940, and that growing back in new forest, new crops, and new jungles each year between 1750 and 1950 is zero compared to 1 days absorption in the (untouched) jungles and oceans of the earth. The very few tons of coal mined between 1750 and 1880 (start of steel production) is negligible in global terms, and there was no petroleum burned. (Do you wish to compare the tons of whale oil burned to the changing number of whales living and not eating plankton and krill each year? It would be an interesting pursuit, but irrelevant to CO2 in the air.

    Since 1880, the amount of measured coal and oil burned is available. Until the mid-50’s (and not even then until the mid-70’s) was an increase significant. Even now, at the world’s current rate hundreds times higher than that between 1880 and 1940, natural processes absorb about half of what is burned.

    Unless you are willing to somehow assume that pre-1750 CO2 levels were near 75 to 100 ppm, you cannot claim CO2 levels have been rising due to human influence until the mid-1950’s, not the mid 1750’s. .

  242. RACookPE1978 says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:38 am
    They are not claiming that their analysis is valid back through the LIA and MWP.
    I think they claim that the analysis as far as the solar cycles are concerned is valid, but would like to see them deny/confirm that here.

  243. Could somebody with access to ISI impact factor look up the IF for “Open Atmospheric Science Journal”?

    Judging by the number of citations I see here the IF is very near 1. That ain’t good. For those who don’t know what impact factor is it’s the average number of citations that articles receive in any given journal. Ostensibly the higher the number the more important it is as a source for other researchers who publish. An IF near one pretty much means nobody pays any attention to it.

  244. Comment repeated because google-scholar search link was too long and was clipped from previous comment: I put the link in a tiny-url.

    Could somebody with access to ISI impact factor look up the IF for “Open Atmospheric Science Journal”?

    Judging by the number of citations I see here the IF is very near 1.

    http://tinyurl.com/43kj4e5

    That ain’t good. For those who don’t know what impact factor is it’s the average number of citations that articles receive in any given journal. Ostensibly the higher the number the more important it is as a source for other researchers who publish. An IF near one pretty much means nobody pays any attention to it.

  245. The technical analysts here, including the authors of this paper, are *exactly* the type of myopic prodigies who gleefully allowed a speck of chipped paint in a tiny optical mount to mar the Hubble Telescope mirror, who confidently failed to actually test if Shuttle fuel tank o-rings might get brittle when frozen, and who sportingly neglected to stand back far enough from their computer screens to wonder if Canadians might have sent over metric instead of English measurements for their billion dollar Mars rover. There’s a bureaucratic hand-wringing vibe enforced here too, a politically correct uber polite corporatist culture that is exactly the type of oppressive environment that forces the best creative talent out to have to go work for themselves.

    “There’s only 160 years of crooked data and that’s not long enough to mean anything!” said a little child. “Listen to the voice of innocence!” exclaimed his father; and what the child had said was whispered from one to another. “But he has nothing at all on!” at last cried out all the people. The Emperor was suddenly embarrassed, for he knew that the people were right; but he thought the procession must go on now! And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever, to appear holding up the robes although, in reality, there were no robes at all.

    Throwing math at this situation reminds me of those crazy old guys on the skirts of Las Vegas where tumbleweeds pass, working out their latest angle, pencil in hand, dice in pocket. Here I witness analysis paralysis, design by committee, and congratulations all around. It was my father who instilled practical intelligence in me, early on. He was an optical engineer who repaired aircraft instruments in Alaska in WWII, a mountain man who could turn a canoe into a sailboat with a folding machete, bed sheets and a few sticks, who taught me diffraction, color theory and relativity on paper when other kids were learning multiplication tables, who designed a potentiometer that went to the Moon by pointing the world’s fastest camera at the world’s fastest oscilloscope, who designed those traffic lights which only appear bright when you are in the appropriate lane, who didn’t have to help me at all when I built my own Heathkit dual-channel scope in grade school, nor had to help me program my Apple II in machine language, who quit Honeywell to work for 3M when the Space Program turned into the nuclear missile program, who studied mining geology in college after growing up in a mining town in Utah, it was he who taught me, early on: make sure your contraption works! I went on to do hands on benchtop work in genetics, organometallic chemistry, organic synthesis (Ph.D. Columbia), and finally nanofabrication (postdoc Harvard) and now product design.

    This study is as nerdy of a fantasy as some genius Don Juan trying to figure out how to meet women using equations, based on very limited experience with highly variable female psychology. It does not function at a level relevant to the problem at hand.

  246. RACookPE1978 says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:38 am

    If you meant to say that anthropogenic CO2 emission was neutral prior to 1850 when coal and natural gas began being exploited in earnest (we won’t mention burning peat which is technically a fossil fuel) that’s bunkum. You fail to realize that conversion of forested land to agricultural increased commensurate with human population growth. What do you imagine they did with most of those trees? Made lumber out of it? It was burned where it lay including as much of the stump below ground as possible so you didn’t have to come along later and pull out the stumps one by one with a team of oxen.

  247. @RACooke

    From the horse’s mouth:

    “The warming observed before 1942 is relatively small and is assumed to have been mostly naturally induced because anthropogenic (warming + cooling) forcing would approximately compensate each other before 1950.”

    What part of that statement from the authors didn’t you understand? They absolutely are claiming that the anthropogenic books were balanced before 1950 and that is exactly what some desperate AGW boffins have claimed China’s dirty coal burning did in the past 10 years. In both cases these are ad hoc fabrications to make their pet psuedo-scientific hypotheses fit the data.

  248. Leif Svalgaard says:
    RACookPE1978 says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:38 am
    They are not claiming that their analysis is valid back through the LIA and MWP.
    I think they claim that the analysis as far as the solar cycles are concerned is valid, but would like to see them deny/confirm that here.

    Leif, we are very clear that the model forecast cannot be extended to the LIA and MWP or the roman period or the Jurassic period, nor the model can be extended to the Capitan Kirk of Enterprise period and beyond for the simple reasons that the multisecular and millennial cycles have not being factorized in the model. This is clearly written in the paper, look at the last sentence of the abstract and the starting of section 6 and other locations.

    The reason because those longer cycles have not been included in the present model is because their amplitude is not certain given to the fact that the temperature records start in 1850. Before that we have a lot of proxy models that look quite different from each other, so the amplitude of the multisecular cycles cannot be determined but with quite large errors. With only 160 year of data the largest cycle that could be detected [is] a 80-year cycle, we find a ~60-year cycle we use it.

    About our forecast for the 21st century, we clearly state that our estimate with a linear increase should be interpreted as an upper limit because the 1000-year cycle is going to decrease any time soon too.

  249. Andrew says: “Bob Tisdale-Your “model” (cummulative NINO 3.4 anomalies) only gets a long term trend because it has a non-zero, positive long term average.”

    Of course. The running total curve is very dependent on the base years used for anomalies.

    You continued, “What is your basis for this essentially arbitrary factor? Was that region persistently anomalously warm compared to the period before 1850?”

    Don’t get all excited about the “model”, Andrew. It’s an oddity. I discovered it using Trenberth & Stepaniak’s NINO3.4 SST anomaly data, which is based on HADSST2 data. They had determined the base years for anomalies. The question is, why does it work? Keep in mind that variations in NINO3.4 SST anomalies lead global temperature variations.

  250. Couldn’t you people fill in the boobs at the top on the harps that angels don’t play. There are enough of you to throw shoes at whatever white house representative they would send to meet you, probably Joe Biden. He IS panicky and does not get out much. The shoes on camera would make the point and let the knuckle draggers know the world is on to them.
    Although I feel tha data accumulated to indicate ‘global warming is too contaminated by new parking lot constructions, AC heat exhausts and such, unless all these postings are computer generated fluff, you guys are providing great insight to climate science. But to the uninitiated, it sure looks like a cat toy. Peace, brethren of the science.

  251. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 10:51 am

    “Loehle and Scafetta claim there is no lag between their solar cycles and global temperature, what time constant would you propose for that situation?”

    I was responding to a blanket statement likely taken out of context, then. I could imagine several time constants, with values on the order of at most months likely being dominant (e.g., the time between the summer solstice and the “dog days” of August), so probably my post was inapplicable. My apologies.

  252. Leif: We think there are longer term cycles which are not in our model and thus we can not extrapolate more than 100 yrs or so. We do go back to 1850 the end of the LIA and do match that data.
    Dave Springer and Nikfromnyc have some strong opinions and are exercising their vocabulary but not sure what they are saying. “nerdy fantasy” “ad hoc fabrications”– very colorful

  253. Speakking of slash & burn practice of clearing forests for different land use I have a personal record of how they did it including charcoal from the burning. I live on the shore of a 20,000 acre artificial lake. I bought the unimproved land about 11 years ago. Prior to the lake filling up when the dam was completed 60 years ago what’s now the lake bottom was mostly Mountain Juniper and Oak trees with a some a bit of cleared area nearer the original river and stream channels used for small farms. In the few droughts that came along in the past 11 years and lake level declined and acres of lake bottom that I own was exposed hundreds of tree stumps unformally cut at waist level start appearing. They are still charred. That’s because, like an other major forest clearing operation, you cut down the trees at waist level which is the most conveninent spot for a human-held saw and then you burn it all where it falls. Fortunately for me I didn’t need a team of oxen to pull up all those stumps. I use a 4WD 60hp diesel John Deere ag tractor and a tow chain to pull them out one by one and put ‘em into a big pile. Had a number of really nice bon fires on the lake shore with all those 60 year old stumps. The Mountain Juniper stumps come up pretty easy because the roots have rotted beyone about 2′ feet from the trunk but the Oak stumps might as well be steel pilings as all four of my tractor wheels just spin trying to pull them out. Fortunately the Junipers outnumber the Oaks about 20:1. I cut the Oak stumps off at ground level with a chain saw. But I digress.

    The point is that it’s common practice to cut and burn trees where they fall when clearing land for other uses and that practice hasn’t really changed throughout history. I did the exact same thing in 1999 and 2000 when clearing the forest to make room for a house and a lawn/firebreak. I saved maybe 5% of the mass of the trees for firewood and fence posts, left a few isolated oaks standing apart far enough apart so there was no continous canopy for a fire to spread, but the rest went up in smoke and this has been common practice since forever.

    The moral of story is that burning wood is not carbon neutral unless pains are taken to harvest no more than what grows back and that has definitely NOT been the case from 1750 to 1950. It’s only been in recent decades in a few isolated countries where there’s been any concern about deforestation.

  254. SABR Matt commented on Loehle and Scafetta calculate 0.66°C/century for AGW.
    Matt,
    This may be their first attempt, but many others have used non-linear curve fitting techniques to identify possible physical relationships. As Willis points out, it is not a simple task. Take a look at my attempts by clicking on my name.

    racookpe1978 says:

    July 26, 2011 at 9:29 am

    Raco,
    I agree. You should take those “predictions” with a grain of salt. Each cycle you have in your model has at least three degrees of freedom and the cycles are not all independent and additive. A change in a parameter in one cycle can change the “best fit” parameters for other cycles. That said, I believe the curve fitting technique is better than assuming that atmospheric CO2 concentrations will continue to rise exponentially following an exponential rise in the burning of fossil fuel. It is a lot better than using a “fudge factor” calling it sensitivity to make a model fit the data.

  255. Willis Wrote This: Finally, I still say that their method involves data snooping. They have arbitrarily set the trend of the post-calibration reconstruction equal to the trend of the post-calibration data. Isn’t that data snooping? I mean, your model goes off the rails as soon as it leaves the data it was fitted to. So rather than say “bad model” you say “Ooops, gotta change the trend to match the observed trend” and now it fits the data?? … I’m sorry, Geoff, but I just don’t see that as a valid statistical procedure, and I know of no polite way to say that.

    I agree with your technical comments. But consider this a “model building” exercise rather than a “model testing” exercise. Their choices are “reasonable”, but not perfect. If the last 150 years’ climate is a continuation of a quasi-stationary process with an added trend since about mid-twentieth century, this is one way to estimate the hypothesized added trend. Imagine, as precedent, Kepler attempting to fit some complicated geometrical models, but developing his three laws post-hoc. They clearly were post-hoc, and his own tests were not, ahem, rigorous in all their computations. The rigorous tests came later.

    If modelers had always been rigorous, there wouldn’t be Kepler’s laws, Dalton’s atomic theory, or the laws of thermodynamics — all of those had serious inaccuracies that required decades of work to sort out.

    With the knowledge that we have today, how would you try to estimate the quantitative effect of increasing CO2? Skepticism does not, in my view, include the assumption that the CO2 effect must be 0, only that it might be 0. If it might be 0 and might be non-zero, Loehle and Scaffeta have provided one estimate, that is toward the low end of estimates among those not committed to the claim that 0 is the correct figure.

  256. NikFromNYC says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:58 am

    You definitely have an edgy writing style that attracts attention and in another context I’d find it admirable and be a bit jealous. However this is a science website and in this context it’s distracting. I’d about given up on you then you come along with that great graphic showing the folly of using hundred year temperature baselines for predicting the next hundred years. You should have just left it at that and taken the quite good but contextually inapt rants somewhere else.

  257. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 12:13 pm
    The reason because those longer cycles have not been included in the present model is because their amplitude is not certain given to the fact that the temperature records start in 1850.
    I was referring to the solar part of the equation, Are you denying that the solar cycles persists prior to the start of the temperature record?

    Bart says:
    July 26, 2011 at 12:22 pm
    so probably my post was inapplicable. My apologies.
    Accepted. No harm.

    Craig Loehle says:
    July 26, 2011 at 12:44 pm
    thus we can not extrapolate more than 100 yrs or so. We do go back to 1850 to[?] the end of the LIA and do match that data.
    My question was if you [or Nicola] deny that the solar cycles existed prior to the temperature record. Even if there is a 1000-yr or longer solar cycle [giving rise to the linear trend?] it should be reasonable to extend the solar cycles back a few hundred years to, say, 1400 AD.

  258. Dear Leif Svalgaard,
    of course there are cycles in the solar activity before 1850. They just need to be well understood. In fact, there is not just one cycle, but many cycles.

    Do not be in hurry, Leif !
    Keep tuned :)

  259. Craig Loehle says:
    July 26, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    “Dave Springer and Nikfromnyc have some strong opinions and are exercising their vocabulary but not sure what they are saying. “nerdy fantasy” “ad hoc fabrications”– very colorful”

    Colorful? Maybe “nerdy fantasy”. NikFromNY writes in very colorful manner. “Ad hoc fabrication” isn’t very colorful.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

    Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning “for this”. It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be adapted to other purposes.

    Better get used to a few of the more common latin phrases if you want to be conversant in science. Latin is the language of science. Traditionally it’s italicized but I usually don’t bother in less formal settings or where there aren’t any scientific grammar police lurking about.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrication_%28science%29

    Fabrication, in the context of scientific inquiry and academic research, refers to the act of intentionally falsifying research results, such as reported in a journal article. Fabrication is considered a form of scientific misconduct, and is regarded as highly unethical. In some jurisdictions, fabrication may be illegal.

    My use of fabrication might have been a bit harsh. To be more precise I probably should have used “just-so story” instead which in fact I did use in previous critical comments in this thread.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

    A just-so story, also called the ad hoc fallacy, is a term used in academic anthropology, biological sciences, social sciences, and philosophy. It describes an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The use of the term is an implicit criticism that reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation.

  260. Leif: yes one can extend the solar cycles backwards BUT as you try to get data to compare it to you are stuck with data taken at long intervals (like very 100 yrs), dating errors, measurement problems, sedimentation discontinuities (the lake dries out or sediment slumps or is dug by an animal) and proxies of unknown validity (like tree rings which I do not believe are valid).

  261. Septic Matthew says:
    July 26, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    “I agree with your technical comments. But consider this a “model building” exercise rather than a “model testing” exercise. Their choices are “reasonable”, but not perfect. If the last 150 years’ climate is a continuation of a quasi-stationary process with an added trend since about mid-twentieth century, this is one way to estimate the hypothesized added trend. ”

    The operative phrase here is “if the last 150 years is a continuation of a quasi-stationary process”. It clearly isn’t and that’s the problem. NikFromNY posted a graphic with several 100 year time slices where temperature trends are similar to 1850-1950 and there is little if any predictive ability for the next 50 years. The following 50 year periods are all over the map, so to speak. One absolutely cannot use a 100-year temperature time slice as a predictor of the next 50 years. I’m not even sure it qualifies as cherry-picking with a sample size of one. One should pick at least a few cherries. How this made it through peer review is a mystery I can only attribute to it being published in what’s essentially a zero impact factor journal where editorial oversight and peer review incompetence is the norm. Typically low impact journals are used as venues of last resort so the work that went into the paper isn’t completely wasted. You can still add it to your CV and hope no one notices the low IF of the journal.

  262. Dave Springer: re “ad hoc” yeah, ha ha I know it is latin. Your claim about unfalsifiable “just so story” is not quite correct. Our modeled cycles, calibrated only on pre-1950 data, predict the flattening of temperatures after 2000, which is now a 12 yr prediction vs the GCMs which predict a 0.35 deg C/decade rise (depending on which model and scenario). They also match the pattern of wiggles after 1950 when we add in the linear AGW effect.

  263. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 1:25 pm
    of course there are cycles in the solar activity before 1850. They just need to be well understood. In fact, there is not just one cycle, but many cycles.
    Below ~80 years there are not many cycles. And you claim to understand them, so elucidate us. You are claiming that the funny-shaped humps in Figure 1 continues hundreds of years back [as the planets clearly did]? If not, when did they stop?

    Craig Loehle says:
    July 26, 2011 at 1:35 pm
    Leif: yes one can extend the solar cycles backwards BUT as you try to get data to compare it to you are stuck with data taken at long intervals (like every 100 yrs)
    The solar data is pretty good back to 1610 and is not bad for a few hundred years before that. The dating errors accumulate only over much longer time spans.

  264. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 9:04 am

    nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:40 am
    “Wolf was also a planetary cyclist in the beginning [originated the planetary hypothesis in fact], but in his later years came to his senses and realized that it didn’t held water…”
    Leif, where is the reference, please?
    Wolf’s final judgement on the matter can be found in part IV of his 1893 Handbuch der Astronomie, where he declares that none of the attempts, by himself and others, to fit the sunspot number with models based on planetary influences has produced satisfactory results. I’m on the road so cannot provide you with the exact page number as my copy of the Handbuch is at home.

    Back in May this year I had this conversation with Leif. At that time he said:

    Leif says:

    TB says:“Soon abandoned” after several orbits of Jupiter. How many years before his death did he “abandon” it? Please present your evidence.

    This can be turned around. What is your evidence that it was not ‘soon’? Perhaps I should have said ‘he later abandoned the idea’ to forestall silly debate over when [I shall not object if you substitute ‘soon’ by ‘later’ on your website, but you should show the maturity to change the text to what I otherwise suggested]. Wolf clearly did struggle over the years with the problem, never finding a good correlation when new data became available. It is clear that his initial optimism didn’t stay with him. His real discovery of the relationship between the variation of the compass needle and sunspots held up and he every year [when he published the sunspot numbers] never failed to point out that the relationship still held. He never [after his initial announcement] again mentioned his planetary formula [which he would have if the agreement persisted – as he did with the magnetic needle], except finally admitting in 1893 that it didn’t really work to his satisfaction.

    Wolf died in 1893! A deathbed recantation it seems. :)

  265. dave Springer:: The operative phrase here is “if the last 150 years is a continuation of a quasi-stationary process”. It clearly isn’t and that’s the problem.

    You truncated my sentence and then criticized only part. Only the part that you quoted “clearly isn’t”, and so you have criticized a straw man.

  266. tallbloke says:
    July 26, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    “He never [after his initial announcement] again mentioned his planetary formula [which he would have if the agreement persisted – as he did with the magnetic needle], except finally admitting in 1893 that it didn’t really work to his satisfaction.”
    Wolf died in 1893! A deathbed recantation it seems.>/i>
    You can’t read it seems. I have twice in this thread said:
    “Wolf’s final judgement on the matter can be found in part IV of his 1893 Handbuch der Astronomie, where he declares that none of the attempts, by himself and others, to fit the sunspot number with models based on planetary influences has produced satisfactory results.”
    He can’t help that he died that same year. In his Handbuch he was summarizing his and others’ researches on sunspots [and everything else between heaven and Earth – it is a goldmine of hard to find historical information]

  267. tallbloke says:
    July 26, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    “He never [after his initial announcement] again mentioned his planetary formula [which he would have if the agreement persisted – as he did with the magnetic needle], except finally admitting in 1893 that it didn’t really work to his satisfaction.”
    Wolf died in 1893! A deathbed recantation it seems.

    You can’t read it seems. I have twice in this thread said:
    “Wolf’s final judgement on the matter can be found in part IV of his 1893 Handbuch der Astronomie, where he declares that none of the attempts, by himself and others, to fit the sunspot number with models based on planetary influences has produced satisfactory results.”
    He can’t help that he died that same year. In his Handbuch he was summarizing his and others’ researches on sunspots [and everything else between heaven and Earth – it is a goldmine of hard to find historical information]

  268. HenryP says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:34 am

    “Henry@daveSpringer
    OK, I did find humidity (RH) decreasing in Easter island at a phenomenal rate of -0.216% per annum since whilst precipiation increased at almost 2 mm/month/annum (since 1975).”

    As I also explained to you before relative humidity (RH) is immaterial. It’s absolute humidity that makes the difference. Most deserts in the world reach 100% relative humidity daily when morning dew forms yet they are still have exceedingly dry atmospheres with large temperature differences between daily high and nightly low.

    Absolute humidity is typically in the range of 1% – 5%. Dry air doesn’t have much heat capacity. Water vapor on other hand has enormously higher heat capacity due to something called latent heat of vaporization. Thus air with high absolute humidity can buffer a lot of daytime heating and release it at night when temperature drops below the dewpoint. Air with low absolute humidity has far less ability to buffer daytime heating thus you get larger temperature swings between day and night.

    This is not hypotheses it’s a statement of fact about the well known physical properties of water.

  269. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 2:03 pm
    The solar data is pretty good back to 1610 and is not bad for a few hundred years before that. The dating errors accumulate only over much longer time spans.

    Do you have a graph and a dataset available for these hundreds of years before 1610 Leif? Where is the data from?

  270. Craig Loehle says:
    July 26, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    “Dave Springer: re “ad hoc” yeah, ha ha I know it is latin. Your claim about unfalsifiable “just so
    story” is not quite correct. Our modeled cycles, calibrated only on pre-1950 data, predict the flattening of temperatures after 2000, which is now a 12 yr prediction vs the GCMs which predict a 0.35 deg C/decade rise (depending on which model and scenario). They also match the pattern of wiggles after 1950 when we add in the linear AGW effect.”

    If your model was a worth a fig you’d be able to calibrate it to any 100 year period in history then predict the next 50 years. NikFromNY produced graphical evidence that it doesn’t work. You then lamely offer up the excuse that there’s no really good temperature record before 1850 like that somehow justifies you using a sample size of one to make a statistical prediction. The proper response from any honest individual with the slightest knowledge of statistics is to admit that a sample size of one is grossly inadequate for any statistical analysis.

    If I were you I’d put a sock in it, pin this piece of cr*p in one line at the bottom of your CV, and hope like hell no one that’s ever evaluating your competence as a researcher reads this thread.

    [Language. Robt]

  271. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 2:21 pm
    You can’t read it seems. I have twice in this thread said:
    “Wolf’s final judgement on the matter can be found in part IV of his 1893 Handbuch der Astronomie, where he declares that none of the attempts, by himself and others, to fit the sunspot number with models based on planetary influences has produced satisfactory results.”

    There’s a big difference between admitting that the results are unsatisfactory, and abandoning the hypothesis. Unfortunately, he ran out of breath, so we’ll never know if he would have continued trying or not. Anyway, not to worry, there are plenty of people following in his footsteps to improve the correlations and refine and find confirming evidence for the mechanism which has been theorised.

  272. SteveE says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:05 am

    Google: Fugro Robertson Merlin

    I did. Knowing Fugro as well as I do, looks like a fantasy product to me. You cannot properly parametise a coupled GCM with modern data – to attempt to do so in a paleo sense is…fantasy. And Fugro-Robertson is a service company, not an oil company. A service company with a proposed service is not the same as an approved methodology used by a major or minor oil company. Web page not updated since 2008 and I work in this business. Perhaps its a research proposal dressed up as a product? Don’t believe all the adverts you read on the web, especially from large service companies.

  273. tallbloke says:
    July 26, 2011 at 2:29 pm
    Do you have a graph and a dataset available for these hundreds of years before 1610 Leif? Where is the data from?
    Of course. You should know by now that I always have that for everything I say. Otherwise I wouldn’t say it, would I?

    K. G. McCracken, F. B. McDonald, J. Beer, G. Raisbeck, and F. Yiou (2004), A phenomenological study of the long‐term cosmic ray modulation, 850–1958 AD, J. Geophys. Res., 109, A12103, doi:10.1029/2004JA010685.
    K. G. McCracken and J. Beer (2007), Long‐term changes in the cosmic ray intensity at Earth, 1428–2005, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A10101, doi:10.1029/2006JA012117.
    K. G. McCracken (2007), Heliomagnetic field near Earth, 1428–2005, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A09106, doi:10.1029/2006JA012119.
    F. Steinhilber, J. A. Abreu, J. Beer, and K. G. McCracken (2010), Interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides, J. Geophys. Res., 115, A01104, doi:10.1029/2009JA014193.
    R. A. Caballero‐Lopez, H. Moraal, K. G. McCracken, and F. B. McDonald (2004), The heliospheric magnetic field from 850 to 2000 AD inferred from 10Be records, J. Geophys. Res., 109, A12102, doi:10.1029/2004JA010633.
    Berggren, A.-M., J. Beer, G. Possnert, A. Aldahan, P. Kubik, M. Christl, S. J. Johnsen, J. Abreu, and B. M. Vinther (2009), A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L11801, doi:10.1029/2009GL038004.

    And my analysis of McCracken [2007]:

    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf

  274. tallbloke says:
    July 26, 2011 at 2:36 pm
    There’s a big difference between admitting that the results are unsatisfactory, and abandoning the hypothesis.
    A real scientist abandons the hypothesis when the results don’t measure up [this is called the ‘scientific method’]. I have read all of Wolf’s papers and books [actually have almost all of them at home] and it is clear that he gave up on his hypothesis. As I said: he would every year point out how good the relationship between sunspots and the wiggling of the compass needle was, but never again commented on how good his fit to the planets was. You get to know a man well, reading all his work, and learn to appreciate what he considers important.

  275. Dear Leif Svalgaard,
    I am sorry but I need to agree with tallbloke on this Wolf’s issue.

    Wolf, at the end of his life, simply stated that he tried an explanation supporting the planetary-sun theory and he was not able to find one. He did not abandon the theory or proved it false. He just could not prove it in a satisfactory way.

    I would guess that Wolf also tried to explain the energetic origin of the solar luminosity, and he could not find a satisfactory explanation too, being the Kelvin-Helmholtz theory in contradiction with geology. Did I guess right, Leif?

  276. Juice says:
    July 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    “What phenomenon causes the surface temperature of Venus to reach 460 C? If it’s not the “greenhouse” effect, I’d like to hear a better explanation.”

    Lord help me I’m sick of seeing Venus canards.

    Venus has a hot mantle like the earth from leftover heat of formation and radiactive decay. Like the earth about a tenth of a watt per square meter reaches the top of the crust. Unlike the earth there is no fast escape path for that internal heat to escape once it makes it through the crustal rocks. On the earth that small amount of internal energy rapidly escapes through the ocean and thence through the comparatively thin clear sky. On Venus the rocks are overlain by a far denser atmosphere which continues to provide a high degree of insulation so that small amount of internal heat is entrained until it manages to make its way into the upper atmosphere where it finally has a decent free path to space. The surface of Venus is just about as dark as dark gets. No light makes it through the super-dense unbroken cloud layer. There is no surface greenhouse effect from incoming solar insolation. There is however a huge greenhouse effect (which should be thought of as an insulation effect not a greenhouse effect) that causes temperature from the molten mantle to not decline so rapidly near the top of the crust like it does on the earth.

  277. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:07 am
    Dear Willis Eschenbach,

    I am sorry but you continue to say no-sense.

    1) you cannot disprove our research by simply using a model slightly different from our, for example using a 62-year cycle instead of a 60-year cycle, and claim we are wrong because you get similar results! Why don’t you use a 100-year cycle instead of a 62-year cycle?

    Well, last night before reading this I did it with a 62 and 40 year cycles … you are right that the good fit of the 60/40 year cycle does not “disprove your research”. But by the same token, the good fit of the 60/20 year cycle does not establish your research.

    2) the existence of major quasi 60-year and quasi 20-year cycles are easily detected by power spectrum analysis, see figure 3, 10 & 11 in N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015

    I looked at the figures from your reference. Figure 3 shows a power spectrum analysis of the HadCRUT3 records. It contains statistically significant peaks at 323, 64, 31, 21, 15, 13, 10, 9, 7, and 6 years.

    Now, obviously you could pick a subset of those and reconstruct the HadCRUT3 dataset, as you have done … but what does that show? Merely that you have done a very simplistic inverse Fourier transform, and gotten something that roughly looks like the data.

    And heck, if you wanted to get a better reconstruction, why didn’t you use the 323 year cycle? It’s the largest cycle of them all?

    But instead, you’ve reconstructed the HadCRUT3 temperature dataset WITHOUT THE LARGEST CYCLE. Which is bad enough in itself.

    But then, you have ascribed the increase at the end of HadCRUT record, which according to your own analysis is DUE TO THE 323 YEAR CYCLE, and claimed that it was the effect of humankind.

    Next, you refer me to Figs. 10 and 11 in your reference. Unfortunately, these don’t show a “power spectrum analysis” as you claim. Instead, 10 is the fitting of an arbitrary 60 year cycle to the temperature record, along with the temperature record copied over itself with a 60 year lag. While interesting, these do not speak to the reason you chose 60 and 20 years.

    You discuss the issue in reference to Figure 5 in your citation. You say:

    Irregular cycles with an average period of about 20 years are clearly visible in Fig. 5. These cycles are determined by the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn, as explained above. A 60-year cycle is also clearly visible in the figure in the smooth dash curves.

    Figure 5 shows two panels, the suns distance from and velocity around the barycenter. But I couldn’t see the 20 year cycles. So I got the data and looked at the actual lengths of the cycles in distance. They do not have an “average period of about 20 years” as you say. Here are the lengths of all of the cycles from the year 1600 to the year 2061.

    The average is 15.4 years, with a large standard deviation of 4. But there is nothing like a 20 year cycle that is “clearly visible”.

    This is the problem with chasing cycles. The human eye wants to see order. It wants to see regular 20 year cycles. But here’s the actual cycle lengths from 1600 to 2080.

    There is no regular 20 year cycle of any kind in there. This is why I asked where you got the nice, even, round 20 and 60 year cycles that you used. Clearly, it was not from the solar barycentric cycles.

    w.

  278. SteveE – no I won’t google Fugro Robertson Merlin. I have searched (not googled) for all sorts of things, including Fugro Robertson model and Fugro Robertson Hadley. If you have found the information then just post the links.

    Craig and Nicola – there is a logically much easier way to achieve what you were trying to achieve with the data without doing any predictions, and it goes something like this:

    The IPCC claim that the temperature rose tc deg C in the 20thC.
    The IPCC claim that the whole of the rise could be attributed to radiative forcing (RF) from man-made GHGs and solar variation.
    We detect a long-term pattern in the temperature data which we do not choose to characterize.
    Inspection of the data indicates that there is a roughly 60-year cycle with peaks in 1878, 1939 and 2003 and troughs in 1910 and 1975. (That’s not quite what your temperature graph looks like, but it is what my downloaded Hadcrut3 temperature data looks like. Use whatever dates you find.)
    tc is made up of two increasing phases of this pattern and only one decreasing phase. The net temperature increase over the first complete cycle is t1 deg C, and over the second complete cycle is t2 deg C.
    RF from man-made GHGs cannot be causing the cycles, so the effect of GHGs can only be detected in the net increase over one or more complete cycles. (Clumsy wording but hopefully the meaning is clear).
    Serendipitously, the first complete cycle falls in the “pre-CO2″ period, and the second falls in the “CO2″ period.
    The rate of warming that can be attributed to man-made GHGs is therefore of the order of 100*(t2/(2003-1939) – t1/(1939-1878)) deg C per century (with significant uncertainty bounds).

  279. Hi Willis Eschenbach,

    sorry to contradict you, but the conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn occur every ~20 years.
    These things were known since ancient time, very very very ancient time by every street astrologer.

    Try to do the calculation by yourself:
    period of Jupiter =12 years
    period of saturn = 30 years

    synodic period = 1/(1/12-1/30) = 20 years

    The barycentric speed of the sun that I used has clearly these patterns.

    A 323-year cycle from a 160 year temperature record?
    are you sure that you understand the limits of the power spectrum analysis tools?
    Did you note that your 323 = ~ 2*160?

    Your knowledge shines as your logic!

  280. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    “the fact that the temperature records start in 1850″

    Wow. Just wow.

    The mercury thermometer was invented in 1724. Various proxies can be read with declining accuracy and precision back billions of years.

    Once again you’ve just cherry picked an arbitrary starting date for a temperature record. Many of us here would tell you the global temperature record doesn’t start until 1979 when some semblance of global coverage was attained by satellites and even then it’s debatable whether the satellites have the accuracy and precision to talk about global average temperature and trend to the nearest hundredth of a degree. Even the satellites miss a significant area near the poles.

    The level of cherry picking and ad hoc fallacies you two are peddling here thinking it has a chance of getting by critical review is mind boggling. I never seen a paper presented here thrashed as quickly by so many in so little time. It’s a target rich environment for criticism.

    I suggest you heed the first rule of holes – when you find you’ve dug yourself into one the first thing to do is stop digging.

  281. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 10:18 am
    “The problem comes with the claim that the fitted curves represent any real physics and cause-effect relationships. Furthermore, the ‘solar cycles’ come from astrological [astronomical?] considerations, e.g. the 61-year cycle is supposed to be 1/(1/9.93 – 1/11.86), where 9.93 is half the time between conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter (half, because tides are raised also on the other side of the sun], and 11.86 is Jupiter’s orbital period, as was suggested long ago by Brown [MNRAS, vol 60, pages 599-606, 1900]. These tidal influences are highly controversial and have not been generally accepted. The slavish repetition of the same 60-yr segment over and over again is what constitutes cyclomania.”

    When Wegener has said, that there is a continental drift, his sight was not generally accepted, but he was still right. The problem you see, is not a problem of science and not a problem of physics, it is a problem of logic. Bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. The point, that there is no cause-effect relationship visible does not mean that movements in the solar system, which cycles can be found in the global frequency spectra of temperature proxies are not relevant to science. Science is not to reject hints of possible relations; science is either to say I don’t know or to say I do know.

    It is now ten years, that Bond has published his Fourier Power spectrum with a broad big peak of periods of 1.8 ky repeating seven times in his sample. To look for a mechanism is well, but first in absence of any idea of a mechanism we have to look for geometric relations and an area in those periods of 1.8 ky and other do exist, despised of the quality of the proxies with its own error bars in the time calibration or in the height of the amplitude.

    Right, to look for simple time period and without any function or a silly sine function seems not very clever. But the idea to look in the solar system in that one can find a 1.8 ky function, which correlates with the broad Bond et al peak of 1.8 ky has more content than a simple cycle of 60 years. And because frequencies in the nature are always coupled with geometry, there is no oscillator possible on our globe, that can exhibit 1.8 ky periods. The cycle of 1.8 ky is well-founded by the real nature of the function, which results out of two elliptic orbits of a synodic cycle in the solar system, in composition with other synodic cycles of other couples. There is no slavish repetition of the same 60-yr segment. But there are a lot of special functions celestial bodies describing a heliocentric path. Folding the function to get a tide like function on the suns gas fluid it matches with some well known temperature reconstructions

    Physicians have to argue on that what is, and not on what is suspect. The dealing with periods seems be a way out of the geocentricmania which is powered by an army of scientist and a lot of money and still no answer to the cause/effect of the global climate temperature spectra of the last several thousand years. Again, simple search of time periods in years to match with time windows cannot solve the climate code in general. As the results of only one moving couple suggests the climate frequencies lower than the global oscillations can be solved and simulated well by using up to 8 or more celestial couples.

  282. Oh, for those who expect a nice round 20 year cycle in the solar barycentric velocity (as opposed to distance), here’s those figures:

    Note that it is quite common for the cycles to be as short as sixteen years. So no, there’s 20 year cycle there either.

    But if you do want to use the barycentric data, USE IT. Don’t say ‘mmm, looks like about 20 years in the barycentric data, and gosh, sunspot double cycle is about twenty years too, wow, meaningful” and then use exactly 20 years for your analysis. If your claim is “the sun done it”, then USE THE ACTUAL SOLAR DATA.

    On another topic, I still have no clue where the alleged 60 year solar cycles are. I just don’t see them. Where do they arise?

    And how is it that the 60 year cycle (if it exists) is so much weaker in the solar data, but so much stronger in the temperature data? How does that work?

    Folks, I’m warning you. Do not put your trust in this paper. It makes a host of assumptions, and ends up fitting regular decadal cycles to the temperature data on the grounds that those cycles kinda sorta exist in the solar data. Can’t do dat …

    w.

  283. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 26, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    Figure 5 shows two panels, the suns distance from and velocity around the barycenter. But I couldn’t see the 20 year cycles. So I got the data and looked at the actual lengths of the cycles in distance. They do not have an “average period of about 20 years” as you say. Here are the lengths of all of the cycles from the year 1600 to the year 2061.

    You are still missing the point Willis. Nicola has just outlined again the simple logic as I did earlier but perhaps you missed it as my comments get approved late when ever the word Landsh***dt is mentioned. I will repeat.
    —————————————-
    Perhaps you were using the wrong data or method?…The solar velocity data that Scafetta uses is calculated from JPL coordinates as well as available in a single JPL field. The red line on my graph is the same as shown in Scafetta’s papers. He has used spectral analysis on this data to produce the 60 year wave.

    If you require the data (1600-2040) I can send it to you in a spreadsheet. This is the crux of the paper in my opinion.

    The 20 and quasi-60 year cycle is quite easily reproduced when looking at a solar system viewer.

    http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html

    In this case solar velocity is the base data. The further the Sun is moved away from the SSB the faster it goes. When viewing the solar velocity graph the 20 year cycle is very obvious, the outer loop (fast) when J/S together and the inner loop (slow) when J/S opposed. This is basic knowledge and beyond question.

    The 60 year cycle is a velocity peak every third J/S conjunction which looks to occur in a lot of cases looking over 400 years. If this is repeated over longer terms is yet to be established. Most times on every third conjunction of J/S there is a close conjunction with either Uranus or Neptune. If not U/N are in conjunction themselves and are providing extra acceleration at the time. It is all about how far the Sun is pushed from the SSB but once again U&N are the modulating forces.

    The deceleration forces are just as important which no doubt is picked up in Scafetta’s spectral analysis. I think we need to keep in mind this paper has passed peer review.
    ————————————–
    There should be 6000 years of solar velocity data available from JPL. The next step is to see if the 60 year cycle is maintained over longer timeframes.

  284. Karmakaze says
    “Bahaha! You guys are in a quandary, aren’t you? You either accept this paper… and thus that AGW is real (if over exaggerated) , or deny this paper is real even though it seems to support your case.”
    To which the accusation of trolling arises but perhaps Galileo and Einstein could have easily worn that accusation in their time and who knows with our commenter? However K has to also recognise that another computer model of equal veracity to all the others and based on the same data but drastically reducing the AGW signal has serious consequences for ‘the science is settled’ argument and supports the ‘let’s not be too hasty’ line, if nothing else. After all the next computer model drastically reducing the AGW signal might be just around the corner from the next ‘troll’ and perhaps the EAU,IPCC,etc should have had the odd troll (Devil’s Advocate?) around before jumping to hasty conclusions.
    As K says- “Oh the decisions!”

  285. Willis Eschenbach, it is not a good idea to try to mislead readers with your insinuation.

    You simply do not understand elementary astronomy.

    I never talked about a “perfect” 20 year cycle. The cycles varies a little bit, although less than what you plot. Your variability is likely due to the fact that you are taking the peaks due to very fast fluctuations due to the other planets.

    The figure plotted by Geoff is clear enough

    where the quasi 20-year cycle is clear to every unbiased reader

  286. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    Hi Willis Eschenbach,

    sorry to contradict you, but the conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn occur every ~20 years.
    These things were known since ancient time, very very very ancient time by every street astrologer.

    Try to do the calculation by yourself:
    period of Jupiter =12 years
    period of saturn = 30 years

    synodic period = 1/(1/12-1/30) = 20 years

    So far, so good, we are in agreement … except that as you know, it’s not quite 20 years, because neither period is an exact year. But yes, that has been known for centuries.

    The barycentric speed of the sun that I used has clearly these patterns.

    Well … no. On average, sure. But the variations are huge. The cycles of velocity vary from 16 years to 22 years. You can’t just say ‘well, it’s about a 20 year cycle’ and use that. If you are going to make claims based on solar cycles, then you have to use the real solar cycles. And the barycentric data doesn’t have regular 20 year cycles.

    A 323-year cycle from a 160 year temperature record?
    are you sure that you understand the limits of the power spectrum analysis tools?
    Did you note that your 323 = ~ 2*160?

    Your knowledge shines as your logic!

    Sorry for my error, working late at night trying to digitize your Figure 3 and not thinking it through. However, my point remains. You have left out of your recent analysis the largest cycle in the HadCRUT data.

    It is difficult to tell from your graph (fig. 3 of your reference) what the actual cycle length of the larger cycle is … perhaps, as the originator of the graph, you could tell us what the length of the longer cycle is to the left of the 60 year cycle in your figure. You know the one, it’s cycle that you left out of your analysis despite it being the largest cycle in your Figure 3. And as such, it is reasonable to believe that that cycle, rather than humans, is the reason that your cyclical analysis doesn’t fit the data outside the calibration period.

    Finally, to date you have not shown any problems with my logic, so I’m glad my knowledge shines as bright as my logic.

    Thank you for your replies, much appreciated.

    w.

  287. Dear Willis Eschenbach the longest peak you see in the spectrum at ~320 year is an artifact due to the fact that the length of the data is only 160 year. So, you see 2*160=320. This is not a real cycle.

    In my figure 11 of my paper 2010 the comparison is against the speed of the sun record itself.
    The same is done in figure 12A.

    As I said above I have never taked about a “perfectly periodic” 20-year cycle.
    You are criticizing your own misunderstanding.

    A cycle that oscillates around 20 year can be in first approximation described by a 20-year harmonic cycle.

    Perhaps you do not know it, but also the so-called 11-year solar cycle is not a perfectly periodic 11-year cycle.

  288. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 3:00 pm
    Wolf, at the end of his life, simply stated that he tried an explanation supporting the planetary-sun theory and he was not able to find one. He did not abandon the theory or proved it false. He just could not prove it in a satisfactory way.
    That is not what he said. He said that he and others never found a satisfactory correlation, not physical explanation. If you don’t find a satisfactory correlation as time goes on, the hypothesis is refuted.

    Did I guess right, Leif?
    I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:02 pm
    The further the Sun is moved away from the SSB the faster it goes.
    I think Scafetta believes that the effect is tidal, and not related to SSB or angular momentum or anything of similar nonsense. Let him deny/confirm that here.

    Volker Doormann says:
    July 26, 2011 at 3:44 pm
    When Wegener has said, that there is a continental drift, his sight was not generally accepted, but he was still right.
    That someone turns out to be right does not mean that every crackpot will eventually be vindicated, Your logic falters here.

    It is now ten years, that Bond has published his Fourier Power spectrum with a broad big peak of periods of 1.8 ky repeating seven times in his sample.
    There is no 1.8ky cycle. If anything there is a 2.2ky cycle [the Hallstatt cycle].

  289. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Well … no. On average, sure. But the variations are huge. The cycles of velocity vary from 16 years to 22 years. You can’t just say ‘well, it’s about a 20 year cycle’ and use that. If you are going to make claims based on solar cycles, then you have to use the real solar cycles. And the barycentric data doesn’t have regular 20 year cycles.

    The results of this study are based spectral analysis. The authors frequently use the words “quasi” and “about” to describe the regular sequences. Nature does not follow exact timetables and refuses to follow our human expectations, but once you understand, the cyclic patterns are easily observable. Jose made the same mistake in 1965 when he describes his 178.8 year pattern which we now know today does not exist, but there is still an underlying pattern that repeats over the Holocene that varies in intensity because of the clock movements that have been with us for 5 billion years. The same factors responsible for the Holocene pattern are also responsible for the variations in the “quasi” 20 year pattern and the foundation of the “quasi” 60 year pattern. Simply Uranus and Neptune.

    This diagram may assist.

    Your criticism is unfounded and has done you a disservice.

  290. .Dave Springer writes : “The surface of Venus is just about as dark as dark gets. No light makes it through the super-dense unbroken cloud layer.”

    Apparently about 10% of the light makes it to the surface. Early landers were designed with lights to enable photography but later ones didn’t bother with them because it was light enough.

  291. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:02 pm
    The further the Sun is moved away from the SSB the faster it goes.
    ————————-
    I think Scafetta believes that the effect is tidal, and not related to SSB or angular momentum or anything of similar nonsense. Let him deny/confirm that here.

    Crazy comment from you Leif, which insults the authors. There is no nonsense here with the velocity values being basic physics calculated accurately by JPL.

  292. Dave Springer says:
    July 26, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    “One absolutely cannot use a 100-year temperature time slice as a predictor of the next 50 years.”

    That is absolutely untrue. The only question is, how good is the prediction? This can be statistically calculated.

    On the rest of the latest comments: If there is any connection between the motion of the greater planets and solar cycles, I’d expect it is 2nd order, at best. We’re talking very minute gravitational influences here.

    Everyone seems to have this notion that they have to find some coherent outside forcing of a particular frequency. It is not necessary. Natural frequencies of modes associated either with solar dynamics or with Earth energy storage reservoirs are sufficient. If these are lightly damped, and driven by noise in the appropriate frequency band, they will display quasi-periodic oscillations.

  293. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:46 pm
    Crazy comment from you Leif, which insults the authors. There is no nonsense here with the velocity values being basic physics calculated accurately by JPL.
    The nonsense bit is believing that solar velocity has any effect on anything. All bodies in the solar system are in free fall and only tidal forces can have deforming effects. I think that Scafetta believes the influence of the planets on the sun are tidal. Let him deny/confirm that now.

  294. Leif Svalgaard says:

    the effect may be a combination of tides and solar movement.

    The tides are clearly a physical forcing.
    The solar wobbling is also a real phenomenon relative to the galaxy.

  295. I.e., you do not have to find the source specifically. It would be nice, but it is not necessary to make progress and be able to produce a model which gives predictive power. That a ~60 year process and ~20 year process from somewhere (or wheres) which influence the temperature record (whatever it represents) exist is irrefutable.

  296. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    Perhaps you were using the wrong data or method?…The solar velocity data that Scafetta uses is calculated from JPL coordinates as well as available in a single JPL field. The red line on my graph is the same as shown in Scafetta’s papers.

    Thanks, Geoff. My graphs of velocity and distance are the same as Scafetta’s during the period of overlap. So we’re using the same data and method. And we agree (and my data shows) the synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn in the average of the velocity data. I was corresponding with Ted Lands***dt for a couple of years before his death about this stuff. Never could understand his work, though. His divisions seemed arbitrary, but that could have been my lack of understanding.

    So I am well aware of all of the aspects we are talking about, including the fact that the cycles in velocity vary in length from sixteen to twenty-two years. If you want to use those actual cycles, fine. But you can’t just use the average, there is no physical basis for that. Use the real data.

    He has used spectral analysis on this data to produce the 60 year wave.

    I’m sorry, but that’s the reference that I have been asking for. Where is the spectral analysis of the barycentric data? All he shows is the 60 year cycle.

    And in any case, given the amplitude and regularity of the dominant ~19.8 year cycle, the ~sixty year cycle is about an order of magnitude smaller than the 19.8 year cycle. So why are the sizes switched in the reconstruction of the current paper, with the sixty year cycle by far the largest?

    Again, if you assert cyclical solar forcing (and indeed, you may be right to do so), you need to use the actual data. You can’t just use sixty and twenty years, the cycles vary far too much for that.

    All the best,

    w.

  297. Willis Eschenbach,

    please read my paper
    N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010),

    All your questions are already unswered there.

    Sorry, but you or did nor read my paper or you did not understand it at all.

  298. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:57 pm
    the effect may be a combination of tides and solar movement.
    May be? You seem to vacillate back and forth on this. How much from each source?

    The tides are clearly a physical forcing.
    The solar wobbling is also a real phenomenon relative to the galaxy.

    Interesting that you say this so carefully. You did not say that solar wobbling is a physical forcing. Of course the sun moves relative to the galaxy, but that does not influence anything in the Sun as the sun is in free fall in the galaxy. But are you now abandoning your view that the planetary influence is tidal [spring tides Saturn-Jupiter and perihelion tides from Jupiter]?

  299. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    I think that Scafetta believes the influence of the planets on the sun are tidal. Let him deny/confirm that now.

    You may be confusing the issues. The minor tidal effects are postulated by some to have influence on solar cycle length which Scafetta refers to in the paper (pg 2). The velocity values are orbital components.

  300. Willis wrote: Do not put your trust in this paper.

    Nobody “trusts” it, it just has possibility. If it is accurate enough for the next 20 years, then perhaps trust will accrue.

  301. Leif Svalgaard says:

    My major view is that the planetary influence on the sun is mostly tidal because tides are a real forcing acting on the Sun.

    However, the gravitational wobbling of the Sun would be totally irrilevant, as you say, only if the “gravitational” forces were the only forces that exist in nature, which is not the case because there are also electric/magnetic forces too and cosmic rays caming from the galaxy that cross the solar system. So, I prefer not to totally close a priory my mind to additional contributions unless they are explicitly confuted.

    I do not think that keeping an open mind is by itself a bad thing.
    Don’t you agree?

  302. Leif Svalgaard wrote (July 26, 2011 at 8:57 am) “As the topic is about global values [ultimately governed by the energy input] the flow within the system is irrelevant.”

    100% BS.
    INSOLATION (NOT irradiance).

  303. Loehle and Scafetta are certainly not the first to succumb to the temptation of “explaining” the “global temperature record” through empirical curve-fitting, with little recourse to physical fundamentals. The may be the first, however, to attribute to their simple empirical model the ability to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic variations. What makes this attribution very tenuous is not just the postulation of strictly periodic 60 and 20-yr oscillations (which, as Willis correctly points out, are gross oversimplifications of the characteristic stochastic process), but also the assumption of an abrupt change in linear trend, strangely reminiscent of Hansen’s method of “homogenizing” station records. Linear trends are extrinsic mathematical entities, rather than intrinsic geophysical properties.

    The prognostications of this model are bound to fail ultimately, however, not primarily because of oversimplifying the cylces. Long proxy records indeed confirm the authors’ expectations of persistent, albeit highly irregular, multi-decadal variations . The failure IMO will come from the the unrealistic synthesis of the hybrid HADCRUT3 series, which under-represents the global decline in tenperatures experienced from the 1950s to the mid-1970s. Accordingly, it will be a failure of actual “trend.”

  304. This has been an absolutely fascinating thread. I don’t ever remember seeing so many lukewarmers so worked up!!!

    Loehle and Scafetta…… they should be congratulated in their efforts. Those criticizing without specifics, should be ashamed. Those criticizing with specifics should be also commended. It probably isn’t what Loehle and Scafetta wanted to read, but that’s how it works. And I’m glad to see them defend their work!

    But, by my estimation, and as Dave Springer pointed out, NikfromNYC nailed it. (as did others, but his graphical representation was spot on. http://i.minus.com/iej21U.jpg) As to his style and verbosity…….well, I suppose it takes some getting used to, but I haven’t reached that point.

    We just don’t have enough to go on as far as hard data to understand what’s going on. The earth’s climate didn’t start in 1850, but that’s about as good as starting point for the thermometer record as any. For those pointing out the thermometer was invented in the early 1700s, understand that standardization, manufacture and most importantly distribution didn’t happen over night.
    I like the approach for the cyclical behavior, but I think you could have more cycles. Further, the latest offering from Dr. Spencer suggests there are mechanisms that engage only when certain criteria presents. Anticipating all that would engage and others that may disengage will be an impossibility.

  305. Juice says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Yes. Thank you for acknowledging that the greenhouse effect exists.

    You are welcome. However, as you can see “greenhouse effect” on Venus is small, almost an order of magnitude smaller than the effect on Earth as projected by computational climate models. Extremely high temperatures on the surface (as opposed to those at the 1 atm level) are due to high pressure (91 atm, 735 K).

    Of course in an atmosphere which is absolutely transparent in the thermal infrared, the lapse rate is zero or even negative (as it is in our stratosphere). On the other hand, if you removed all the Nitrogen from the terrestrial atmosphere (which is not a “greenhouse gas”), you’d readily get a Snowball Earth with a mile thick ice covering all the oceans while if you put twice as much Nitrogen there, average surface temperature would rise to 314 K (41°C) with no additional “greenhouse effect” needed whatsoever.

    So pressure is an important factor.

    The only way to get scary warming projections from carbon dioxide (more than 1°C/doubling) is by supposing a strong positive water vapor feedback, which is not supported by observations. The basic trick to attain such a feedback is to maintain constant relative humidity along the entire air column (in computational models). In the real world (with its ten million dot per inch resolution, as opposed to the ten-millionth dot per inch resolution of computer games) it never happens though, especially not in the upper troposphere, which has paramount importance regarding radiative exchange with our cosmic environment.

  306. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:26 pm
    You may be confusing the issues.
    See Scafetta’s reply below.

    nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:43 pm
    My major view is that the planetary influence on the sun is mostly tidal because tides are a real forcing acting on the Sun.
    However, the gravitational wobbling of the Sun would be totally irrilevant, as you say, only if the “gravitational” forces were the only forces that exist in nature, which is not the case because there are also electric/magnetic forces too and cosmic rays caming from the galaxy that cross the solar system. So, I prefer not to totally close a priory my mind to additional contributions unless they are explicitly confuted.

    The electromagnetic and cosmic ray influence on the Sun are extremely minute. The supersonic solar wind [11 times Alfven speed] precludes electric and magnetic influences travelling upstream unless the particles are VERY energetic [which means that they are very rare compared to the ordinary solar wind], so it is a question of simple physics, not open/closed mind.

    I do not think that keeping an open mind is by itself a bad thing. Don’t you agree?
    But not so open that your brain falls out :-)

    Paul Vaughan says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:30 pm
    INSOLATION (NOT irradiance).
    The irradiance is what the sun puts out, insolation is what the earth’s surface receives and over time scales under a thousand years, there is a good relationship between the two. Modulated a bit by the climate [climate, albedo, etc], but in essence just a constant fraction. But your comment is, as usual, too cryptic to be of any use.

    sky says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm
    The may be the first, however, to attribute to their simple empirical model the ability to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic variations.
    That was already Knud Lassen’s excude for when his solar cycle theory was failing, that AGW had mucked up the data.

  307. Bart:

    Dave Springer is right when he asserts that “One absolutely cannot use a 100-year temperature time slice as a predictor of the next 50 years.” That the duration of each prediction of a model is 50 years implies that the duration of each independent statistical event in the complete set of these events is 50 years. That the duration of the time slice is 100 years implies the existence in this time slice of 2 observed independent statistical events.

    Each event is characterized by the condition of the climate at time t and the outcome at time t + 50 years. Given that the condition of the climate provides information about the outcome of the climate, the minimum number of possible conditions is 2 and the minimum number of possible outcomes is 2. Thus, the minimum number of condition-outcome pairs is 4.

    With the availability of about 40 observed independent events, one could provide a crude estimate the probability of each conditional outcome and with the availability of another 40 observed independent events, one might be able to demonstrate a modest level of statistical significance for predictions that were based upon the estimated probability values. Thus, the 2 observed independent events that are available in the 100 year time span is too few by a factor of at least 40.

    By the way, the function which, in the Loehle and Scafetta paper, maps the time to the temperature is not an example of a “prediction” but rather is an exampls of a “projection.” While climatologists (including the authors of the IPCC Working Group 1 report) tend to confuse the two concepts, they are distinct ideas with an important difference. The difference is that a “prediction” is associated with a statistical event but a projection is not. It is by comparison of the predicted to the observed outcomes of statistical events that a model is statistically validated. As it issues a projection but not predictions, the Loehle-Scafetta model is insusceptible to being validated.

  308. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:26 pm
    You may be confusing the issues.
    See Scafetta’s reply below.

    nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 6:43 pm
    My major view is that the planetary influence on the sun is mostly tidal because tides are a real forcing acting on the Sun.
    However, the gravitational wobbling of the Sun would be totally irrilevant, as you say, only if the “gravitational” forces were the only forces that exist in nature, which is not the case because there are also electric/magnetic forces too and cosmic rays caming from the galaxy that cross the solar system. So, I prefer not to totally close a priory my mind to additional contributions unless they are explicitly confuted.

    The electromagnetic and cosmic ray influence on the Sun are extremely minute. The supersonic solar wind [11 times Alfven speed] precludes electric and magnetic influences travelling upstream unless the particles are VERY energetic [which means that they are very rare compared to the ordinary solar wind], so it is a question of simple physics, not open/closed mind.

    I do not think that keeping an open mind is by itself a bad thing. Don’t you agree?
    But not so open that your brain falls out :-)

    Paul Vaughan says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:30 pm
    INSOLATION (NOT irradiance).
    The irradiance is what the sun puts out, insolation is what the earth’s surface receives and over time scales under a thousand years, there is a good relationship between the two. Modulated a bit by the climate [climate, albedo, etc], but in essence just a constant fraction. But your comment is, as usual, too cryptic to be of any use.

    sky says:
    July 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm
    The may be the first, however, to attribute to their simple empirical model the ability to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic variations.
    That was already Knud Lassen’s excuse when his solar cycle theory was failing, that AGW had mucked up the data.

  309. Leif Svalgaard (July 26, 2011 at 8:49 pm) says
    INSOLATION is “Modulated a bit by the climate [climate, albedo, etc]”

    Lol @ bit.

  310. Re: Endless arguments about nothing
    Being half-Jewish, I think I am entitled to tell a mild Jewish joke — as a fitting parable.

    Two Hassidic Jews are passionately arguing face to face on the corner of the street. The third one is passing by. He stops, listens, comes closer, inserts his head between the two disputants, listens some more, than cries out: “Stop wasting my time!” And leaves in a hurry.

    Don’t be ridiculous, gentlemen, wrap it up. The data you are arguing about is bogus.

  311. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    Well done Leif, you have managed to include many topics in one question leading to off topic answers. The original on topic question related to what causes the changes in solar velocity which I responded to. Solar cycle length, modulation and climate effects have now been added to the confusion.

  312. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 9:41 pm
    The original on topic question related to what causes the changes in solar velocity
    Except that Scafetta believes his solar variations have a tidal origin and is not related to solar velocity.

  313. Juice says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Yes. So the sun shines on gas and warms it. The same amount of sunlight shines on more gas in the same amount of space (higher pressure) and the temperature is higher. Why is that? It’s called the greenhouse effect.
    =========================================================
    Errr, uhhmmm….. well, sort of, but I believe the “greenhouse” effect is conditional to the type of gas….. or rather molecular make up of the gas. However, seeings that y’all brought up Venus……the temps in Venus’ atmosphere at the same bar as the earth’s, is at the same approx temps, in spite of the fact of an entirely different molecular composition.

  314. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    Except that Scafetta believes his solar variations have a tidal origin and is not related to solar velocity.
    The original question did not relate to solar variation, but to solar velocity which is responsible for the quasi 60 year cycle in the paper discussed in this topic.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:02 pm
    The further the Sun is moved away from the SSB the faster it goes.
    ————–
    Leif:
    I think Scafetta believes that the effect is tidal, and not related to SSB or angular momentum or anything of similar nonsense.

    So you are suggesting the authors believe solar velocity is caused by tides?

  315. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 10:16 pm
    So you are suggesting the authors believe solar velocity is caused by tides?
    No, solar velocity has nothing to do with anything. Scafetta believes solar activity is caused by tides [he has a weasel word: ‘mainly by tides’]

  316. I see step functions…

    Seems like rather than a straight line slope added to the oceanic cycles, there are two step functions, one jump at ~1936, followed by tracking again (constant offset), and another at the 1998 step (I’m ignoring the dip from pre-bucket adjusted data). The jump that occurs at 1936 is maintained until 1998. Reminds me of UHSCN V2-V1 more than a supposed linear addition from CO2. Somehow I don’t think CO2 operates instep functions…and I didn’t really see any indication of any TSI peaking around 1959/60. I would expect a linear rise from that to be added as well (1900-1960 and constant thereafter roughly), that signal seems attenuated or non-existed. Even without lags…

  317. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    Willis Eschenbach, it is not a good idea to try to mislead readers with your insinuation.

    Nicola Scafetta, it is not a good idea to to attack someone without quoting what it is you are objecting to. It just makes you look petty and childish, to complain but not explain what it is you object to. If you have an objection to something I said, quote it and we can discuss it.

    You simply do not understand elementary astronomy.

    In the 1970s, I first got heavily into the math of the celestial spheres when I took a job as first mate and navigator on a 50′ (15 metre) gaff-rigged staysail schooner on a four-month voyage from the Far East across the Pacific. I used the HO249 tables in those days, plus a sextant, and shot the stars, moon, and sun.

    Then in the late 1980s, I was running a very remote shipyard in the way outback of the Solomon Islands. I desperately needed tide tables, but the SI Government didn’t publish them until like September. So I got the calculations for the Moon’s position (from my encyclopedia britannica). I used them to calculate the moon’s position. Then, since I had the previous year’s tide tables, I entered them. Then, I iteratively calculated the relationship between the two, so that I could forecast the tides. Because I lacked the information for the length of the tidal cycles (there’s about fifty of them, labeled M1, M2, and others), I had to calculate those as well. In the end, I published and sold my tide tables there in the Solomons, it was great, I had a monopoly.

    In the 1990, I met Ted Landsc****t over the web, and became interested in the barycentric cycles. Again, I couldn’t find data for the barycentric cycles from 1600 on. So I decided to calculate it. And again I went back to the texts, got the formulas, and I wrote an Excel spreadsheet that calculates the exact location and force of each planet at any given instant. I studied and investigated those results in a thorough manner.

    And now you have the effrontery to tell me I “do not understand elementary astronomy”? You really should learn to not make foolish assumptions that others are uneducated.

    I never talked about a “perfect” 20 year cycle.

    You are correct, you never talked about it, but you used a perfect, unvarying 20 year cycle.

    The cycles varies a little bit, although less than what you plot.

    BZZZZT. Wrong answer. I have shown you my exact results for the cycle lengths. If you disagree, then you need to show your exact results for the cycle lengths. Saying that they vary “less than what [I] plot” is nothing but handwaving. Post up your numbers or retire from the field. We do science here.

    Your variability is likely due to the fact that you are taking the peaks due to very fast fluctuations due to the other planets.

    Oh, please, I know I write like an idiot sometimes, but truly, Nicola, I’m not one. As you and I both know, the smaller faster planets make fast fluctuations of the velocity. I removed them with a 41 point Gaussian filter (I first tried a 21 point filter, but it didn’t catch them all). Then I could mathematically identify the peaks with certainty.

    The figure plotted by Geoff is clear enough

    where the quasi 20-year cycle is clear to every unbiased reader

    I have not said that the ~19.8 year quasi-regular cycle doesn’t exist. I’ve said that it is far from regular, and that it ranges from 16 years to 22 years. I have posted up that data. It appears you disagree. But waving your hands at some graph and saying “the quasi-twenty year cycle is clear” doesn’t change the data. If you disagree, put up a graph like I did showing all of the cycle lengths since 1600. Here’s what I get:

    Peak Year, Cycle Length
    1622.6, 17.7
    1642.9, 20.3
    1664.8, 21.9
    1680.8, 16.0
    1703.0, 22.3
    1724.1, 21.1
    1741.0, 16.9
    1762.5, 21.4
    1783.4, 20.9
    1802.0, 18.6
    1821.2, 19.2
    1843.5, 22.3
    1859.5, 15.9
    1881.5, 22.0
    1902.7, 21.3
    1919.8, 17.1
    1941.0, 21.2
    1961.8, 20.8
    1982.2, 20.4
    1999.6, 17.4
    2022.1, 22.4
    2038.5, 16.4
    2059.9, 21.4
    2081.2, 21.3

    As you point out, the solar data has a “quasi-regular” cycle which averages just less than 20 years, and is driven by the giant planets. However, it has a very wide range.

    And you didn’t use that quasi-regular cycle with the wide range in your analysis. You used a perfectly regular cycle of exactly 20 years.

    Finally, I have asked several times, and will ask again. I’m persistent that way. How did you decide the year in which to change from one trend to the next? It appears that you ran your model, and when it was released from the calibration data (as is common with cyclical models) it went off the rails.

    Your ex ante solution seems to have been to cooper it up by starting a new trend at the end of the calibration period … you do see the problems with that, don’t you?

    So … how did you decide where to split the data into two different trends, to add one more parameter to the seven you started with?

    Nicola, in your model you have no less than eight separate individually variable parameters. If you think we should be impressed because you can fit the data using eight parameters, you should read more of Johnny von Neumann ….

    w.

    PS – I also have not gotten any answers from you on statistical significance. I showed my code and the results of my Monte Carlo analysis, which says that a trend increase such as that seen in the HadCRUT data is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. Did you have any comments on that, or not?

  318. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    Dear Willis Eschenbach the longest peak you see in the spectrum at ~320 year is an artifact due to the fact that the length of the data is only 160 year. So, you see 2*160=320. This is not a real cycle.

    Oh, I see. You insulted my logic and my knowledge because I identified a ~320 year cycle in your results. I then pointed out that the cycle is clearly shown in your graph.

    You then claim that it is an “aritfact” … an artifact? And if that is an “artifact”, what is the point to the left of that one? Another artifact? Where I come from, we call stuff like that “errors”, and we try not to put them into our graphs.

    In any case … whose logic and knowledge is bad here? All I did was repeat your claim from your graph (without thinking about it, foolish me, my logic was very bad there).

    And what do you mean, it’s an “artifact”? How did you generate the “artifact”? Does the process that created the “artifact” (and the “artifact” just before it as well) affect the other results? How do you know that it does (or doesn’t) affect the other results? Why are you using a program that produces “artifacts” that look like real data?

    You call me lacking in logic and knowledge because you have an unexplained and un-noted “artifact’ in your results … that’s good, Nicola, I like that. It has that delicious twist of irony that gives such a piquant feel to climate science.

    w.

  319. Henry@daveSpringer
    I still don’t know if you agree with my assertion that any real anthropogenic GH effect demands that minima rise, (trapped heat), pushing up means. According to my observations, I always see the opposite happening: maxima are rising and the my current estimate of the ratio since 1974 is: 9:3:1 , maxima:means:minima.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    But all I ever see in the papers here is talk (only) about the average global temp. anomaly.

    (if my assertion is correct, than my estimate of human influence from 1974 can never be more then 1/13 x 0.012 x 100 = 0.1 degree C or K per century and is probably a lot less because the increase in maxima also pushes up some great part of the minima.)

    I liked your story about cutting the woods, but don’t forget that the opposite has been happening in the past 4 decades that we started to think more “green”. Places like Johannesburg and Las Vegas used to be deserts. If your previous point that you made to me was correct: de-forestation causes cooling, then what will the opposite do??

  320. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Well … no. On average, sure. But the variations are huge. The cycles of velocity vary from 16 years to 22 years. You can’t just say ‘well, it’s about a 20 year cycle’ and use that. If you are going to make claims based on solar cycles, then you have to use the real solar cycles. And the barycentric data doesn’t have regular 20 year cycles.

    The results of this study are based spectral analysis. The authors frequently use the words “quasi” and “about” to describe the regular sequences. Nature does not follow exact timetables and refuses to follow our human expectations, but once you understand, the cyclic patterns are easily observable.

    Geoff, I see the cyclic patterns. I see that they vary between 16 and 22 years. I understand that the studies are based on spectral analysis. I know authors use “quasi” and “about” to describe cycles.

    What I don’t understand is the physical basis for using a regular 20 year cycle in the analysis. I have no problem with the idea that solar cycles may affect the climate.

    What I have a problem with is inter alia:

    a) the idea that a cycle kind of near to the average of the solar cycles affects the climate. If you have the real cycles, use them by all means, but picking something kinda close doesn’t work.

    b) the idea that if we see a big cycle that varies around 20 years and a small cycle that varies around 60 years in the sun, we are justified in reversing the amplitudes (60 big, 20 small) in a reconstruction analysis. I cannot conceive of a physical basis for that one.

    c) the idea that the trend of the first two-thirds of a temperature record can be taken as an unvarying null hypothesis for the whole length of the record.

    d) the lack of any statistical calculations, either for HadCRUT3 change in trend to be random (which I calculated, and found that there is an 8% chance it’s just random, so it’s not significant), or for whether the additional variable parameter actually improved the results more than would be expected from adding a parameter.

    Look, guys, you don’t get it. I’m on your side. I was inquiring into these questions with Ted L. years ago when he was still alive. I think that the idea of solar cycles affecting the earth is totally possible.

    But if you want to show that, you have to use the real cycles, you can’t just pick nearby cycles because you like them. The velocity cycle that ended in 1999 only lasted 17 years and change, others have been shorter. Does that make a difference? We don’t know, but we certainly can’t assume it makes no difference, and sixteen years is a ways from 20 years.

    So you can all disabuse yourselves of the idea that I have an axe to grind here or that I don’t understand what Scafetta and Loehle are doing. I understand it quite well, and I wish very much that they had shown it. I just disagree with their analysis, I don’t think it shows anything except that their model is too simple to capture the full variation.

    Geoff, you mention spectral analysis above. Spectral analysis is useful in that we can view phenomena in either the time domain or the frequency domain. Using spectral analysis, we can break down a phenomenon (like the HadCRUT3 temperature) into its component cycles.

    Then we can run the process in reverse, and regenerate the original time series again. However, if we try to regenerate the series and don’t include one of the important component cycles, what happens?

    Well, the most common outcome is that when the reconstruction leaves the calibration period, it goes off the rails. Exactly like what happened with their model. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen that in cyclical based models … I know it is common, not as some theory, but because I’ve seen that exact failure pattern over and over again. The cyclical model works fine on the calibration data, and falls off the radar as soon as that data ends.

    And for most people like me, we just say well, we must be missing an important cycle in the model.

    Scafetta and Loehle, however, don’t do that. Instead they make the extraordinary claim that somehow, for some reason, and coincidentally just when the calibration period ended, humans immediately changed the trend of the data by half a degree per century.

    I say you can’t do that. You can’t just proclaim that your model is correct, and thus infer that the change in trend when it leaves the calibration period shows that some underlying factor has changed. The odds agains that are very large. That failure mode is far and away the most common cyclical model failure pattern. There’s many many more bad models than good, so the smart money says it’s just a problem with their model. As a result, until someone can show that it isn’t a problem with the model, the default position has to be that it is a problem with the model.

    w.

    PS – the use of cyclical models brings in an under-appreciated problem. This is that the autocorrelation of smooth cyclical curves is so high that it is very difficult to establish statistical significance. See the description of the method of Quenouille for the calculations involved.

  321. Nicola, as always, thanks for your reply.

    nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    … A cycle that oscillates around 20 year can be in first approximation described by a 20-year harmonic cycle.

    Certainly it can be described that way, averages are often useful as a first approximation. For example, to a first approximation, all human beings have one testicle and one breast.

    So it is clear that an average as a first approximation may be useful, but it also may be greatly misleading, and as a result we cannot assume ex ante that we can use an average as a first approximation in place of the actual data.

    Perhaps you do not know it, but also the so-called 11-year solar cycle is not a perfectly periodic 11-year cycle.

    And perhaps I do. Really, Nicola, I have studied these questions intensively. It appears that I know more about the variations of the quasi-twenty year cycle than you do. Your assumptions of my ignorance are wide of the mark.

    And so, rather than you continuing to assume that I don’t know things and supplying intellectual stuffing for those imaginary lacunae, how about filling some of the real gaps in my knowledge by answering some of my questions? Your fanciful accusations about my lack of knowledge are getting repetitive.

    Like for example, how did you decide where to split your trend lines?

    Have you calculated the significance of your results, and how?

    How do you interpret my finding that a change in trends of the size occurring in the HadCRUT3 data is not uncommon in red-noise datasets, and is not statistically significant?

    What does it mean that (as I showed) you can get results that are just as good using cycles of 60 and 40 years?

    How do you justify reversing the relative sizes of the 20 and 60 year solar cycles from their proportions in the solar data?

    Why should we pay attention to a model with no less than 7 tunable parameters (8 if you split the trends)?

    w.

  322. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    No, solar velocity has nothing to do with anything.

    Solar velocity has everything to do with this paper. You are now confusing the issue by going off topic.

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    I think you are getting way too bogged down in the detail Willis. The important thrust of this paper in my view is that a quasi 60 year cycle (measured over 400 years) related to solar velocity correlates with the PDO and temperature trends. The authors are well aware there are some gaps which need to be taken up by solar forcing (and lack thereof) which is still yet to be done.

    I would like to test the velocity data over longer timeframes and have offered Nicola assistance if he so wishes. If the longer term data pans out we may produce something together that ties in the complete picture.

  323. Terry Oldberg says:
    July 26, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    ‘Dave Springer is right when he asserts that “One absolutely cannot use a 100-year temperature time slice as a predictor of the next 50 years.”’

    Who’s going to stop me? Is there is law? I’ve heard the criminal codes are becoming more and more intrusive, but I have to admit, I had not expected it to go that far.

    At the risk of repeating myself, I will… er, repeat myself: The only question is, how good is the prediction? This can be statistically calculated.

  324. ThinkingScientist says:
    July 26, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    The product was commisioned by 3 major oil companies and was built on the back of a previous proprietary project. Since then other companies have commisioned proprietary studys. Weather you like it or not, major oil companies have been using climate models to predict source rock distribution and have been for several years.

  325. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    “This is that the autocorrelation of smooth cyclical curves is so high that it is very difficult to establish statistical significance.”

    The link you provided is a rebuttal of that argument, i.e., the Bartlett formula for effective degrees of freedom fails in that case, and the statistical significance of their result is much higher than that formula would imply.

  326. Dear Willis Eschenbach,
    your arguments above only prove that you are a very good sophist.

    1) I never said that the speed of the sun has a “perfect” 20 year cycle. And using a 20-year sinusoidal cycle instead of a varying 20-year cycle is good enough for our purpose.

    2) before 1950 the net anthropogenic forcing is negligible according GCM studies. Separating the two periods before and after 1950 in the way we did is good enough in first approximation.

    You are complain that we did not use second or third or fourth order approximations. Fine! So what?

    First order approximations are good enough. Include in the model your second or third or fourth order approximations and show us that the result deeply depends on them.

  327. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    Volker Doormann says:
    July 26, 2011 at 3:44 pm
    It is now ten years, that Bond has published his Fourier Power spectrum with a broad big peak of periods of 1.8 ky repeating seven times in his sample.

    “There is no 1.8ky cycle. If anything there is a 2.2ky cycle [the Hallstatt cycle].
    I think this thread needs scientific arguments to the arguments in the paper in the subject. ”

    Please don’t waste my time.

  328. Mike Jonas

    You asked me to provide some evidence of the fact that climate models have been used by oil companies to predict source rock distributions, so I provide you everything you need to to find it yourself. If you can’t manage to type three words into a search engine I doubt you’d understand it anyway.

  329. Dear Leif Svalgaard,

    unfortunately you are a little bit confusing the issues.

    In my paper under scrutiny I am specifically talking of the temperature of the Earth more than of solar activity.

    When I talk about the speed of the sun around the barycented I clearly say that I am using such an observable as a proxy for calculating a set of major frequencies that characterize the solar system oscillations. I do not need the barycentric speed ofthe sun at all to calculate such a set, but using such a record greatly facilitate the caculations.

    My argument was not that the barycentric speed of the sun was “directly” responsible of the climate oscillations, but that it is an observable that depends on the solar system oscillations, so it can be used to determine such frequency set.

    What is causing the climate oscillations is a “still obscure” mechanism in those papers, but because I theorized that such “unknown” mechanism is also linked to the solar system oscillations I argued that it is made of the same set of oscillation frequencies as that found in the barycentric speed.

    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 that may have multiple sources which in my interpretation are ultimately linked to the solar system oscillations, their resonances and sub and super harmonics, driven by the movement of the planets and in the way the sun and the heliosphere including the terrestrial magnetosphere respond to them within a surrounding galaxy and its incoming cosmic ray flux.

    A quasi 20-year cycle is for sure one of those astronomical cycles. Then the fact that this cycle is a variable cycle and not a perfect harmonic cycle, or that it may be split in two astronomical cycles close to 20 years such as a 20 and 22 year cycles throgh various mechanisms, etc. does not change the fact that a major quasi-20 year oscillation is a astronomical oscillation, such as the ~10 year oscillation and the ~60 year oscillation and the other oscillations I am talking in my paper. And the temperature records shows the same oscillations.

    My argument is a perfectly valid argument, dear Leif, and it is supported by data analysis results.

    Your criticism appears in many cases to me to be just rooted in an “argumentum ad ignorantiam” which does not disprove anything.
    So, open your mind.

    I really wonder on which side you will be if we were living in the 16-17th century about the traditional aristotelian geocentric theory vs. the new heliocentric theory.
    Probably in the 16-17th century and before you would also have strongly denied that the ocean tides were caused by a lunar influence.

  330. This thread has been excellent to read. I commend the authors on their work and for discussing it in such an open way.

    I have to say that I think Willis has some very valid criticism, ones I don’t think have been sufficiently answered (yet).

    Why not use the *actual* cycle lengths instead of 20 years for each of them? Nicola says this is “good enough” for this purpose, but on what measure? If you don’t think it makes much difference, then at least show that.

    If it does make a difference that could strengthen your argument. If it fits better using the actual cycle lengths, surely that wil only strengthen your claims?

  331. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:03 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    I think you are getting way too bogged down in the detail Willis. The important thrust of this paper in my view is that a quasi 60 year cycle (measured over 400 years) related to solar velocity correlates with the PDO and temperature trends. The authors are well aware there are some gaps which need to be taken up by solar forcing (and lack thereof) which is still yet to be done.

    I would like to test the velocity data over longer timeframes and have offered Nicola assistance if he so wishes. If the longer term data pans out we may produce something together that ties in the complete picture.

    Let me see if I understand what you are saying. There is a cycle which is somewheres around sixty years in the temperature data. There is also a cycle which is somewheres around sixty years in the solar data.

    OK … I guess I still don’t get it. Why is that important, particularly since the ~ 60 year cycle in temperature is large and visible in the record, while the ~ 60 year cycle in the barycentric velocity is small and not visible in the record.

    Geoff, what makes you think that the cycles are anything other than a coincidence, particularly when one is tiny and the other is large? Unlike my results with the HadCRUT3 data, which shows a strong peak at 60 years, my spectral analysis of the barycentric data shows only a very weak peak at 60 years. Do you find a strong peak there in the solar data?

    Regards,

    w.

  332. Whether you can determine longer period from the tiny time period of data we have doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    Why can’t people just realise that there is stuff we don’t know yet !!!

    To think that the climate can be, in any way, described by 2 or 3 or 4 or 5….. ‘regular’ cycles is really quite a ridiculous idea and speaks strong to a mathematical arrogance of some sort. And to then use those derived regular periods in an attempt to “prove” any sort of any AGW sensitivity value (to 2 dp no less) is basically even sillier.

    But if you REALLY want to think you can do this… then go for it !!!

    but don’t expect to be taken seriously.

  333. ps.. I’m sure that if you chose the “right” long period cycle you could show a sensitivity of 2 -3 degrees/century, and then by adjusting the period and amplitude a bit, derive a negative sensitivity.

  334. It’s time to get some sense into all this.
    All these cycles, as far as the climate is concerned, are irrelevant unless there is an extra energy input at a particular point along the cycles’ progress. All indications are that such input is insufficient to account for the extra thermal energy as reflected in the measured temperatures on decadal or century scale.
    So, why and how is the Earth warming or cooling?
    Earth receives certain amount of energy, up to ~ 40th parallel is greater than what is radiated back, but for the higher latitudes the ratio is reversed; it is obvious that the higher latitudes are supplied with the excess via oceanic currents. Currents are by no means constant, measured either by volume or velocity. More current volume (heat content) or higher velocity (less heat loss during the transport process) across middle latitudes will result in global warming. Reduction in these two parameters results in the excess of the equatorial heat being re-radiated back into space, instead of it being taken towards the poles; the result is global cooling.
    No solar variability need be present into the equation to explain simple process of global warming and cooling, just discover where and why the currents are affected, and that is precisely what I’ve researched. To my mild astonishment, or if you whish a great surprise, the process is very simple and results are more than satisfactory (considering simplicity of the approach) as seen here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AP.htm

    .

  335. Apologies. My last post was just an easier way than Craig & Nicola’s of getting the same tosh. It wasn’t what I set out to write but I diverted myself with a “brilliant idea” and had limited time, so stuffed up. I’ll pursue the original idea again and see if it holds water.

    SteveE – Telling me to search is not very convincing, suppose I find a few dozen places how do I know which were the ones you were referring to and which ones simply come up in the search but on time-consuming inspection turn out to be saying something else. You must know which item(s) you were referring to. Just post the link(s). That’s not exactly a big ask. No link = no credibility.

  336. SteveE says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:30 am

    “The product was commisioned by 3 major oil companies and was built on the back of a previous proprietary project. Since then other companies have commisioned proprietary studys. Weather you like it or not, major oil companies have been using climate models to predict source rock distribution and have been for several years.

    A link has been provided to a Fugro advert on its website. Fugro is a service company. Which 3 major oil companies? Do you work for Fugro? And did they just commission a project to try it out (a common occurence) or are they using it an ongoing way? Does it include CO2 in the models? You final sentence does not follow from the evidence supplied so far. Hearsay is not evidence.

  337. Friends:

    It seems that several people have misconstrued my post at July 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm. It was not a post about the unpredictability of stock exchanges but did use the precictability of stock markets as an illustration.

    I am pleased that Craig Loehle (in his post at July 26, 2011 at 9:21 am ) indicates that he did understand my point.

    I said:

    “Let us be clear, there are apparent cycles in the climate record. But it is not known whether or not
    (a) they are real (i.e. they are harmonic oscillations and/or forced effects of real phenomena)
    or
    (b) they are merely apparent (i.e. all varying data can be represented as a sies of oscillations).
    The best one can do with a chaotic (or quasi-chaotic) system is to identify a set of apparent oscillations and to extrapolate them. This can work for some time (as several stock market predictions have shown) but is prone to be misleading in the medium or long term (as all stock market predictions have shown).”

    My use of the stock market as illustration seems to have touched a nerve with some who have discussed the illustration and not the point. So, I write to clarify the matter.

    As several people have said (the first was Tilo Reber at July 26, 2011 at 10:25 am ), stock market trends are affected by responses of stock traders to those trends.
    So what? My point was that cycles may be ‘apparent’ and not ‘real’ in any time series of a complex system so they do not continue for long. Loehle and Scafetta have each agreed this point in posts they have made in this thread. And one reason an apparent cycle may cease is because the system has a feedback which destroys the cycle (human response is the feedback in the case of a stock market).

    But at any time one cannot know if a cycle remains, has ceased, or has or is altering. Therefore, the cause of an observed change to a time series of the system could be a completely natural alteration to one or more of the apparent cycles.

    Hence, it is an improbable assumption to ascribe such a change to AGW or anything else. Or, putting that another way, as my post said;

    “The Loehle and Scafetta method may work as a predictive method for the short-term but has high risk of being wrong in the longer term if no mechanisms governing its cycles are identified.
    And if the method is not predictive then it is an incorrect model. But an incorrect model cannot identify processes (e.g. AGW) that contribute to changes in the time series.
    Hence, I consider the analysis of Loehle and Scafetta to be interesting but should be subject to much caution until the cause(s) of its 60 and 20 year cycles are identified.”

    My post does not deny the usefulness of using apparent cycles to infer likely future climate behaviour in the short term. Indeed, I have done this myself, and I have published my prediction in several places including on WUWT.

    I hope what I tried to say is now clear.

    Richard

  338. 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.

  339. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 27, 2011 at 2:12 am
    There is a cycle which is somewheres around sixty years in the temperature data. There is also a cycle which is somewheres around sixty years in the solar data.
    OK … I guess I still don’t get it. Why is that important, particularly since the ~ 60 year cycle in temperature is large and visible in the record, while the ~ 60 year cycle in the barycentric velocity is small and not visible in the record.
    Geoff, what makes you think that the cycles are anything other than a coincidence, particularly when one is tiny and the other is large?

    Hi Willis, I don’t presume to reply either for Geoff or Nicola, because my own hypothesis differs from theirs in important respects, (though there is a lot of crossover), and they are here to reply for themselves anyway and Nicola has kind of answered your point in his response to Leif above. I just want to butt in to offer something else which might help with the issue quoted above.

    The same solar system oscillations which involve the timing of planetary orbits and solar activity also (IMO) lie behind the multidecadal changes in Earth’s length of day, and these are in phase with the oceanic oscillations seen in the SST records, PDO, AMO etc. Maybe the cause is the slowing down or speeding up of the Earth causes water to pile up against the sides of continents, producing cold upwelling. probably it’s more complex than that.

    These multidecadal trends in LOD are maybe amplifying the terrestrial response at that 60 year frequency.

    The first post on my blog posed the question:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/planetary-solar-climate-connection-found/

    Nicola Scafetta is a smart guy he knows this, we have conversed via email, but trying to introduce too many new ideas resting on as yet poorly quantified mechanisms in a single ground breaking paper is probably not a good plan if you want to get it published. I think you should see this as a ‘first foray’ to be followed up by many more studies. Hopefully these follow up studies will get published because they are referring to something already in the literature. This kind of bootstrapping has been long employed in many scientific fields. I see this paper as the Omaha beach head which will help the important study of cyclic phenomena to regain it’s rightful place in the body of peer reviewed science.

    best to you

    tb

  340. Jamie says:
    July 27, 2011 at 2:06 am
    “Why not use the *actual* cycle lengths instead of 20 years for each of them?”

    Because it has been already done in Scafetta 2010.
    “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970

  341. tallbloke says:
    “I think you should see this as a ‘first foray’ to be followed up by many more studies.”

    Exactly Tallbloke!

    The problem is that there are two kind of scientists. Those who are in the frontier science where there exists a mix of known and unknown things, and those who simply learn science from the textbooks and published papers written by others. Both categories are very respectable people, of course.

    But sometime the latter people think too much that science is about things already written in textbooks and fully understood, and never question their own understanding of the Nature because they do not look at the Nature at all for finding the answers, they look only at their textbooks and do not find the answers or find just wrong answers.

    The only big problem occur when the second category of scientists systematically use their “confirmation biases” to try to stop and delay the scientific development by abusing the peer review process of new papers.

    PS: note that just looking at a textbook or just looking at a “computer climate model” is exactly the same thing because “computer climate model” is an electronic version of a textbook content.

  342. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 27, 2011 at 2:12 am

    Geoff, what makes you think that the cycles are anything other than a coincidence, particularly when one is tiny and the other is large?

    The correlation is purely coincidence at present, and everyone has stated there is no mechanism. But a background trend in solar velocity that matches our ocean and temperature cycles cannot be dismissed without thorough investigation.

    Nicola and now Craig are moving down that path, the eventual outcome could be interesting.

  343. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “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.
    I tend to be more receptive to ideas that are supported by physics rather than by the “unknown” cosmic forces or processes you advocate. ”

    You are very welcome: have you ever heard a guy named: Johannes Kepler?

    Dear Leif, before Newton and the 17th century everybody, but a few people that reason like you, knew that the tides were raised by the moon. They did not need to wait Newton to reach that conclusion.

    This is from the Tetrabiblos of Ptolemy, chapter II
    “The Moon, being of all the heavenly bodies the nearest to the Earth, also dispenses much influence; … By the changes of her illumination (that is as she waxes and wanes), rivers swell and are reduced; the tides of the sea are ruled by her rising and setting; …”

    Who would have questioned Ptolemy in the 16th century on something that has been easily observed by any fisherman and peasants?

    Galileo tried, but he was ridiculed on that single point.

    People were not using the word “gravity”, but the concept that there was an “influence” was well believed.

    I simply hope that you are more open minded in particular when you express opinions on others’works in the anonymity.

  344. nicola scafetta says:
    July 27, 2011 at 4:47 am
    The problem is that there are two kind of scientists. Those who are in the frontier science where there exists a mix of known and unknown things, and those who simply learn science from the textbooks and published papers written by others. Both categories are very respectable people, of course.
    There are actually three kinds. You forgot the crackpots. Even those can be very respectable. Arthur Eddington comes to mind. In a lecture in 1938 he said “I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe and the same number of electrons”

  345. Guest post by Craig Loehle and Nicolas Scafetta

    “The climate change attribution problem was addressed using empirical decomposition. Previously observed cycles in solar motion and activity of 60 and 20 years were used to develop an empirical model of Earth temperature variations. The model was fit to the Hadley global temperature data up to 1950 (the time period before anthropogenic (GHG+Aerosol) emissions became a significant forcing mechanism), and then extrapolated from 1951 to 2010 (Fig. 1A)“

    Because it is well known that the movement of the sun is related to each individual body movement and all body movements we can find this dynamics in the complex path of the sun around the barycenter.

    The very point, if one takes a single temperature frequency of ~1/60 years into account that can be found by FFT, is that he takes a well known synodic tide couple of Uranus and Pluto into account.

    This has some impacts. i.) Because of the elliptic nature of Pluto the synodic period is not constant and differs over the time. ii.) If one takes this synodic tide into a model, than it must be synchronized to the real time phase. iii.) This couple is not the only couple which exhibits FFT peaks in the temperature spectrum. There are 8 or more valid, each has its very own power amplitude.

    As I have shown several times in this thread, the global temperature function can simulated with some 1, 5 or 8 couples using the power of the FFT spectra. Doing this it seems that there is not really an effect of the CO2 visible.

    Either the variable heat load to the Earth comes from the sun, then the global warming is natural, or the variable heat comes from the CO2, then the global warming is home made.

    You cannot take variable synodic tide heat sources from the sun to explain then that the heat boom on Earth since 1951 is home made.

    FFT is a great tool, but because it transfers all elliptic functions in sine function the real nature of the tide heat function is hard to simulate out of this sine functions. For this it is better to make an absolute subtraction from the real longitudes of the couples out of the NASA ephemerides.

    Fitting the couples empiric it seems that mostly neighbors do tide effects on the sun surface. But Uranus and Pluto are not neighbors.

    As you can see also the tide effects of the neighbors Mercury and Venus + Venus and Earth as summing part in the GHI 6 (six couples) are in coincidence with the Hadcrut3 data.

  346. You forgot the crackpots. Even those can be very respectable. Arthur Eddington comes to mind.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington

    I hope the kind moderator will allow this list of quotes, not that some are very apt to the thread, but a source of lasting wisdom.

    Arthur Eddington Quotes
    – Every body continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, except insofar as it doesn’t.
    – If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters, they might write all the books in the British Museum.
    – If your theory is found to be against the second law of theromodynamics, I give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
    – It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory.
    – It is even possible that laws which have not their origin in the mind may be irrational, and we can never succeed in formulating them.
    – It is impossible to trap modern physics into predicting anything with perfect determinism because it deals with probabilities from the outset.
    – It is one thing for the human mind to extract from the phenomena of nature the laws which it has itself put into them; it may be a far harder thing to extract laws over which it has no control.
    – It is sound judgment to hope that in the not too distant future we shall be competent to understand so simple a thing as a star.
    – Oh leave the Wise our measures to collate. One thing at least is certain, light has weight. – One thing is certain and the rest debate. Light rays, when near the Sun, do not go straight.
    – Probably the simplest hypothesis… is that there may be a slow process of annihilation of matter.
    – Proof is an idol before whom the pure mathematician tortures himself.
    – Shuffling is the only thing which Nature cannot undo.
    – Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.
    – The mathematics is not there till we put it there.
    – The quest of the absolute leads into the four-dimensional world.
    – We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown.
    – We have found that where science has progressed the farthest, the mind has but regained from nature that which the mind put into nature.
    – We often think that when we have completed our study of one we know all about two, because “two” is “one and one.” We forget that we still have to make a study of “and.”
    – We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding that we must learn a great deal more about ‘and’.
    – Who will observe the observers?

  347. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 27, 2011 at 5:29 am
    There are actually three kinds. You forgot the crackpots.

    I often think the reason why the Italians managed to pioneer so many scientiic fields and record breaking technological developments is because they have a healthy disregard for the rules of convention. Think Enrico Fermi, Galileo Galilei, Antonio Meucci, Raffaele Bendandi, Leno Tonti.

  348. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    July 27, 2011 at 6:42 am
    I hope the kind moderator will allow this list of quotes, not that some are very apt to the thread, but a source of lasting wisdom.

    Arthur Eddington Quotes

    – It is sound judgment to hope that in the not too distant future we shall be competent to understand so simple a thing as a star. Classic!

    – Oh leave the Wise our measures to collate. One thing at least is certain, light has weight. – One thing is certain and the rest debate. Light rays, when near the Sun, do not go straight.

    This one is a pastiche of a verse from the Rubayat of Omar Kayam:

    Oh, come with old Khayyam, and leave the Wise

    To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies;

    One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies;

    The Flower that once has blown for ever dies.

    There are some great verses in that poem, some of which are apt to our consideration of forces in the solar system:

    For in and out, above, about, below,

    ‘Tis nothing but a Magic Shadow-show,

    Play’d in a Box whose Candle is the Sun,

    Round which we Phantom Figures come and go.

    http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/okhym.htm

  349. 1) This is not “settled science” it is a hypothesis. When wegener proposed continental drift he could not explain it. Even when sea floor spreading data became available, it was not possible to “explain” fully what was going on. The 60 yr cycle in Earth climate is too pervasive to simply dismiss.
    2) The claim that the historical 100 yrs data to 1950 are too short to detect a 60 yr cycle is false — see appendix a in supplemental info. A reviewer already made that objection. Whether the characterization is precise enough will be a matter of purpose and judgement.
    3) Willis complaint that we are not responsive is curious. He seems to have been up all night, but I slept. Further, the questions he is asking would take a week to address. I can answer the following questions however: a) If you follow the procedure we used of splitting the data at 1950 but allow a freeform fit, the cycles come out very close to 60 and 20 yrs and the result is very similar. b) the cycle lengths are fixed by our assumption that solar system dynamics has an influence, so there are fewer params to fit than you imply. c) All other methods of attempting attribution do some sort of time-split or base attribution on a climate model (which seems circular to us). These other methods also introduce all sorts of assumptions such as that they can properly subtract the effects of volcanos and ENSO (how many params does that introduce?), whereas we have very few assumptions (as we noted in the text).
    4) Because we worked with simple models, everyone assumes they instantly understood our paper. The comments here suggest otherwise.
    5) Yes, we confess, this is an empirical relationship. It is a better empirical relationship than the GCMs produce and our model projection from 1950 clearly forecast the flattening of temperatures after 2000.
    6) Angry comments only indicate that you are angry, not that you are right. We may be wrong, but at least (as Willis shows) others can check our work.

  350. Nicola Scafetta and Craig Loehle:

    I would be obliged if one of you were to answer a point I made at July 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm and clarified at July 27, 2011 at 3:33 am where I wrote;

    “But at any time one cannot know if a cycle remains, has ceased, or has or is altering. Therefore, the cause of an observed change to a time series of the system could be a completely natural alteration to one or more of the apparent cycles.

    Hence, it is an improbable assumption to ascribe such a change to AGW or anything else.”

    I did notice that Craig Loehle responded to another of my points when he wrote at July 26, 2011 at 9:21 am saying;
    “Several comments addressed the complexity of cycles (longer ones, etc) such as Richard Courtney and Mike Jonas. Yes of course. Much more study needed here. The GCM people have billion dollar budgets and huge teams. Nicola and I do not. I don’t even get full time on this. We hope we have stirred up thoughts and improved on some past analyses.”

    I acknowledged this (in my post at July 27, 2011 at 3:33 am) and I appreciate it (especially because I agree with it), but it does not mention my more substantive point concerning atribution of an apparent change in the cyclicity of the time series to AGW.

    In my opinion, the fact that this atribution is an improbable assumption is a fundamental objection to your method, but it seems you have not noticed this point in either of my two posts. So, I again restate it by saying the cycles may have varied such as to increase or diminish any change to the assumed effect of AGW and, therefore, your estimate of climate sensitivity is erroneous for the same reason that all such atribution studies in the IPCC AR4 are erroneous.

    Hence, I would be grateful to learn your rebuttal of my point.

    Richard

  351. Richard S Courtney says:
    “But at any time one cannot know if a cycle remains, has ceased, or has or is altering. Therefore, the cause of an observed change to a time series of the system could be a completely natural alteration to one or more of the apparent cycles. Hence, it is an improbable assumption to ascribe such a change to AGW or anything else.”

    Predicting the future with absolute precision is not easy for anybody. The 60-year modulation is seen in proxies since 1700 and before. So, it is reasonable to think that it will still be present in the future.

    It is not possible to state with absolute precision whether the amplitude of this 60-year oscillation will stay the same, will increase or will decrease. In such a situation the simplest thing that can be done is simply to assume that it remains the same in a first approximation, which is our first approximation assumption.

  352. tallbloke says:
    July 27, 2011 at 6:45 am
    I often think the reason why the Italians managed to pioneer so many scientiic fields and record breaking technological developments …
    With all due respect to Nicola, the planetary theory is not new or pioneering, nor a breakthrough in any way, but seems just to be a rehash of Brown’s work from 1900: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1900MNRAS-Brown-Sunspot-Tides.pdf (and the same idea has occurred to many others over the times). Perhaps a difference is that Brown’s paper is clearly written and easier to understand and does not invoke additional “unknown” cosmic forces.

  353. Nicola Scafetta:

    I write to offer sincere thanks for the answer you provide at July 27, 2011 at 8:09 am to my repeated question.

    For your information, I accept that you are making an assumption but I do not agree the assumption is valid. One of us will be proved to be right (at least to some degree) by whatever happens in the future.

    And I agree it is very reasonable to observe patterns (in this case, cycles) in data then to evaluate them and any possible causes of them: such is the basis of all good science.

    Thanks for your work and for your willingness to discuss comments on it.

    Richard

  354. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “With all due respect to Nicola, the planetary theory is not new or pioneering, nor a breakthrough in any way, but seems just to be a rehash of Brown’s work from”

    With all due respect to Leif and to Brow, the planetary theory of climate change is as old as the civilizations are. The fact that so many scientists have found it interesting along hystory implies that it just needs to be properly explored without improper comments.

    Those you are not interested in it, can spend their time doing something else, for example, running AGW GCMs assuring them that the Earth will soon become like Venus.

  355. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:32 am

    With all due respect to Nicola, the planetary theory is not new or pioneering, nor a breakthrough in any way,

    With all due respect I am not sure you are qualified to make such a judgement. To make a judgement requires at least a basic knowledge of the theory, which you admit you do not have.

    One test of this knowledge is still waiting for you;

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/216

  356. nicola scafetta says:
    July 27, 2011 at 9:57 am
    With all due respect to Leif and to Brown, the planetary theory of climate change is as old as the civilizations are. The fact that so many scientists have found it interesting along hystory implies that it just needs to be properly explored without improper comments.
    Since you claim that climate change [except the recent AGW that you now claim is due to man] is due to solar cycles, those are the ones I focus on as being the purported causes. This subject has been properly explored for 150 years and found wanting.

    running AGW GCMs assuring them that the Earth will soon become like Venus.
    You yourself claim that man is responsible for the recent warming

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 27, 2011 at 9:59 am
    With all due respect I am not sure you are qualified to make such a judgement. To make a judgement requires at least a basic knowledge of the theory, which you admit you do not have.

    Several ‘theories’ have been proposed [e.g. tidal ones, magnetic ones, meteor streams, volcanoes inside the sun, etc]. Those I have in-depth knowledge of. Your ‘mechanism’ is not a theory, and indeed you have failed to present it in a way that can be assessed, by me or any other knowledgeable person. Not even Scafetta would believe that there is exchange of angular momentum between planets and the sun’s spin as this is violation of physical laws, as Shirley so clearly demonstrates: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRAS.pdf

  357. Willis wrote: PS – the use of cyclical models brings in an under-appreciated problem. This is that the autocorrelation of smooth cyclical curves is so high that it is very difficult to establish statistical significance. See the description of the method of Quenouille for the calculations involved.

    In “Introduction to Statistical Time Series”, Fuller shows that the cyclical representation of a stationary time series may be transformed into an autoregressive representation, and an autoregressive representation can be transformed into a cyclical representation. With one or a few observational data sets, it is therefore impossible to determine empirically (and hence an empty question) which representation describes “reality”. Or, to put it differently, they both describe “reality” equally well. Carefully designed and executed interventional experiments are required to determine which representation is best (e.g. most accurate with the same number of estimated parameters.) To take one representation as the “null hypothesis” and test the statistical significance of the other depends on the completely arbitrary choice of which representation to take as “null”: with an adequate estimate of one model, the residuals are uncorrelated and the other model is not statistically significant.

    Paraphrasing John Tukey, Loehle and Scafetta have provided an approximate answer to the right question: if the observed time series is the sum of a stationary process and a non-stationary process, what mathematical representation can you devise for the two processes; how do they predict the future (and how well, which is yet to be determined); and what computations can be derived relevant to important other theories (e.g. the “climate sensitivity”)?

    You have shown that their work is not perfect. Now you have to evaluate whether it is any good, for example, whether it might be used to inform the design of future experiments. On the whole, it looks worthwhile. Its long term accuracy will be known in the long term. In the short-term (and long-term), scientists will evaluate potential mechanisms for the observed cyclicity of the stationary part of their model.

  358. Leif Svalgaard says:

    Spin orbit coupling is one possible mechanism, is that the best you can do?

    You still have no knowledge on the topic of angular momentum theory which is one aspect of planetary theory.

  359. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 27, 2011 at 10:40 am
    Spin orbit coupling is one possible mechanism, is that the best you can do?
    As Shirley shows, spin-orbit coupling is not a physically possible mechanism. It seems to be the best you can do.

    You still have no knowledge on the topic of angular momentum theory which is one aspect of planetary theory.
    You theory is of the category ‘not even wrong’, so cannot be reasonably discussed. And I have studied your various utterings on AM over several years, and, you are correct: they don’t make any sense and cannot be said to form a body of knowledge.

  360. Bart (July 27, 2011 at 12:16 am):

    When you imply that the goodness of a model’s predictions can be assessed from a sample of a size that is less than or equal to 2, it sounds as though you are a believer in the law of small numbers.

  361. Leif Svalgaard says: “This subject has been properly explored for 150 years and found wanting.”

    Dear Leif, be patient !

    Perhaps you should start to encourage people and give them the possibility to develop a proper theory. Perhaps, you may also give some contribution to it too ! :)

    Start by respecting the others’ work and ideas even if you may not fully agree to them yet. Start accepting the idea that new things can be discovered, and, most importantly, do not demoralize people with an improper and dishonest behavior.

  362. nicola scafetta says @ July 27, 2011 at 5:25 am:

    This is from the Tetrabiblos of Ptolemy, chapter II
    “The Moon, being of all the heavenly bodies the nearest to the Earth, also dispenses much influence; … By the changes of her illumination (that is as she waxes and wanes), rivers swell and are reduced; the tides of the sea are ruled by her rising and setting; …”
    </blockquote.
    Interestingly (to me at least), I have just been reading a 1620 translation of one of Seneca's 1st century works, where he is making the argument that the observer sees no cause in the tides,—among other events—but still there is one:

    Iam vero si quis observaverit nudari litora pelago in se recedente eademque intra exiguum tempus operiri, credet caeca quadam volutatione modo contrahi undas et introrsum agi, modo erumpere et magno cursu repetere sedem suam: cum interim illae portionibus crescunt et ad horam ac diem subeunt ampliores minoresque, prout illas lunare sidus elicuit, ad cuius arbitrium oceanns exundat.—Seneca, Ad Lucilium De Providentia.

    Furthermore, if a man will observe it, how the sea-shores upon the ebb of the waters, become naked and discovered; and how anon after, upon the flood, the waters return and cover them again, he will believe that by a certain blind volutation, the waves are contracted and buried one within another, sometimes enlarged, and with swift streams return into their bed. Although, in truth, they increase by little and little, and at a certain day & hours become more great and small, according to the estate & disposition of the Moon, which causeth the flux and reflux of the sea.—Seneca, Discourse on Providence (trans.Thomas Lodge, 1620).

    OK S.

  363. Terry Oldberg: if one has timeseries data without noise, even part of a cycle length (eg. 20 yrs for a 60 yr cycle) is sufficient to get perfect parameter estimates for a sin wave (try it). The more noise there is the longer data series is needed. 100 years of data is not a sample <2 for a 60 yr cycle if you use nonlinear least squares estimation.

  364. yes, OK S.

    it was extremely well known to everybody that the tides were induced by the moon.
    People did not need “Newton” to know it. People were just looking at the Nature.

    Today, instead, many people (for example, Leif) believe that science is just to look in a textbook for mechanisms and believe that first Newton came with his gravitational theory and only after people realized that the tides were induced by the Moon, just because that is the order in which these things are written in their textbooks!

    Newton too was looking at the Nature when he proposed his gravitational law, he did not get it from a textbook :)

  365. nicola scafetta says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:06 am
    Perhaps you should start to encourage people and give them the possibility to develop a proper theory. Perhaps, you may also give some contribution to it too ! :)
    Scientists will migrate to a field where there is promise of progress, so far nothing solid has emerged. I have in the past (1970s) had a small part in reviving the field of sun-weather-climate research, see e.g.

    Solar Magnetic Sector Structure: Relation to Circulation of the Earth’s Atmosphere
    Wilcox, John M.; Scherrer, Philip H.; Svalgaard, Leif; Roberts, Walter Orr; Olson, Roger H.
    Science, Volume 180, Issue 4082, pp. 185-186

    Influence of Solar Magnetic Sector Structure on Terrestrial Atmospheric Vorticity.
    Wilcox, John M.; Scherrer, Philip H.; Svalgaard, Leif; Roberts, Walter Orr; Olson, Roger H.; Jenne, Roy L.
    Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 31, Issue 2, pp.581-588

    Seasonal variation and magnitude of the solar sector structure-atmospheric vorticity effect
    Wilcox, J. M.; Svalgaard, L.; Scherrer, P. H.
    Nature, vol. 255, June 12, 1975, p. 539, 540.

    Intensity of tropospheric circulation associated with solar magnetic sector boundary transits
    Wilcox, J. M.; Scherrer, P. H.; Svalgaard, L.
    Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, vol. 41, June 1979, p. 657-659.

    Unfortunately, the field died at the end of the 1970s as more data became available…

    Start by respecting the others’ work and ideas even if you may not fully agree to them yet.
    Their work must be judged on its merit. One will tend to agree with solid findings and disagree with flimsy work. Respect has to be earned.

    Start accepting the idea that new things can be discovered,
    There is nothing new in the sun-climate field. Even your own work on tidally induced solar cycles was already done by Brown 111 years ago.

    do not demoralize people with an improper and dishonest behavior.
    Junk has to be discouraged and opposed whenever it appears. The ‘improper’ and ‘dishonest’ behavior you accuse me of, I take as offensive and unbecoming, but I guess that we have different standards…

  366. nicola scafetta says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:49 am
    Today, instead, many people (for example, Leif) believe that science is just to look in a textbook for mechanisms
    Sometimes it helps to look in textbooks to learn a bit about the physics. Try it.
    But, it is one thing to surmise that the moon causes something [it was also thought that the moon caused mental illnesses – lunacy]. That is not a theory or science. Only when Newton produced his explanation of the tides, did it become science.

    And you are very wrong about me and textbooks. Most of my work is contrary to textbooks and traditional, mainstream science. Just check out my website http://www.leif.org/research
    A good example is http://www.leif.org/research/History%20and%20Calibration%20of%20Sunspot%20Numbers.pdf

  367. Terry Oldberg says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:01 am

    “When you imply that the goodness of a model’s predictions can be assessed from a sample of a size that is less than or equal to 2, it sounds as though you are a believer in the law of small numbers.”

    Terry, Your arbitrary declaration that there are effectively only two independent measurements of a two cycle process in a given span of time makes an assumption of arbitrary process variability which is rarely observed in the real world. Quasi-cyclical processes are ubiquitous in this universe for reasons which are solidly grounded in theory and observation. They have a uniformity and regularity which make them amenable to observation and estimation, i.e., they are very generally stationary processes which are predictably correlated in time. It is elementary to model such processes, initialize the model with a priori data, and propagate it into the future with associated uncertainty bounds.

  368. Dear Leif Svalgaard,
    please. Control your fury.

    You did not even known that before Newton everybody already knew that the tides were induced by the Moon.

    Just be more humble and more respectful.

    If you are able to properly confute a proposed theory, you have plenty of resourses to do it in the proper way in the open scientific debate with valid and objective arguments by writing a proper comment/rebuttal. That is the right way to show to everybody that a proposed theory is wrong, so everybody will see it and move on.

  369. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 27, 2011 at 10:18 am

    “Not even Scafetta would believe that there is exchange of angular momentum between planets and the sun’s spin as this is violation of physical laws…”

    Someone better tell the Moon.

    Not that I am taking the side of people who think motions of the planets affect the dynamics of the Sun. I find it unlikely, but as far as I am concerned, the whole question is a moot exercise in navel gazing. We know the ~20 year and ~60 year processes exist. Take it as axiomatic, and move on.

  370. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “Only when Newton produced his explanation of the tides, did it become science.”

    Beside the fact that scientists before Newton did not think in that way.

    Tell me, Leif, which physical explanation did Newton himself produce to explain the origin of his force of gravity?

    It was not, by any chance, that Newton did not give any “explanation” for his force of gravity and the only thing that he could do is to show that it empirically agreed with the ancient lunar/tidal theory and with the three laws of Kepler?

  371. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 27, 2011 at 10:18 am
    “Several ‘theories’ have been proposed [e.g. tidal ones, magnetic ones, meteor streams, volcanoes inside the sun, etc]. Those I have in-depth knowledge of. ”

    Words.

    Done

  372. nicola scafetta says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    which physical explanation did Newton himself produce to explain the origin of his force of gravity?

    He was too busy rolling around under the apple tree with Nell Gwynn.

    Craig is right. Mud wrestling with Leif is fun, but unproductive. Leif will be happy enough to disrupt this valuable thread with his nonsense until everyone loses interest when it falls off the bottom of the topic list in a couple of days.

    Lets discuss the ‘coincidence’ of 60 year cycles of the Sun relative to the COM and 60 year cycles in LOD instead. Seems likely they both have a common underlying cause, so did you think any more about Vuk’s idea concerning the Jupiter Saturn conjunctions towards the forward moving part of the heliopause?

  373. Richard S Courteny said to Nicola Scafetta (and presumably Craig Loehle) : “Thanks for your work and for your willingness to discuss comments on it.“.

    Seconded.

    Craig – I followed up your “The claim that the historical 100 yrs data to 1950 are too short to detect a 60 yr cycle is false — see appendix a in supplemental info.“, and accept that at a basic “first estimate” level you have a case. However, I would think that the variations from one cycle to the next might be large enough to render your conclusions meaningless. I am thinking for example of solar cycles, where even after a few centuries it is just a guessing game with occasional large errors. It would be interesting to see (1) how 50-year projections from 100-year base periods fare on the solar cycle, (2) whether the CET (Central England Temperature) record confirms the 60-year cycle, and (3) if so, how 50-year projections from 100-year base periods fare on the CET.

  374. This is a very modest analysis with modest goals and seems sensible. No one can predict the future of course, but that said, this seems to put reasonable bounds on how a stable system would behave. Good job, IMO.

  375. Craig and Tallbloke,

    you are right. When somebody arrives to twist history and clear historical facts to support his own understanding of how science progress and how it is understood by historian and philosophers, it is useless to take him in consideration.

    Leif has always written several hundred comments criticizing my research during these last years, but he has never produced a single formal comment/rebuttal to my research in a scientific journal. So, I just invite Leif to make his criticism formal, if he believes that it is valid. So that we can discuss it in the proper forum.

    About Vuk’s idea concerning the Jupiter Saturn conjunctions towards the forward moving part of the heliopause, as I said it is an interesting idea that may well fit another idea that I add to explain the phenomenon. But I cannot talk about it now. Hopefully, we will have another occasion to discuss it extensively.

    About the 60 year cycles in the LOD, I talked about it in my 2010 paper. My current opinion, however is that LOD oscillation may be a consequence of the climate oscillation, more than vice versa. But the issue is open.

  376. Mosher and Leif (both computer illiterates) are whining which only means this papers must be excellent, thus I must read it. Thanks for the confirmation!

  377. nicola scafetta says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:39 pm
    You did not even known that before Newton everybody already knew that the tides were induced by the Moon.
    They didn’t know, it was supposition.
    Only after Newton provided the theory, did we know.

    Just be more humble and more respectful.
    As I said, respect has to be earned.

    If you are able to properly confute a proposed theory, you have plenty of resourses to do it in the proper way in the open scientific debate with valid and objective arguments by writing a proper comment/rebuttal.
    Which theory? There are several floating around. And they are themselves incompatible. And most have been refuted already, e.g. by deJager, by Shirley, etc. Now, there is merit in writing a comprehensive review, although ‘Rise and Fall of the First Solar Theory’ by Paul Charbonneau goes a long way already. Most scientists are preoccupied with trying to advance the field, not with debunking dubious claims. And the true believers would not be converted anyway. Try to convince a flat-earther that the earth round or a young-earth creationist that the earth is billions of years old or a big-bang denier that the universe is expanding or that PV = RT is a perversion invented by AGW proponents. All are impervious to reason.

    That is the right way to show to everybody that a proposed theory is wrong, so everybody will see it and move on.
    No, the believers will not move on.

    Bart says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:41 pm
    Someone better tell the Moon.
    The moon has a couple to the Earth, namely the tides and the friction resulting from those. Those changes are irreversible . This is not the mechanism the Angular Momentum crowd are advocating.

    Craig Loehle says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    Leif and Nicola: there is no resolution to your present debate, which seems to be about metascience and expertise.
    It doesn’t look like a debate, but rather like a barrage of accusations of dishonesty and improper behavior. And, you are correct, that does not seem to be ending.

    nicola scafetta says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    Tell me, Leif, which physical explanation did Newton himself produce to explain the origin of his force of gravity?
    If you don’t know, then let me enlighten you: he said in 1713 “hypotheses non fingo”

    Volker Doormann says:
    July 27, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JGRA..11501104S

    We have reconstructed the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), its radial component, and the open solar magnetic flux using the solar modulation potential derived from cosmogenic 10Be radionuclide data for a period covering the past 9300 years. Reconstructions using the assumption of both constant and variable solar wind speeds yielded closely similar results. During the Maunder Minimum, the strength of the IMF was approximately 2 nT compared to a mean value of 6.6 nT for the past 40 years, corresponding to an increase of the open solar magnetic flux of about 350%. We examine four cycles of the Hallstatt periodicity in the IMF with a mean period of ˜2250 years and an amplitude of ˜0.75 nT. Grand solar minima have largely occurred in clusters during the Hallstatt cycle minima around the years -5300, -3400, -1100, and +1500 A.D. The last cluster includes the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer minima. We predict that the next such cluster will occur in about 1500 years…”

  378. nicola scafetta says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    the only thing that Newton could do is to show that it empirically agreed with the ancient lunar/tidal theory and with the three laws of Kepler

    No that is [to use your words] twisting of history. Newton did much more than just the curve fitting you advocate. He deduced mathematically and quantitatively Kepler’s laws from a few general principles and connected things that were not thought to be related, like the tides with gravity and the flattening [1/298] of the Earth. That was real science. No wonder that we consider Newton the greatest of them all.

    And about refuting planetary influences: for many ‘theories’ it suffices to point out that the Sun is in free fall and therefore does not feel any effects from its velocity or acceleration, just as a man in an elevator with a broken cable accelerates towards his fate without [on the way] feeling anything [except that he is weightless] and the astronaut in orbit also in free fall being weightless and not feeling his speed or acceleration [he changes direction all the time, hence accelerates constantly]. But, no, proponents don’t know enough basic physics and deny the free fall fact, so, as I said, objective, scientific rebuttal is impossible [and not necessary – just as it is not necessary to prove in learned journals that the moon is not made of green cheese]. One can only hope that our peer-review system [as flawed as it is] can keep the scientific literature relatively clean of pseudo-science, although some such papers do slip through. Fortunately, most scientists are not impressed and simply ignore the bad stuff.

  379. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 27, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    “This is not the mechanism the Angular Momentum crowd are advocating.”

    Well, that’s the only kind available so, if they’re suggesting something other than tidal forces, you and I are in agreement. You cannot detect changes in orbit velocity locally, ergo it can have no physical effect in and of itself. The website given doesn’t really say clearly what it is they have in mind.

  380. Leif – about the sun being in freefall: Wouldn’t it be logical that (1) Earth is in freefall yet it has tides, so it follows that changing gravitational forces from planetary movements could (logically) have an effect on the sun’s internals, and (2) because Earth and the sun are at different locations within the solar system they receive different such forces, thus the sun’s influence on Earth could (logically) be affected. Or isn’t that what is being argued about?

  381. Lief is becoming famous as is his want I’m guessing, stir it up and the AGW crowd will love you…it will get you more co-authored work maybe? At least notoriety.

  382. Bart says:
    July 27, 2011 at 7:13 pm
    Well, that’s the only kind available so, if they’re suggesting something other than tidal forces, you and I are in agreement. You cannot detect changes in orbit velocity locally, ergo it can have no physical effect in and of itself. The website given doesn’t really say clearly what it is they have in mind.
    It is not tidal. Some of them claim that Uranus and Neptune are the true decider and are controlling the Grand Minima. The tidal effects from Uranus and Neptune are negligible.

    Poptech says:
    July 27, 2011 at 7:59 pm
    Leif, can a computer climate model be programmed to get the results that you want?
    Any program can be written to get the results one wants, but then the program may not be a true model of reality. So, if a model is constructed to mimic [‘model’] reality [or some good approximation thereof] it will do just that, regardless of want you want. Bottom line: if the model is correctly constructed and correctly programmed, the answer is ‘no’.

    Mike Jonas says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:14 pm
    follows that changing gravitational forces from planetary movements could (logically) have an effect on the sun’s internals, and (2) because Earth and the sun are at different locations within the solar system they receive different such forces, thus the sun’s influence on Earth could (logically) be affected. Or isn’t that what is being argued about?
    Indeed the tides are available to influence the bodies. The tidal effect of the Moon on the Earth is 540 mm [millimeter of which there are 25.4 to an inch. The tidal effect of Jupiter on the Sun is more than a thousand times smaller.

    edwardt says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:50 pm
    Leif is becoming famous as is his want I’m guessing, stir it up and the AGW crowd will love you…it will get you more co-authored work maybe? At least notoriety.
    They too hate me. You see, the AGW crowd need the solar connection to explain climate variation before ~1950.

  383. Mike Jonas says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    Mike – the tides come about because of the decrease in gravitational force as the inverse square of distance. The oceans bulge out because the water is closer to the Moon than the greater mass of the Earth, and is therefore being pulled more strongly toward it. So, yes, you could get tidal forces affecting the Sun internally. But, being an effect of the gravity gradient, it falls off as the inverse cube of distance. We’re talking assuredly tiny effects here.

    In thinking this over, I did notice one possibility that we can mull over collectively here. The Sun does have a powerful magnetic field, and the Lorentz force acting on a charged particle does have a velocity dependent term, F = charge times cross product of relative velocity and magnetic flux density (F = q*(V X B) ). Could such an effect be significant in modulating cosmic ray penetration, affecting cloud cover ala Svensmark? I haven’t made even back of the envelope calculations to see if there is anything to this idea. I’ll just toss it out there and let everyone look it over.

  384. Leif Svalgaard says:

    Poptech says: “Leif, can a computer climate model be programmed to get the results that you want?”
    Any program can be written to get the results one wants, but then the program may not be a true model of reality. So, if a model is constructed to mimic [‘model’] reality [or some good approximation thereof] it will do just that, regardless of want you want. Bottom line: if the model is correctly constructed and correctly programmed, the answer is ‘no’.

    If all the models “modeled” reality they would all give identical results that could be empirically verified.

    So you agree all the models are incorrect and do not model reality.

    How do you objectively determine if a model is a “good approximation of reality”?

    How do you objectively determine if a model is “correctly” constructed and “correctly” programmed?

  385. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 27, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    It is not tidal. Some of them claim that Uranus and Neptune are the true decider and are controlling the Grand Minima. The tidal effects from Uranus and Neptune are negligible.

    Once again you are displaying you lack of knowledge in this area. Uranus and Neptune tidal forces have never been used a a solar driver of any kind.

    But let us have a look at the quasi 60 year cycle that is instrumental in the paper we are discussing. That 60 year wave in solar velocity is totally created from the gravitation effects from Uranus and Neptune. Without the 2 outer planets there would be no wave (and perhaps no PDO?).

    Perhaps you could argue against that?

  386. We don’t hate you Leif, we just think you are wrong regarding the effects of planetary orbits and masses on the Sun.

    The Moon-Earth Barycentre is constantly below the Earth’s surface (1300km IIRC). The constantly changing Solar System Barycentre varies from being just ‘the other side’ of the solar core to a solar radius outside the Sun’s surface, introducing rapidly changing accelerations from planetary bodies at varying latitudes and longitudes around the Solar body. This is a very different situation to the two body Earth-Moon situation. You are correct that the tides raised by planets on the solar surface are low in vertical amplitude. However, we need to be mindful that the solar material is subjected to very high surface gravity, and so we would expect forces to spread horizontally to a much greater degree than seen on Earth.

    Newton knew his equations of motion and kinematics applied to idealised bodies with perfect elasticity. The Sun is not a perfectly elastic body, the layer which we see has differential speeds of rotation which vary both from each other and with respect to time. There are peer reviewed papers in the literature which empirically derive a linkage between the variations in the speed of rotation of various latitudinal bands and the motion of the Sun with respect to the SSB. These observations are indicative of a spin-orbit coupling caused by planetary motion.

    Furthermore the Sun has a large amount of convected matter and radiated energy flowing outwards from its core. NASA scientists Wolff and Patrone
    “derive a perturbation inside a rotating star that occurs when the star is accelerated by orbiting bodies. If a fluid element has rotational and orbital components of angular momentum with respect to the inertially fixed point of a planetary system that are of opposite sign, then the element may have potential energy that could be released by a suitable flow. We demonstrate the energy with a very simple model in which two fluid elements of equal mass exchange positions, calling to mind a turbulent field or natural convection.

    The exchange releases potential energy that, with a minor exception, is available only in the hemisphere facing the barycenter of the planetary system. We calculate its strength and spatial distribution for the strongest case (“vertical”) and for weaker horizontal cases whose motions are all perpendicular to gravity. The vertical cases can raise the kinetic energy of a few well positioned convecting elements in the Sun’s envelope by a factor ≤ 7. This is the first physical mechanism by which planets can have a nontrivial effect on internal solar motions.”

    [My bold]

    Solar Phys (2010) 266: 227–246
    DOI 10.1007/s11207-010-9628-y

    A New Way that Planets Can Affect the Sun
    Charles L. Wolff · Paul N. Patrone
    Received: 5 May 2010 / Accepted: 16 August 2010 / Published online: 18 September 2010

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/wolff-and-patrone-a-new-way-that-planets-can-affect-the-sun/

    You Leif, have claimed on this site on several occasions that Wolff and Patrone do not posit a mechanism. I believe you have misconcieved what they mean when they refer to ‘Potential energy’ as being simply ‘gravitational potential energy’. I think you have neglected or misconstrued the importance of the energy being radiated and convected from the solar core against solar gravity. I join Nicola Scafetta in calling for a properly written formal rebuttal of Wolff and Patrone from you, rather than the high handed dismissals you have offered here, backed with your coffee table encyclopedia understanding of Newton and your expertise in programming AS400 computers. If you continue to say that such theory requires no rebuttal because “it’s not even wrong”, then you merely demonstrate the vacuity of your own position.

  387. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:01 am

    “The constantly changing Solar System Barycentre varies from being just ‘the other side’ of the solar core to a solar radius outside the Sun’s surface, introducing rapidly changing accelerations from planetary bodies at varying latitudes and longitudes around the Solar body.”

    But, except for the tidal effects, these accelerations are uniform throughout the body, hence inconsequential from a dynamics perspective. For example, if you were in an orbiter in an elliptical orbit around the Earth, you would speed up at perigee, and slow down at apogee. But, you wouldn’t feel the acceleration or deceleration a bit – you would just feel the same weightlessness of space as you would in a circular orbit.

    This is what makes gravity such a special “force”, which can be and is interpreted as a warping of space and time about the gravitating body. In either the circular or elliptical orbit, you are traveling along a geodesic path, which is equivalent to traveling at constant speed along a straight path in flat space. It does not matter how many gravitating bodies you throw into the mix, they will all move along geodesic paths defined by the configuration space. Aside from tidal effects, there is nothing of significance from a dynamical perspective.

  388. Mike Jonas:

    The argument that you and I have each put in this thread is a much more fundamental dispute of the Loehle and Scafetta (L&S) analysis than considerations of solar behaviour (that have dominated this thread). And it seems you and I are of one mind concerning the validity of the L&S analysis.

    We have both expressed our doubt that the L&S determination of climate sensitivity can be ascribed to have any confidence because it is based on an improbable assumption of system invariance.

    But you and I differ in that I am willing to ‘wait and see’ to what degree the L&S analysis proves to be right or wrong whereas – if I understand you correctly – you think the matter requires rejection of the L&S conclusion concerning climate sensitivity.

    I now write in attempt to find a ‘way forward’.

    I posed the point in this thread July 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm, clarified it at July 27, 2011 at 3:33 am and asked Loehle and Scafetta for a response to it at July 27, 2011 at 2:59 pm where I again wrote;

    “But at any time one cannot know if a cycle remains, has ceased, or has or is altering. Therefore, the cause of an observed change to a time series of the system could be a completely natural alteration to one or more of the apparent cycles.
    Hence, it is an improbable assumption to ascribe such a change to AGW or anything else.”

    Nicola Scafetta graciously answered that at July 27, 2011 at 8:09 am saying:

    “Predicting the future with absolute precision is not easy for anybody. The 60-year modulation is seen in proxies since 1700 and before. So, it is reasonable to think that it will still be present in the future.
    It is not possible to state with absolute precision whether the amplitude of this 60-year oscillation will stay the same, will increase or will decrease. In such a situation the simplest thing that can be done is simply to assume that it remains the same in a first approximation, which is our first approximation assumption.”

    And I responded at July 27, 2011 at 9:09 am saying:

    “For your information, I accept that you are making an assumption but I do not agree the assumption is valid. One of us will be proved to be right (at least to some degree) by whatever happens in the future.
    And I agree it is very reasonable to observe patterns (in this case, cycles) in data then to evaluate them and any possible causes of them: such is the basis of all good science.”

    Mike, I interpret your post at July 27, 2011 at 2:59 pm to be a rejection of my ‘wait and see’ response. It says;

    “Craig – I followed up your “The claim that the historical 100 yrs data to 1950 are too short to detect a 60 yr cycle is false — see appendix a in supplemental info.“, and accept that at a basic “first estimate” level you have a case. However, I would think that the variations from one cycle to the next might be large enough to render your conclusions meaningless. I am thinking for example of solar cycles, where even after a few centuries it is just a guessing game with occasional large errors. It would be interesting to see (1) how 50-year projections from 100-year base periods fare on the solar cycle, (2) whether the CET (Central England Temperature) record confirms the 60-year cycle, and (3) if so, how 50-year projections from 100-year base periods fare on the CET.”

    My understanding of that is based on your use of the word “meaningless”, and I understand you to be saying the L&S determination of climate sensitivity should be rejected. Of course, I may be misunderstanding your point and if so then I would welcome your correcting my misunderstanding.

    But if I have understood you correctly then I would appreciate your saying either
    (a) that you reject the L&S determination of climate sensitivity (i.e. clarify your point)
    or, alternatively,
    (b) what you think would resolve the inherent error in the L&S determination of climate sensitivity which is introduced by the possible effect of cycle variability.

    Please note that I am not disputing the ‘correctness’ of your point (which I admit I may have misunderstood) but I am looking for a ‘way forward’.

    In the light of the discussions in this thread about the history of science, I point out that my suggested ‘way forward’ has precedent with Halley’s prediction of when a comet would return after the end of his lifetime. But if your ‘way forwad’ could be determined then it would be much more useful in the present.

    Richard

  389. Bart says:
    July 28, 2011 at 1:28 am

    But, except for the tidal effects, these accelerations are uniform throughout the body, hence inconsequential from a dynamics perspective.

    The existence of tides does as you correctly state, prove that the accelerations are NOT uniform throughout the body. Additionally, Newton’s laws apply to perfectly elastic bodies, which the Sun clearly is not. You also seem to have missed the point that at the same time as the accelerating forces are acting on the body, radiant energy and matter is flowing from the core of the Sun to the solar surface. This brings additional complexity to the situation both from a relativistic perspective and from an angular momentum-convection perspective. For the latter I recommend you read and absorb Wolff and Patrone’s paper before arriving at conclusions based on an inadequate understanding of how Newton’s and Einstein’s laws operate. They demonstrate how the changing radius from Solar core to Barycentre can non-trivially affect the rate of energy release from the convective zone and hence the rate of sunspot production. Leif will say that it can’t or if it does, it’s negligible. In my assessment, and that of Wolff and Patrone, he has no strong theoretical foundation from which he can validly draw these conclusions.

  390. tallbloke says:
    July 27, 2011 at 3:11 pm
    Volker Doormann says:
    July 27, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    “Hi Volker, what happens to the correlation after 1600?”

    Hi tallbloke,

    well, I think before we can talk about that in detail, we have to look for our both base understanding of the science of philosophy. I agree with Parmenides saying that only that, was IS, we can argue, but not, what not is. If you agree with that, then it is relevant, whether you see a correlation in the tide simulation I did from astronomic NASA ephemerides with the high frequency temperature reconstruction A. Moberg et. al. has published. If you ask only for other time windows, this is the common practice, you ask because you suppose that if there is no correlation visible, the visible correlation must be worthless, and vice versa, if there is also a correlation visible in a following time window, you deal with statistical significance.
    Sorry for that prolog, but I think most of the reasons of problems in discussions are different ideas about what science is.
    The fundament of the simulation I did, was the recognition, that synodic tide functions of neighbor bodies, and outstanding the absolute heliocentric synodic longitude angles of the couple Quaoar/Pluto of 1827 years (from 6000 years NASA ephimeres) correlate in phase and function with the 14C curve J.A. Eddy has pulished in 1976.

    A refining of the simulation to most all main neighbor bodies in the solar system
    (without moons) has shown me that all these couples until/including Mercury/Venus are involved in the global temperature proxies.
    But this is only one side of the stuff. The other side is represented by several individual temperature reconstructions which we all know, are under discussion for its calibration quality in time and/or amplitude. In this situation I think is a humble search for a mechanism helpful, looking for what is, inclusive the imperfections of the temperature proxies.
    And right, all the global Earth oscillations of the rotating ellipsoid with its fluids on the surface and its impedances effects must be discriminate in general from the heat flow from the sun.
    The greatest unknown for the astronomic simulation is the strength each individual couple has (Ching-Che Hung has a paper (2007) about that stuff). It seems to me that the high density of the bodies (Quaoar= 4 kg m^-3) is involved in that strength (s. also Mercury, ff) . So this could be only a start into a new branch of climate research.

    OK, you have asked for correlation for a following time window. Please let me begin with a scope of a greater time window in that are some proxies confronted with the GHI of only three couples.

    I have argued here in this thread that in general the method of decomposition reconstructed temperature frequency spectra is a good alternative to the common geocentric models rejecting the sun. And it seems to me, that it has become clear that operating with simple time periods in years needs to be improved. At this point it could also a point of interest that there is a correlation between the solar neutrino capture rate and the hadsst2 data.

    It could be a further hint that the time profile of the SST is correlated to the neutrino generating process in the inner sun.

    If one time there is an improved view (possible) on climate as the today’s geocentric view, then it seems to me that science could come back to its origin and chase the pseudo-scientist in the desert: “I always had an insatiable appetite for research and to know possible and impossible proofs. … we live at a time when the few scientists we have live with thousands of difficulties in order to use the opportunities to conduct research and to actualize and strengthen the foundations of knowledge. The pseudo-scientists of our time present truth as falsehood and do not step further beyond pretending to know.” (Omar Khayyam * 27 May 1048 greg.)

    Sorry for long text. Thanks to the authors and the WUWT friends.

    Volker

  391. Poptech says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:04 pm
    How do you objectively determine if a model is a “good approximation of reality”?
    How do you objectively determine if a model is “correctly” constructed and “correctly” programmed?

    Since the models are approximations to reality, they can differ in details and do. How does one objectively determine correctness? It is like building a house. It is done brick by brick and for every brick the builder checks to see if the brick is in the correct place. Somebody standing next to him can also check, so there is the objectivity. When the house is finished it is easy to see if in fact the house looks like the blueprints. So, one can objectively verify that the model is ‘correct’ as far as agreeing with the blueprint. If carefully programmed, the program can also be correct, again verified by going through the process step by step. There is no mystery or voodoo here. The problems come in that word ‘approximation’. Here one does the best one can, but that may not be enough as some of the details are poorly known or hard to express, e.g. cloud formation, and to be computational feasible the program needs to operate on a grid instead of on a continuum, and the grid may not be fine enough. There is where the problems lie, not in the construction and programming. ‘Objectivity’ is not the issue.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:45 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 27, 2011 at 10:18 pm
    Uranus and Neptune tidal forces have never been used a a solar driver of any kind.
    That is what I said. It is not tidal.

    That 60 year wave in solar velocity is totally created from the gravitation effects from Uranus and Neptune. Without the 2 outer planets there would be no wave (and perhaps no PDO?).
    Perhaps you could argue against that?

    I think Scafetta would as his 60-year wave is a beat between Jupiter and Saturn.

    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:01 am
    introducing rapidly changing accelerations from planetary bodies at varying latitudes and longitudes around the Solar body.
    Those accelerations cannot be felt, just like an astronaut in orbit is under constantly changing acceleration and don’t feel a thing.

    However, we need to be mindful that the solar material is subjected to very high surface gravity, and so we would expect forces to spread horizontally to a much greater degree than seen on Earth.
    On the contrary, the stronger gravity [always working in the vertical direction] is, the less are any horizontal forces.

    The Sun is not a perfectly elastic body, the layer which we see has differential speeds of rotation which vary both from each other and with respect to time.
    The Sun is a gas and Newton’s law apply to every atom of the gas.

    There are peer reviewed papers in the literature which empirically derive a linkage between the variations in the speed of rotation of various latitudinal bands and the motion of the Sun with respect to the SSB. These observations are indicative of a spin-orbit coupling caused by planetary motion.
    There are peer-reviewed papers that show that the MWP does not exist.

    “the element may have potential energy that could be released by a suitable flow. “
    ‘could be’ is a weasel word. They don’t show that it happens.

    “We calculate its strength and spatial distribution for the strongest case (“vertical”) and for weaker horizontal cases whose motions are all perpendicular to gravity.”
    Here they contradict your assertion that the horizontal effects are much larger.

    You Leif, have claimed on this site on several occasions that Wolff and Patrone do not posit a mechanism. I believe you have misconcieved what they mean when they refer to ‘Potential energy’ as being simply ‘gravitational potential energy’.
    They are talking about ‘gravitational’ energy, at least that is what they calculate.

    If you continue to say that such theory requires no rebuttal because “it’s not even wrong”, then you merely demonstrate the vacuity of your own position.
    What I’m saying is that any rebuttal would have no effect whatsoever, so why bother?

    Bart says:
    July 28, 2011 at 1:28 am
    Aside from tidal effects, there is nothing of significance from a dynamical perspective.
    There is the rebuttal, but, as I said, it will have no effect whatsoever.

    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:20 am
    The existence of tides does as you correctly state, prove that the accelerations are NOT uniform throughout the body.
    Everybody knows this, the issue is how large the tidal effects are, and they are minuscule [fractions of millimeters].

  392. I noticed the short comment from Scafetta, at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-707177

    About Vuk’s idea concerning the Jupiter Saturn conjunctions towards the forward moving part of the heliopause, as I said it is an interesting idea that may well fit another idea that I add to explain the phenomenon. But I cannot talk about it now. Hopefully, we will have another occasion to discuss it extensively.
    If any of you may wander what is all this above you can find comprehensive review, which I recorded for a reference, and is available here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&S+vukcevic.htm

  393. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:01 am
    The Sun is not a perfectly elastic body
    BTW, I don’t think you know what ‘elastic’ means.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(physics)

    “In physics, elasticity is the physical property of a material that returns to its original shape after the stress (e.g. external forces) that made it deform or distort is removed.”
    Since the Sun is a gas, when you remove any stress it will revert to its original spherical shape, so it is perfectly elastic.

  394. Richard S Courtney : Lots of points and related lines of thought to respond to ….

    It is true that I don’t think that L&S are justified in reaching their conclusions. The cycles they are dealing with are of an unknown nature. They have a history of just 1 1/2 cycles (100 years) to base their projection on, and they have no mechanism, so they have no way of knowing how much variation there is from one cycle to the next in amplitude, duration or shape. The difference between their projection and the next 50 years is therefore basically not very different to a random number. The uncertainties surely heavily outweigh the number itself (ie. their 0.66 [actually about 0.45 factored up to 100-year equivalent]) – which is what I meant by “meaningless”. I don’t see how we can “wait and see” to what degree the L&S analysis proves to be right or wrong, because simply watching the temperature for a few more cycles (which is rather a long wait) won’t of itself tell us anything because we have no way of knowing how the temperature cycles would have performed in the absence of GHGs.

    In an earlier comment, I suggested an experiment with the sunspot cycle, to see how reliable a forecast of the next cycle, based on 1 1/2 cycles, would be. I have done a quick experiment along those lines, though somewhat simplified (the idea being to get a general idea rather than being meticulously accurate). I took the monthly SSN record (sorry I don’t know where I downloaded it from, it was already on my computer), smoothed it using rolling 60-month averages in order to remove wild variations from the peaks and troughs (http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/SSN60mthSmoothed.JPG), then notionally drew the line to each peak from the previous peak, as the predicter for the next peak. So eg. the first solar cycle predicted was #3, predicted from the line from peak #1 to peak #2. For each peak I then calculated the difference between the prediction and the actual, as a proportion of the average cycle amplitude. (Hope you followed that!). If the method was a perfect predicter then all values would be zero. If they were being used for L&S’s purposes then maybe +-10% would be good, +-33% dubious and +-100% hopeless. Of the 21 values I actually got (ie. for solar cycles 3-23), 3 were within +-10%, 3 were outside +-10% but within +-33%, 12 were outside +-33% but within +-100%, and 3 were outside +-100%.

    OK, so that wasn’t a very precise experiment, but I tried not to set the bar too high (eg. by the smoothing), and I think it showed that the method was just about useless when used on the SSN cycle. Given that L&S’s calculations were on an uncharacterised cycle, ie. there was no way of knowing whether it was less or more variable than the SSN cycle, I think it showed that their results were highly unreliable. ie. option (a).

    I had a quick look at the CET data – my other suggestion for the experiment – and decided it was too much work to pick the cycles etc and anyway there weren’t very many cycles.

    Now, coming back to your “way forward”.

    In order to move forward, I think that either we have to have a mechanism or we have to tie into the IPCC assumptions/workings.

    Having a mechanism is the ideal way forward, but it appears we don’t have one yet..

    For tying into the IPCC, you could try something like this, perhaps:

    The IPCC claim that the temperature rose tc deg C in the 20thC.
    The IPCC claim that the whole of the rise can be attributed to radiative forcing (RF) from man-made GHGs and solar variation.
    We detect a long-term pattern in the temperature data which we do not choose to characterize.
    Inspection of the data indicates that there is a roughly 60-year cycle with peaks in 1878, 1939 and 2003 and troughs in 1910 and 1975. (That’s not quite what your temperature graph looks like, but it is what my downloaded Hadcrut3 temperature data looks like. Use whatever dates you find.)
    The net temperature increase over the first complete cycle is t1 deg C, and over the second complete cycle is t2 deg C.
    There is no correlation between RF and the cycles [check], so RF cannot be causing the cycles. The effect of RF can therefore only be mapped to the net increase over one or more complete cycles. (Clumsy wording but hopefully the meaning is clear).
    Therefore, the amount of temperature increase that can be attributed to RF is of the order of t1*(1939-1900)/(1939-1878) + t2*(2000-1939)/(2003-1939) = tr say.
    At this point, you need to be careful to interpret the IPCC figures correctly, but it goes something like this:
    The IPCC’s estimate for climate sensitivity needs to be reduced by a factor of tr/tc. [possibly adjusted for known variations in insolation]
    Note: I’m sure I have seen a comment here along these lines. Apologies, I can’t find it quickly (there’s an awful lot of comments on this thread)..
    There are two further ways in which climate sensitivity could be adjusted:
    (1) The satellite record is more reliable than the surface temperature record, notwithstanding that there have been doubts cast upon it (to do with deteriorating orbit I think), because the surface record is fraught with far more problems, not the least of which is that there are large areas of the globe’s surface with no thermometers. From 1979 onwards, therefore, the satellite TMT record should be used instead of the surface record, for the purpose of calculating t2. I say TMT because that is where the greatest warming should occur according to the IPCC, so that should if anything give an over-estimate for t2. ie, it doesn’t introduce a downward bias for t2 and hence for climate sensitivity.
    (2) The RF for solar variation is based on actual measurement of solar irradiation (I’m not sure about insolation), whereas the RF for GHGs is “constrained by observation” (the IPCC’s words [check]), ie. it is partly based on tc. The RF figure for solar variation should therefore be left unchanged, and all of the reduction from tc to tr should be drawn only from the part attributed to GHGs. This will result in a slightly greater reduction in climate sensitivity.

    The end result of all this would be a rather difficult paper to write and to get past peer-review. It is highly likely that climate sensitivity would still be grossly overestimated, because possible indirect solar effects have been ignored. Once the CERN results have been interpreted it may be possible to calculate a more accurate – and lower- figure.

  395. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 4:54 am
    tallbloke says:
    Wolff and Patrone say:
    “the element may have potential energy that could be released by a suitable flow. “

    ‘could be’ is a weasel word. They don’t show that it happens.

    Correct. They have a hypothesis, awaiting empirical determination if anyone can work out how to do it.

    “We calculate its strength and spatial distribution for the strongest case (“vertical”) and for weaker horizontal cases whose motions are all perpendicular to gravity.”

    Here they contradict your assertion that the horizontal effects are much larger.

    Incorrect, I was talking about tides, they are talking about the release of energy by a different mechanism.

    You Leif, have claimed on this site on several occasions that Wolff and Patrone do not posit a mechanism. I believe you have misconcieved what they mean when they refer to ‘Potential energy’ as being simply ‘gravitational potential energy’.

    They are talking about ‘gravitational’ energy, at least that is what they calculate.

    I’ve emailed Wolff and Patrone with this assertion and await their reply.

    If you continue to say that such theory requires no rebuttal because “it’s not even wrong”, then you merely demonstrate the vacuity of your own position.

    What I’m saying is that any rebuttal would have no effect whatsoever, so why bother?

    I’ve emailed that comment to them as well.

  396. @Richard Verney

    You asked if there was an instrument specifically designed to measure downwelling radiation from GHGs. I gave you a link to an inexpensive infrared thermometer which would at least allow one to prove to oneself that water vapor emits DLR by comparing the reading of a clear night sky in dry and humid conditions. As it turns out there are instruments specifically designed for this that work during the day too. They’re called pyrgeometers. Probably a little too expensive for casual purchase at $6600.

    http://www.omniinstruments.net/products/product/moredetails/cgr4.id229.html

    From reading your last missives yesterday it seems you’re not really contesting the GHG effect anymore but rather demanding to know why you can’t generate electricity from DLR (downwelling longwave radiation). Here’s the scoop on that:

    Einstein won a noble prize in 1921 for describing why you can’t do it using the photoelectric effect. Photons of lower energy than blue visible light don’t carry enough energy to knock an electron loose. The general theory he won the prize for was describing the quantum nature of light. If light wasn’t transmitted as discrete packets of energy (photons) then there would be no frequency boundary where the photoelectric effect stopped working. Red light would in that case just produce less electricity instead of producing none at all.

    So that leaves us with the thermoelectric effect which converts heat to electricity. Unlike the photoelectric effect the thermoelectric effect requires a temperature gradient. It is also exceedingly inefficient and needs a large gradient to begin producing useful amounts of electrical power. For instance in WWII they employed thermopile trickle chargers for field radio batteries. It consisted of a hood placed over a kerosene lantern which heated the inside of the hood. The outside of the hood was air cooled and thereby you got a temperature gradient of a couple hundred degrees F which was sufficient to trickle charge a field radio battery.

    Given that upwelling LWIR from the earth’s surface is greater than downwellng LWIR if you wanted to generate electricity the upwelling LWIR is what you’d use for the hot side of your device. Downwelling LWIR from GHGs would make your gadget less efficient as the DLR rose. However, since you can’t heat anything hotter than the source of the heat, your gadget is going to be severely limited in the thermal gradient it can achieve and hence its effciency will be abysmally low requiring a lot of expensive metal for a themopile which barely going to provide enough electricity to power a pissant’s golfcart halfway around the inside of a cheerio.

  397. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 6:41 am
    Incorrect, I was talking about tides, they are talking about the release of energy by a different mechanism.
    Look at the horizontal part of the tidal force: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/tides.html

    What I’m saying is that any rebuttal would have no effect whatsoever, so why bother?
    I’ve emailed that comment to them as well.

    It is not they on which it will have no effect, but on you. Would you change your mind and abandon your position? I don’t think so. For example, I and others have pointed out that the sun is in free fall and does not feel accelerations and velocities, the only thing left is tidal forces [and even smaller magnetic forces]. This is basic physics. Did that change your mind?

  398. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 4:54 am

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:45 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 27, 2011 at 10:18 pm
    Uranus and Neptune tidal forces have never been used a a solar driver of any kind.
    ———————
    That is what I said. It is not tidal.

    Then why mention Uranus & Neptune when you also know the theory is not related to tides?

    That 60 year wave in solar velocity is totally created from the gravitation effects from Uranus and Neptune. Without the 2 outer planets there would be no wave (and perhaps no PDO?).
    Perhaps you could argue against that?
    ——————–
    I think Scafetta would as his 60-year wave is a beat between Jupiter and Saturn.

    No it’s not, that’s the 20 year cycle. The 60 year cycle is the modulation of the 20 year cycle which is all due to the presence of Uranus and Neptune. There is no doubt about this and this fact shows just one influence of the outer 2 planets. The 172 year wave that is the Gleissberg cycle is modulated in the same fashion by the same planets, which unfortunately you have closed your mind to.

  399. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 28, 2011 at 7:05 am
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 4:54 am
    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:45 pm
    Then why mention Uranus & Neptune when you also know the theory is not related to tides?
    In response to Bart:
    Bart says:
    July 27, 2011 at 7:13 pm
    “Well, that’s the only kind available so, if they’re suggesting something other than tidal forces, you and I are in agreement. You cannot detect changes in orbit velocity locally, ergo it can have no physical effect in and of itself. The website given doesn’t really say clearly what it is they have in mind.”
    Me: It is not tidal. Some of them claim that Uranus and Neptune are the true decider and are controlling the Grand Minima. The tidal effects from Uranus and Neptune are negligible.

    The 60 year cycle is the modulation of the 20 year cycle which is all due to the presence of Uranus and Neptune. There is no doubt about this and this fact shows just one influence of the outer 2 planets.
    (sigh). The 60-yr cycle that people claim is 61 = 1/(1/9.93 – 1/11.86), involving Saturn and Jupiter periods.

    The 172 year wave that is the Gleissberg cycle is modulated in the same fashion by the same planets, which unfortunately you have closed your mind to
    The Gleissberg cycle is 88 years, and the modulation is negligibly small.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 8:36 am
    The further the Sun is moved away from the SSB the faster it goes.
    How fast it goes is irrelevant because it is in free fall. Bart’s example with an astronaut in a very eccentric orbit is good here. His speed changes dramatically, yet he’ll remain weightless and feel nothing. Tallbloke, this is why rebuttal will have no effect. The people for which it would be meant would dismiss it out of hand, because they don’t grasp the elementary physics.

  400. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 28, 2011 at 7:05 am
    The 60 year cycle is the modulation of the 20 year cycle which is all due to the presence of Uranus and Neptune. There is no doubt about this and this fact shows just one influence of the outer 2 planets.
    So, if there is no doubt about this, let’s hear from the other planetary enthusiasts, if they agree.

  401. nicola scafetta says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:01 am
    Please send me the exact reference about Wolf when you will be home.
    It is in section 520. The exact page number may vary with the edition, for mine it is page 414 in the combined part III and IV volume, but the section number, 520, does not depend on this and should be good whatever the edition.

  402. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 27, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    Volker Doormann says:
    July 27, 2011 at 2:38 pm
    […]

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JGRA..11501104S

    “We have reconstructed the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), its radial component, and the open solar magnetic flux using the solar modulation potential derived from cosmogenic 10Be radionuclide data for a period covering the past 9300 years. Reconstructions using the assumption of both constant and variable solar wind speeds yielded closely similar results. During the Maunder Minimum, the strength of the IMF was approximately 2 nT compared to a mean value of 6.6 nT for the past 40 years, corresponding to an increase of the open solar magnetic flux of about 350%. We examine four cycles of the Hallstatt periodicity in the IMF with a mean period of ˜2250 years and an amplitude of ˜0.75 nT. Grand solar minima have largely occurred in clusters during the Hallstatt cycle minima around the years -5300, -3400, -1100, and +1500 A.D. The last cluster includes the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer minima. We predict that the next such cluster will occur in about 1500 years…”

    As there is no Hallstatt meter or Hallstatt kg, there is no Hallstatt cycle.

    I have learned that physicians are dealing with energy (Js s^-1) equal to the product of h [Js] x frequency [sec^-1]. A frequency without any relation to geometry says nothing. Same with periods of seconds. If climate science is physics, and it is, frequency data are only relevant in common with its geometric nature.

    You do ignore the fact, that the fundamental synodic tide frequency of the couple Quaoar/Pluto of 2/1827 [years ^-1] ( 1/1.8 ky ) can be found in the sample data from Bond et. al 2001, but dealing with Phantom periods, which have no physical substance.

    As I have shown here, the synodic tide frequency of 2/1827 [years ^-1] can be related to real moving objects in the solar system, and moreover that the temperature proxy spectra with it spikes can be fitted with more other real couples in the solar system.

    I do not know who has created a line in the 14C data of 10000 years BP. But I can see that there is a weak correlation between the data from Bond et al. 2001 and the 14C proxy data:

    Argumentum ad numerum: ‘All I’m saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it.’

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#alterapars

    Bad times for scientists.

    Volker

  403. Volker Doormann says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:11 am
    “We examine four cycles of the Hallstatt periodicity in the IMF with a mean period of ˜2250 years and an amplitude of ˜0.75 nT.”
    As there is no Hallstatt meter or Hallstatt kg, there is no Hallstatt cycle.

    Regardless of what you say, the best data we have show a cycle at 2250 years, which is called the Hallstatt cycle. Whether that is solar or related to changes in the Earth’s magnetic field is not known at this point. Your musing about Pluto is entertaining cyclomania.

  404. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 7:35 am

    Me: It is not tidal. Some of them claim that Uranus and Neptune are the true decider and are controlling the Grand Minima. The tidal effects from Uranus and Neptune are negligible.

    Exactly there was no need to bring in the outer 2 planets, you are just trying to muddy the waters and slur.

    The 60 year cycle is the modulation of the 20 year cycle which is all due to the presence of Uranus and Neptune. There is no doubt about this and this fact shows just one influence of the outer 2 planets.
    ———————————-
    (sigh). The 60-yr cycle that people claim is 61 = 1/(1/9.93 – 1/11.86), involving Saturn and Jupiter periods.

    Incorrect again, we are talking about solar velocity. Solar velocity follows a simple pattern, the peak is near J/S conjunction roughly every 10 years with the trough 10 years later at J/S opposition. The peaks and troughs are modulated by the additional impact of U/N that follow a rough 60 year cycle, there is 30 years of deceleration followed by 30 years of acceleration. This is observed back to 1600, I would like to go further back.

    The 172 year wave that is the Gleissberg cycle is modulated in the same fashion by the same planets, which unfortunately you have closed your mind to
    ——————–
    The Gleissberg cycle is 88 years, and the modulation is negligibly small.

    I wish you would learn the basics of the theory so I wouldn’t have to handhold like this. The top of the wave is also a crash of variable grand minima, thus the 172 wave is split in two. The Gleissberg cycle is not exactly 88 years.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 8:36 am
    The further the Sun is moved away from the SSB the faster it goes.
    ——————————
    How fast it goes is irrelevant because it is in free fall. Bart’s example with an astronaut in a very eccentric orbit is good here. His speed changes dramatically, yet he’ll remain weightless and feel nothing. Tallbloke, this is why rebuttal will have no effect. The people for which it would be meant would dismiss it out of hand, because they don’t grasp the elementary physics
    .

    That is your only line of defense, I will devote a chapter to it in a future book. I think to be taken seriously you need to offer a proper rebuttal to Wolff and Patrone. Maybe Bart could assist?

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 28, 2011 at 7:05 am
    The 60 year cycle is the modulation of the 20 year cycle which is all due to the presence of Uranus and Neptune. There is no doubt about this and this fact shows just one influence of the outer 2 planets.
    ——————————–
    So, if there is no doubt about this, let’s hear from the other planetary enthusiasts, if they agree.

    Another attempt at creating havoc. There is no doubt about my statement and is observed in the JPL record along with being basic orbital physics. How each “enthusiast” uses this information is a different matter. My challenge is to differentiate myself from the growing crackpot stream.

  405. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 6:52 am

    What I’m saying is that any rebuttal would have no effect whatsoever, so why bother?
    I’ve emailed that comment to them as well.
    It is not they on which it will have no effect, but on you.

    Prove your case.
    Write the rebuttal.
    Get it published.
    Put up or shut up.

  406. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:34 am
    Exactly there was no need to bring in the outer 2 planets, you are just trying to muddy the waters and slur.
    I was telling Bart that some people believe there are influences other than tidal. I didn’t know that you consider it a slur to mention Uranus and Neptune. Personally, I would be embarrassed making statements to the effect that U and N were the all important planets, but, again different people have different standards, perhaps your bar is lower than mine.

    Incorrect again, we are talking about solar velocity
    But since solar velocity has no effect and is irrelevant, we are stuck with the 60-yr J/S tidal cycle.
    The Gleissberg cycle is not exactly 88 years.
    It seems to vary between 70-120 years to the extent that it is even real.

    That is your only line of defense, I will devote a chapter to it in a future book.
    It is a simple and compelling defense. What more is needed?

    I think to be taken seriously you need to offer a proper rebuttal to Wolff and Patrone. Maybe Bart could assist?
    Wolf and Patrone are talking about gravitational tidal potential. The solar velocity has nothing to do with this. W and P suggest some observational tests themselves and note that so far the results are not convincing.

    There is no doubt about my statement and is observed in the JPL record along with being basic orbital physics. How each “enthusiast” uses this information is a different matter. My challenge is to differentiate myself from the growing crackpot stream.
    To become the ueber crackpot, perhaps.

    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:35 am
    Prove your case.
    I cannot prove that you’ll be convinced. I rather think that no matter what I write, you won’t.

    Write the rebuttal.
    This is much harder than you think as the crackpot spectrum is so wide. Should ‘all’ schemes that have been suggested be debunked, or only the most ‘promising’ ones? opening the door for people to say “well, you have debunked X, Y, and Z”, but how about A, B, and C. This is open-ended.

    Get it published.
    This is also hard, because journals prefer to publish novel results, not debunking what is nonsense to begin with.

    Put up or shut up.
    Gladly as far a rebuttals are concerned, I’m not the one who wishes to be converted by a debunking review. A real problem here is that many schemes are incoherent and do not lend themselves to critical comment. To wit, the silly statements that a 60-yr cycle is due solely to Uranus and Neptune. Do you think that is the case, too? You see, to write a critical review one has to start with a taxonomy of the schemes which means that they have to be identified and described separately and quantitatively, with the various claims each makes clearly laid out. Perhaps you and others could help in this regard. I have created a Google Document here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M2tppxOldhOMvIeJDHhhkNiAAw2GQiymCf4G4OofTJw/edit?hl=en_US where people can assist in making such a taxonomy. Enthusiasts are invited to state their case there. As you say: put up or shut up. Let’s see how many puts up.

  407. I neither have the time nor the knowledge to figure out or to follow what is going on here.
    I realize I am just a small bloke/
    all I want to know is: how much is the influence of humans on the increase in temperature?
    Can all those people arguing here give me their own figure on that? (including the error range is fine)

    If we assume some GH effect due to humans (i.e. more CO2g&H2Og +urban heat)
    then it should be an increase in minima that must push up the mean average temps.
    Not so?
    What I find globally is the opposite.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    there are differences NH and Sh which are still a bit puzzling but
    according to my own estimates temperatures have risen at a ratio of
    9:3:1
    maxima:means:minima
    It was maxima that pushed up means and probably the greater part of the minima as well.
    At the moment my estimate of the increase in minima (globally) is 0.0045 degrees K/year.

    That means the warming caused by human kind cannot be more than 0.45 K/ century.
    It probably is by more than a factor 10x less…

  408. Bart (July 27, 2011 at 12:30 pm):

    I’m not declaring what you say I’m declaring. What I’m declaring is that a period of 120 years contains at most 2 statistically independent events lasting 60 years each. I get to 2 by dividing 120 by 60.

  409. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 9:22 am

    To become the ueber crackpot, perhaps.

    Poor form Leif.

    (to tallbloke) To wit, the silly statements that a 60-yr cycle is due solely to Uranus and Neptune. Do you think that is the case, too?

    This is a big statement. You obviously have no clue on orbital mechanics.
    We will explore this further tomorrow.

  410. Craig Loehle (July 27, 2011 at 11:37 am):

    By a “sample,” I mean a set of observed statistically independent statistical events. Given that each such event has a duration of 60 years, a period of 120 years contains no more than 2 of them.

  411. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 28, 2011 at 9:49 am
    “To become the ueber crackpot, perhaps.”
    Poor form Leif.

    You had no qualms calling the others crackpots…

    You obviously have no clue on orbital mechanics.
    Now, that is a big [unfounded] statement. It will be interesting to see how you climb out of that deep hole.

  412. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 28, 2011 at 9:49 am
    You obviously have no clue on orbital mechanics.
    Perhaps you confuse your 60-yr cycles with the jiǎzǐ (甲子) cycle? :-)

  413. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 6:08 am
    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:01 am
    The Sun is not a perfectly elastic body

    BTW, I don’t think you know what ‘elastic’ means.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(physics)

    “In physics, elasticity is the physical property of a material that returns to its original shape after the stress (e.g. external forces) that made it deform or distort is removed.”
    Since the Sun is a gas, when you remove any stress it will revert to its original spherical shape, so it is perfectly elastic..

    Lol.
    Cut’n’pasted for posterity. Thanks Leif. Proof positive you don’t understand Newtonian mechanics.

    No reply from Wolff or Patrone yet. Perhaps they decided you and I are crackpots not worth replying to. It does seem to be an endemic problem among NASA scientists. ;-)

    I’ll attempt to elucidate the problem with your lack of understanding of their calculation to see if we can get anywhere.
    I said of Wolff and Patrone:
    “I believe you have misconcieved what they mean when they refer to ‘Potential energy’ as being simply ‘gravitational potential energy’. I think you have neglected or misconstrued the importance of the energy being radiated and convected from the solar core against solar gravity.”

    You said of Wolff and Patrone:
    “They are talking about ‘gravitational’ energy, at least that is what they calculate.”

    Wolff and Patrone said:
    “If a fluid element has rotational and orbital components of angular momentum with respect to the inertially fixed point of a planetary system [the system barycentre] that are of opposite sign, then the element may have potential energy that could be released by a suitable flow. We demonstrate the energy with a very simple model in which two fluid elements of equal mass exchange positions, calling to mind a turbulent field or natural convection.

    The exchange releases potential energy that, with a minor exception, is available only in the hemisphere facing the barycenter of the planetary system. We calculate its strength and spatial distribution…”

    Now, Leif, the cause of the turbulent field or natural convection is the suitable flow of energy from the solar core against gravity towards the surface, and the laws of fluid dynamics under conditions in which the convective cell has rotational and orbital components of angular momentum as determined by the path of the sun the planets force it to follow.

    Turning to the calculations, in section 2.2 on page 221 they give an analytic example during which they state:
    “The following analytic approximation provides simple formulas for plotting where the available
    energy is located. It was used by Chandrasekhar (1961) and will be compared to another
    classical result. When volumes 1 and 2 exchange locations we assume that each retains
    its initial angular momentum until most of the transition has happened. Turbulent motions
    would then restore the cell to harmony with the ambient fluid. Approximate the cell as two
    mass points at the gyration radius (Rg, Figure 1) of each volume. For a sphere, Rg equals
    (cell radius)√2/5. If the distances of the masses from the barycenter are R1 and R2 and the
    corresponding angular momentum per unit mass of each point is L1 and L2, then the cell
    has an initial and final kinetic energy per unit mass in angular motion given by equationa 2a and 2b.

    Their difference gives the kinetic energy per unit mass in angular motion that must be supplied
    to do the interchange,
    deltaEk = Efinal −Einitial.”

    They then state that:
    “Where this paper deals with convection it is efficient enough that the superadiabatic gradient
    is small and buoyancy negligible. For other layers, the work per unit mass done against buoyancy would have to be included. It can be shown that this is Eb [equation 4]
    Then the potential energy per unit mass released by exchanging
    the two mass elements is
    PE =−(deltaEk + deltaEb). (5)
    In stably stratified layers, deltaEb will almost always be positive enough to prevent a positive
    PE if there is a vertical component of motion. Convection, however, is constantly exchanging
    the positions of mass elements, so a positive PE there will cause extra energy to appear
    during the exchange that would have no explanation if the star were viewed as an isolated
    body.”

    [my bold]

    You can say that the buoyancy is ‘gravitational’ if you like, but you can’t say that the overturning convection caused by the flow of energy from the solar core against gravity is ‘gravitational’. This is key to understanding the Wolff Patrone mechanism.

    You may have succeeded in goading Geoff Sharp into descending to your own level of crack-pottery, but you are not fooling me, or Wolff and Patrone.

    As always in these discussions, you attempt to derail proper courteous scientific debate with slurs, innuendo, and mis-statements about Newtonian mechanics. I can forgive a statistician/programmer for not understanding Newtonian mechanics, I’m a qualified mechanical engineer, but the other tactics have no place here.

    Raise your game.

  414. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:20 am

    “The existence of tides does as you correctly state, prove that the accelerations are NOT uniform throughout the body.”

    Of course there are tidal “forces”. You know it, I know it, we all know it. They are very, very small.

    “You also seem to have missed the point that at the same time as the accelerating forces are acting on the body…”

    Accelerating forces ARE NOT, in fact, acting on the body. It is simply following a geodesic in space time.

    From this principle, Einstein deduced that free-fall is actually inertial motion. Objects in free-fall really do not accelerate, but rather the closer they get to an object such as the Earth, the more the time scale becomes stretched due to spacetime distortion around the planetary object (this is gravity). An object in free-fall is in actuality inertial, but as it approaches the planetary object the time scale stretches at an accelerated rate, giving the appearance that it is accelerating towards the planetary object when, in fact, the falling body really isn’t accelerating at all. This is why an accelerometer in free-fall doesn’t register any acceleration; there isn’t any. By contrast, in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is assumed to be a force. This force draws objects having mass towards the center of any massive body.

    “This brings additional complexity to the situation both from a relativistic perspective and from an angular momentum-convection perspective.”

    You are babbling incoherently here.

    “For the latter I recommend you read and absorb Wolff and Patrone’s paper before arriving at conclusions based on an inadequate understanding of how Newton’s and Einstein’s laws operate.”

    Wow. Dude, you’re flailing. Not only is it unseemly, but it diminishes your credibility and abnegates your right to be taken seriously. There is no “inadequacy” on my part, I assure you.

    There could be influences from the changing velocity by other mechanisms. I mentioned a possibility here. But, ordinary mechanics isn’t going to do it for you. You need to search elsewhere to find a credible coupling mechanism.

    Terry Oldberg says:
    July 28, 2011 at 9:47 am

    “What I’m declaring is that a period of 120 years contains at most 2 statistically independent events lasting 60 years each. I get to 2 by dividing 120 by 60.”

    Tres facile. And, quite simply, wrong. I have already explained why.

    Terry Oldberg says:
    July 28, 2011 at 9:58 am

    “Given that each such [cycle] has a duration of 60 years, a period of 120 years contains no more than 2 [cycles].”

    A tautology. And, completely irrelevant.

  415. Mike Jonas:

    Thankyou very much indeed for your response to me that you post at July 28, 2011 at 6:36 am.

    I assure you that – despite your doubts – it is perfectly clear.

    It answered my post at July 28, 2011 at 2:48 am that restated our agreement; viz.
    we doubt the L&S determination of climate sensitivity can be ascribed to have any confidence because it is based on an improbable assumption of system invariance.

    But my post said it seemed
    (a) you were rejecting the L&S conclusion outright
    while
    (b) I thought efluxion of time may reveal the degree of validity of the L&S method.

    I concede that your response has refuted my ‘wait and see’ response to the L&S conclusion by your explanation of why it is not possible to deconvolute various forcing components from the data series.
    Thankyou. I am always grateful when I am shown to be wrong because then I learn.

    I hope one of the authors of the paper will respond to this conclusion of the discussion you and I have had.

    Richard

  416. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:31 am

    Volker Doormann says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:11 am
    “We examine four cycles of the Hallstatt periodicity in the IMF with a mean period of ˜2250 years and an amplitude of ˜0.75 nT.”

    “As there is no Hallstatt meter or Hallstatt kg, there is no Hallstatt cycle.”

    Regardless of what you say, the best data we have show a cycle at 2250 years, which is called the Hallstatt cycle.

    “Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2011 at 10:18 am
    “The problem comes with the claim that the fitted curves represent any real physics and cause-effect relationships. ”

    The problem comes with the claim that a cycle [sec or years] represent any real physics and cause-effect relationships.

    “In other words, there is no time observable!”
    ( http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/uncertainty.html )

    Without any cause-effect relationship a periodicity represents an idol, but not physics.

    BTW. “Regardless of what you say … “ implicate the arguments I have stated, and were I got no (valid) counter argument.

    Sorry. EOD

    Volker

  417. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:25 am
    Cut’n’pasted for posterity. Thanks Leif. Proof positive you don’t understand Newtonian mechanics.
    Newton’s laws are universal and work on gases, fluids, solid bodies, anything. The ‘elastic’ bit is just nonsense. And we should really works with Einstein’s General Relativity, except for the kind of stuff we are discussing here, Newton is good enough [if you only understood it].

    No reply from Wolff or Patrone yet. Perhaps they decided you and I are crackpots
    speak for yourself.

    “I believe you have misconcieved what they mean when they refer to ‘Potential energy’ as being simply ‘gravitational potential energy’.”

    You can say that the buoyancy is ‘gravitational’ if you like, but you can’t say that the overturning convection caused by the flow of energy from the solar core against gravity is ‘gravitational’. This is key to understanding the Wolff Patrone mechanism

    This is pure nonsense. Convection is gravitational: material rises because its density is lowered as it expands by being heated, and sinks because its density is increased by being cooled. The ‘flow of energy’ is not ‘pushing’ the material up as the radiation pressure in the Sun is very small.

    See Bart’s comment July 28, 2011 at 11:40 am

    And you have not addressed https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M2tppxOldhOMvIeJDHhhkNiAAw2GQiymCf4G4OofTJw/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
    As you said, put up or shut up.

  418. Volker Doormann says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:11 pm
    “Regardless of what you say, the best data we have show a cycle at 2250 years, which is called the Hallstatt cycle.”
    Without any cause-effect relationship a periodicity represents an idol, but not physics.

    There is certainly a cause-effect relationship with something, we just don’t know what it is. It could be solar, a change of the Earth’s magnetic field, or a change in the galactic flux of cosmic rays [unlikely, but possible].
    What is quite clear is that there is no 1.8Ky period caused by Pluto [which it seems you think]. EOD, if you like.

  419. Bart says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:40 am
    “Babbling” “Flailing”

    If you got the copy of the paper I sent you, read it and discuss it.
    If you didn’t or you’re not interested in discussing it, forget it.

  420. Friends:

    I know nothing about solar physics so I have no intention of intruding in your discussions of that.

    However, I think an ‘outsider’ like me can usefully intrude to avoid yet another pointless round in your discussion.

    Most of you seem to agree with a comment concerning solar cycles that Leif Svalgaard expresses at July 28, 2011 at 12:35 pm:
    “There is certainly a cause-effect relationship with something, we just don’t know what it is.”

    Sorry, but that is not certain.

    Every complex system exhibits variability. And any physical system has natural resonant frequencies. Therefore, random variations in the behaviour of a complex system may seem to be – or may induce – repetitive events or cycles that persist for several or many repetitions. Hence, apparent cycles may have no cause except that the complex system which exhibits them has natural resonances.

    In other words, there may or may not be “a cause-effect relationship with something”, and it cannot be assumed there is a cause of apparent cyclicity in a complex system in the absence of evidence for that cause.

    I hope this helps in your discussions.

    Richard

  421. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Well … no. On average, sure. But the variations are huge. The cycles of velocity vary from 16 years to 22 years. You can’t just say ‘well, it’s about a 20 year cycle’ and use that. If you are going to make claims based on solar cycles, then you have to use the real solar cycles. And the barycentric data doesn’t have regular 20 year cycles.

    The results of this study are based spectral analysis. The authors frequently use the words “quasi” and “about” to describe the regular sequences. Nature does not follow exact timetables and refuses to follow our human expectations, but once you understand, the cyclic patterns are easily observable. Jose made the same mistake in 1965 when he describes his 178.8 year pattern which we now know today does not exist, but there is still an underlying pattern that repeats over the Holocene that varies in intensity because of the clock movements that have been with us for 5 billion years. The same factors responsible for the Holocene pattern are also responsible for the variations in the “quasi” 20 year pattern and the foundation of the “quasi” 60 year pattern. Simply Uranus and Neptune.

    Geoff, the hypothesis goes like this:

    The movements of the planets causes the sun to orbit around the center of gravity of the solar system in a predictable but very irregular manner.

    As a result, the sun is subjected to varying torques and changes in angular momentum. These affect the circulation of that magic generator of light, heat, and magnetism, the sun.

    These varying cycles are then said to affect the Earth’s climate. One prevalent hypothesis is that it is the changing magnetism that does the deed, through interaction with the cosmic rays, eventually affecting the rate of cloud formation, particularly near the poles.

    As I have said several times, I find that hypothesis to be in a category I call “certainly possible”. By that I mean it doesn’t require new basic physics and it doesn’t violate physical laws and sounds reasonable.

    Now, if you want to establish that hypothesis, or if you think that is true, how does showing that the climate can be simulated by a couple of sine waves plus a trend show anything at all? If you want to establish that there is a relationship between global temperature and barycentric cycles, you have to use the actual barycentric cycles, complete with their actual phase and amplitude. In the barycentric data the 60-year cycle is a tenth the size of 20-year cycle. You can’t reverse their relative sizes to make the 60-year cycle much larger than the 20-year cycle.

    In particular, showing that there are apparent cycles is not a foundation for the leap to the claims presented in the paper. I show above that sixty- and forty-year cycles do about as well as sixty- and twenty-year cycles. I say that neither one means anything, it’s just curve fitting.

    Your criticism is unfounded and has done you a disservice.

    Time will tell. Thanks for your contribution.

    w.

  422. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 11:25 am
    Leif says:
    “Since the Sun is a gas, when you remove any stress it will revert to its original spherical shape, so it is perfectly elastic.”

    Cut’n’pasted for posterity. Thanks Leif. Proof positive you don’t understand Newtonian mechanics.

    Newton’s laws are universal and work on gases, fluids, solid bodies, anything. The ‘elastic’ bit is just nonsense.

    Keep going Leif. Tell us how the smoke you’re blowing reacts to an impacting object. By magically reforming into the perfect sphere it was originally to demonstrate its elasticity no doubt. :)

    Try it on a snooker table with some nice hard elastic balls and a lump of warm putty. See how well the kinetics of energy transfer are maintained as motion vectors. Clue, the putty might get a bit warmer, but it won’t magically regain its shape as it is inelastic, just as the Sun’s gases are. The only reason the Sun’s gases would reform a sphere after an impact (though with many non-reverting internal redistributions) is because they form around their own centre of gravity.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 9:22 am

    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:35 am
    Get it published.

    This is also hard, because journals prefer to publish novel results, not debunking what is nonsense to begin with.

    I’ll email that to Wolff and Patrone too if they reply.

  423. Craig Loehle and Nicola Scafetta – please could you check out the last couple of comments from Richard S Courtney and myself (which may have been hard to detect in the barrage of scientific fury that is raging on the barycentric stuff) and advise us what you think of them

    Thanks.

  424. The “pebbles universe” made of dead rounded stones vs. a living universe of interacting charges…….We are living in “interesting times”

  425. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 1:38 pm
    The only reason the Sun’s gases would reform a sphere after an impact (though with many non-reverting internal redistributions) is because they form around their own centre of gravity.
    That is enough: you perturb it and it soon reverts to its original shape, because its gravity is so strong, but you miss the point: the bodies both in Newton’s and Einstein’s version behave in a gravitational field [to use the old terminology] the same whether they are elastic or not. This is especially easy to see in Einstein’s version.

    Get it published.
    “This is also hard, because journals prefer to publish novel results, not debunking what is nonsense to begin with.”
    I’ll email that to Wolff and Patrone too if they reply.

    I’m sure they will agree with that too.

    While we wait, you could be constructive and fill in your ‘theory’ here:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M2tppxOldhOMvIeJDHhhkNiAAw2GQiymCf4G4OofTJw/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

  426. I cannot agree with Bart’s arguments about free-fall and geodesics. In the geodesics present in the general relativistic universe, the only “particles” following them are those of light, viz those with no mass and therefore travelling at the speed of light. So the geodesics around the Sun are just ever so slightly curved, as observed by the tiny displacement of stars when seen at solar eclipse.

    On a different point, someone asked whether S&L’s model worked further back than 1850. I’ve looked into this previously, and it doesn’t. This is because it hindcasts a warm period for the 1820s, whereas in fact we see the end of the Dalton Minimum then. Solar cycle lengths, however, correlate much better than S&L in that period.

    And on yet another point, it is weird that Leif considers 60 years to be 1/(3/S-1/J) rather than 3/(1/J-1/S). Of course, simple algebra shows that they would be the same thing if S=5J/2, which isn’t so far from being correct. Still, for 3/S-1/J, what thing is it that’s going round 3 times as fast as Saturn that should be compared synodically with Jupiter?

    Rich.

  427. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:01 am
    The Sun is not a perfectly elastic body
    What you should have learned by now from the various exchanges is that if the planets generate, control, or modulate solar activity it is by tidal mechanisms [which includes W&P]. That means that all the barycentric [and solar velocity, angular momentum, etc] stuff is out, and we should [as W&P] concentrate on finding how tidal forces can do this. There may be subtle things going on in the interior that we don’t know about: the sun might not be symmetric on the inside, for example, in which case tidal forces may cause a torque on the sun, perturbing the sunspot generation, or other more exotic things. The usual problem is one of magnitude, so that has to be overcome for tidal mechanisms to work. There are stars with large planets in very close orbits. Those planets will certainly have a measurable tidal effect. We could look for such systems and study them over time to see if their stellar activity is synchronized with the tidal forces. So, the field is ripe for investigations, but we have to get rid of all the pseudo-scientific nonsense that right now is obscuring the issues..

  428. Leif, tallbloke,

    How about the proposition that the centre of gravity of the solar system affects Earth’s oceans over and above lunar effects directly without needing to involve the sun at all?

    If we can detach the 60 year cycling from solar causation that seems to be quite helpful from my point of view.

  429. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    “If you got the copy of the paper I sent you, read it and discuss it.
    If you didn’t or you’re not interested in discussing it, forget it.:

    Sorry if my words appeared intemperate. You got my back up by suggesting my knowledge is “inadequate” on something I spent many years filled with painful all-nighters studying. I’m not saying I am an expert, but I know a lot more than the average bloke who hasn’t made a career in the field.

    As for the paper… It is difficult to do more than a cursory examination on short order. But, I am sure they neglected terms which would effectively (i.e., aside from tidal effects) decouple the spin momentum from the orbital momentum. I have my suspicions on where they went wrong, but I do not want to say specifically where because, as I said, I have not had much time to delve into it.

    But, I am sure it is wrong without deep study in the same way I am sure that papers promoting perpetual motion machines are wrong – because it’s not physically possible. I have experience analyzing data from accelerometers on space platforms. I know what we expect to see and, goshdarnit, that is what we see. And, in free-fall, that is gravity gradient effects and accelerations due to vehicle rotation, only. The reason is that, the accelerometer measures the gravity at a point on the vehicle, but it also measures the force with which the vehicle is pulling on it. And, the sum of those two is the gravity gradient between the accelerometer unit and the spacecraft center of gravity.

    You can imagine each infinitesimal mass on the Sun as a virtual accelerometer. It is being tugged by the gravity which instantaneously appears to emanate from the barycenter, but it is also being pushed by the rest of the Sun which is also responding to that tug with the same acceleration (again, neglecting tidal effects). The push and the tug cancel out, and all you are left with is the tidal forcing.

    I don’t want to be a complete wet blanket. There are some very curious coincidences in the patterns you and others have dug up which appear to show at least superficial correlations. I’m just saying that, in looking for the cause-effect relationship, you are currently heading up a blind alley which has no apparent outlet.

  430. See – owe to Rich says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:04 pm
    And on yet another point, it is weird that Leif considers 60 years to be 1/(3/S-1/J) rather than 3/(1/J-1/S). Of course, simple algebra shows that they would be the same thing if S=5J/2, which isn’t so far from being correct. Still, for 3/S-1/J, what thing is it that’s going round 3 times as fast as Saturn that should be compared synodically with Jupiter?

    Sorry, that I went a bit fast there. But all this is very old stuff, discussed for over a century. The idea is that Jupiter’s tides are 33% higher at perihelion, hence the 1/J, and if Saturn happens to be in conjunction [every 19.86 years] with Jupiter at that time the tides are even higher [a ‘spring tide’ if you want], and because times are raised on both sides of the Sun, it will also happen if Saturn is on the other side of the Sun than Jupiter, hence every 19.86/2 = 9.93 years, so that is how the 60-yr period comes about: 61yr = 1/(1/9.93 – 1/11.86).

  431. Stephen Wilde says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:17 pm
    How about the proposition that the centre of gravity of the solar system affects Earth’s oceans over and above lunar effects directly without needing to involve the sun at all?
    The Center of Mass has no mass and cannot affect anything. If you and I walk down the street on opposite sides of the street, our C.o.M is halfway between us out near that yellow center line. What effect can it have by itself?

  432. See – owe to Rich says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    “In the geodesics present in the general relativistic universe, the only “particles” following them are those of light, viz those with no mass and therefore travelling at the speed of light.”

    We call such geodesics “null geodesics”. But, they are not the only type of geodesic. The whole point of Einstein’s field equation is to find the connection coefficients which govern geodesic equation trajectories in the neighborhood of a massive and/or highly energetic object.

    Stephen Wilde says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    “How about the proposition that the centre of gravity of the solar system affects Earth’s oceans over and above lunar effects directly without needing to involve the sun at all?”

    Same problem as with the Sun – only tidal effects are physically significant. In fact, the effect of the Sun’s gravity on Earthly tides is about half of the effect of the Moon, which is why you get spring tides and neap tides during a syzygy. Venus has the largest effect of the other planets, at 0.000113 times the solar effect.

  433. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:06 pm
    What you should have learned by now from the various exchanges is that if the planets generate, control, or modulate solar activity it is by tidal mechanisms [which includes W&P]. That means that all the barycentric [and solar velocity, angular momentum, etc] stuff is out, and we should [as W&P] concentrate on finding how tidal forces can do this.

    Wolff and Patrone say:
    “Using a classical method, we have estimated the spatial distribution of regions within a
    star that contain previously-unknown potential energy per unit mass (PE) that exists solely
    because the star is orbiting the inertially fixed point (barycenter) of its planetary system.”

    Are you seeing the word ‘tidal’ in there Leif?
    I’m seeing the word ‘barycenter’.

    They go on to say:
    “the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid
    is the tidal force. It raises a tide ∼ 1 mm high at the solar surface, which is ∼ 10−11 to ∼ 10−9
    times the vertical displacements of convective flows that will be involved in our mechanism.
    We ignore tidal effects in the rest of this paper.”

    Anyway, I’m not going to argue it with you right now, because this is a most welcome and refreshing change in your approach.

    There may be subtle things going on in the interior that we don’t know about: the sun might not be symmetric on the inside, for example, in which case tidal forces may cause a torque on the sun, perturbing the sunspot generation, or other more exotic things. The usual problem is one of magnitude, so that has to be overcome for tidal mechanisms to work.

    A physical asymmetry in the Sun would introduce a quadrupole moment which should be detectable. Any likely places in existing data that might be found?
    Over on my blog, we’ve been discussing the physical and activity asymmetry of the Sun for the last year and a half. When I presented my finding on the link between sunspot production asymmetry and the motion of the Sun relative to the barycentre in the Z axis to you on solarcycle24.com best part of two years ago, you summarily dismissed it and had the moderator close my thread. Remember?
    Maybe this will refresh your memory:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/sunspot-asymmetry-barycentre-to-solar-centre-link/

    “More exotic things” might cover the Wolff-Patrone mechanism too.

    There are stars with large planets in very close orbits. Those planets will certainly have a measurable tidal effect. We could look for such systems and study them over time to see if their stellar activity is synchronized with the tidal forces. So, the field is ripe for investigations, but we have to get rid of all the pseudo-scientific nonsense that right now is obscuring the issues..

    Pseudo-scientific nonsense like “The Sun is in perfect freefall and feels no forces” for example. ;)

    As you say, the field is ripe for investigations, we are several years ahead of you there, but you have better knowledge of and access to data, so feel free to join in the exciting voyage of discovery with us, you and your knowledge are sincerely welcome. I will happily eschew ideas proved wrong as the new theory takes shape.

    Hurrah!! At last!!!

  434. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    Are you seeing the word ‘tidal’ in there Leif?
    I’m seeing the word ‘barycenter’.

    I see ‘potential energy’ thus gravitational effect. And thus ‘tidal’ which is just another word for the gravitational potential varying over the size the body.

    Anyway, I’m not going to argue it with you right now, because this is a most welcome and refreshing change in your approach.
    This is not a change [although any welcoming is always welcome], but an appeal to look at the right place and not go down that blind alley Bart was talking about. The real test is to get more than one exemplar and that we are now able to do, so that is why the field is ripe for a definitive test, although true believers would still claim that even if a hundred star systems disprove the theory, the solar system is somehow special and allows the theory to work here.

    A physical asymmetry in the Sun
    Wrong kind of asymmetry. The asymmetry would have to be in the Z-direction and not be related to mass or density. Not any asymmetry will do, it has to one that preserves the oblateness of the Sun to be what is observed..

    Pseudo-scientific nonsense like “The Sun is in perfect freefall and feels no forces” for example.
    You just don’t get it. Tidal forces are always there, and the Sun is in free fall. [your ‘perfect’ is a weasel word as nothing is ever perfect].

    As you say, the field is ripe for investigations, we are several years ahead of you there
    As long as you deny the free fall, you are several years ahead, but down the wrong road which just means that it will take that much longer to get back to real science. And your blog is just too crackpotty for my taste apart from following the wrong road.

  435. Mike Jonas says:
    July 28, 2011 at 1:57 pm
    Please remind me the questions by copy and past them in a new comment

    (I apologize for Leif’s behavior by disrupting this discussion! But I know him in person. He is a very good guy and I agree with him for about 50% he says. I just would like him to be more open-minded about the “surprises” of nature).

  436. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    Pseudo-scientific nonsense like “The Sun is in perfect freefall and feels no forces” for example.
    W&P on page 231 state correctly: “A star in orbit about its barycenter is in a state of free fall”. So W&P spout pseudo-scientific nonsense according to you?

  437. Bart says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    “If you got the copy of the paper I sent you, read it and discuss it.
    If you didn’t or you’re not interested in discussing it, forget it.:

    Sorry if my words appeared intemperate. You got my back up by suggesting my knowledge is “inadequate” on something I spent many years filled with painful all-nighters studying. I’m not saying I am an expert, but I know a lot more than the average bloke who hasn’t made a career in the field.

    Thank you, please accept my apology in return for my words, I’m just a humble mech eng with a few ideas which seem to be gradually bearing some fruit, and I get a bit weary of people dismissing Wolff and Patrone on a priori grounds.

    As for the paper… It is difficult to do more than a cursory examination on short order. But, I am sure they neglected terms which would effectively (i.e., aside from tidal effects) decouple the spin momentum from the orbital momentum. I have my suspicions on where they went wrong, but I do not want to say specifically where because, as I said, I have not had much time to delve into it. But, I am sure it is wrong without deep study in the same way I am sure that papers promoting perpetual motion machines are wrong – because it’s not physically possible.

    I hope you find the time to make a deeper reading, and come to appreciate as I did that their proposed mechanism is viable because it isn’t just based on angular momentum due to orbital and spin considerations, but involves those momenta being affected by the simultaneous flow of energy radially outwards generated by fusion and set in motion by a thermal gradient with its concomitant adiabat.

    I have experience analyzing data from accelerometers on space platforms. I know what we expect to see and, goshdarnit, that is what we see. And, in free-fall, that is gravity gradient effects and accelerations due to vehicle rotation, only.

    Impressive credentials, please stick around to help us solve this fascinating puzzle. Maybe if the vehicle was powered by a fusion reactor you’d find it was more active than expected on the side facing the barycenter of its orbit. ;)

    I don’t want to be a complete wet blanket. There are some very curious coincidences in the patterns you and others have dug up which appear to show at least superficial correlations. I’m just saying that, in looking for the cause-effect relationship, you are currently heading up a blind alley which has no apparent outlet.

    I’ll let cleverer people than me take the glory for the mechanism, I’ll carry on digging up the curious coincidences and making the correlations less superficial, and keep tossing them over the wall for the professionals to look at and think about.

    Cheers.

  438. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 4:43 pm
    W&P on page 231 state correctly: “A star in orbit about its barycenter is in a state of free fall”. So W&P spout pseudo-scientific nonsense according to you?

    I note that they don’t say ‘perfect’ freefall, or that it ‘feels no forces’.

  439. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 4:58 pm
    I note that they don’t say ‘perfect’ freefall, or that it ‘feels no forces’.
    As I said, ‘perfect’ was your weasel word. It is like being pregnant, you are or you aren’t. And your reading is a bit selective as they just before the paragraph you quoted say: “At other locations, the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid is the tidal force.”

  440. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    Are you seeing the word ‘tidal’ in there Leif?
    I’m seeing the word ‘barycenter’.
    I see ‘potential energy’ thus gravitational effect. And thus ‘tidal’ which is just another word for the gravitational potential varying over the size the body.

    So why do they say in their paper:
    “the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid
    is the tidal force. It raises a tide ∼ 1 mm high at the solar surface, which is ∼ 10−11 to ∼ 10−9
    times the vertical displacements of convective flows that will be involved in our mechanism.
    We ignore tidal effects in the rest of this paper.”

    Hmm?

  441. Reply to “tallbloke” and all others interested:
    We feel, we are onto something new and promising. No doubt, this is 100% true, but which details? Are there major details overlooked for presenting a coherent approach, but which ones?
    Loehle and Scafetta present a historical/statistical analysis of past performance, but which, as the English saying goes “is no guantee for future performance…..”.
    Folks, very good news: The issue: astronomic forces relating to the Earth’s orbit and the effect
    on global warming (see my new book: “Das Ende der globalen Erwaermung”- End of global
    warming- ISBN 978-3–86805-604-4) is totally resolved, but the text is still in German and I am
    in the midst of the translation. Please wait until next spring and you will clearly recognize the
    astronomical forces onto the climate by transparent calculations for everyone. You can forget the CO2-emission nonsense…… once and for all, pity the poor betrayed AGW-followers…..
    I don’t mind a question or two from those very eager, .
    For advancing: First, we get the theory straight, based solely on facts and not probabilities, we will then recognize, that temperatures of the 21 Century reached a maximum plateau since year 2000 and cannot/will not raise any further, and thirdly, we can follow up with Loehle and Scafetta for statistical comparison with past performance…..
    Saludos….Your “Weltklima”

  442. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Now, that is a big [unfounded] statement. It will be interesting to see how you climb out of that deep hole.

    Your statements on record are the real hole being dug, which will be interesting to read in the years to follow. Anyone with a basic knowledge of a 5 body system such as we are discussing would understand the 2 outer bodies add to and take away from the velocity and angular momentum created by the inner 2. But don’t take my word for it as the exercise is simple if you bother to look. Previously in this thread I gave links to a solar velocity graph and a solar system viewer, here they are again:

    http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html

    I don’t expect you to look at the detail but I will lay it out for those that might be interested. Go to years 1702,1723,1742,1761 and then 1881,1901,1921,1940 on the solar system viewer. The influence of the outer 2 planets is clear with the triple conjunctions providing the most velocity. It gets messier during other periods when U/N are together because of timing but the overall impact from U/N is clear.

    If the solar system was missing U/N the J/S orbits would provide very stable solar velocity, very stable angular momentum and there would also be no perturbation to velocity and angular momentum that happen during grand minima. Without U/N, velocity and AM would follow a very balanced non perturbed sine wave, there would be no 60 year velocity cycle observed in the peaks and troughs.

    You are confusing perihelion/aphelion of J/S in your example to See – owe to Rich which makes very little difference to velocity/AM at the sun as well as being subject to orbit precession. Once again we are not talking about tides.(the 33% figure doesn’t sound right?)

    One day the U/N penny will drop for you.

  443. Tallbloke I think its rather you who has to put up or shut up.

    Although I would not even suggest that you shut up. Kinda rude.

    what entity is acting. what’s the force. how large is it, what does it act on. how does change that thing. Can we measure it and how is it connected to the CLIMATE

    where climate is:

    Long term averages of MANY MANY metrics.

    start with a this one: how does your mechanism impact precipitation.

  444. Willis wrote: Now, if you want to establish that hypothesis, or if you think that is true, how does showing that the climate can be simulated by a couple of sine waves plus a trend show anything at all? If you want to establish that there is a relationship between global temperature and barycentric cycles, you have to use the actual barycentric cycles, complete with their actual phase and amplitude. In the barycentric data the 60-year cycle is a tenth the size of 20-year cycle. You can’t reverse their relative sizes to make the 60-year cycle much larger than the 20-year cycle.

    That is certainly a good heuristic argument for the next stage in modeling — has anyone already done it?

  445. Nicola – I can fill in some numbers for you: tc is 0.74 (IPCC report). Using satellite temperatures after 1979 as per my suggested adjustment (1) …

    t1 is 0.181 and t2 is 0.256, so tr is 0.36.
    The IPCC’s ECS is 3.2, so adjusting it as I suggest reduces it to 3.2 * 0.36 /0.74 = 1.56 – about half.
    Using suggested adjustment (2) would I think reduce it only slightly to about 1.43, so the effort might not be worthwhile.

    Note the graph linked above has the phases labelled “PDO phases” because that is what they appeared to map to when I did the graph in late 2009, but their line segments are derived purely from the phases in the temperatures and not from any PDO data. According to my notes, the satellite temperatures used were actually UAH global LT, not MT, and the surface temperatures were Hadcrut3. I did a least-squares fit to multiple line segments, optimising by time as well as by temperature (ie, the flex points of the phases are optimised in both x and y directions).

    [I have just noticed that the IPCC’s 20thC temperature increase is 1906-2005 not 1901-2000, so the figures might change slightly – very slightly.

  446. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 28, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    In the barycentric data the 60-year cycle is a tenth the size of 20-year cycle. You can’t reverse their relative sizes to make the 60-year cycle much larger than the 20-year cycle.

    Hi again Willis. I am glad you have come around to recognizing the quasi cycles. This statement is some distance from your earlier statements.

    I fear I’ve never heard of any REGULAR 60 and 20 year solar orbit cycles. I got pretty deep into the math of the barycentric orbit of the sun, wrote an Excel spreadsheet to calculate the barycenter by actually calculating planetary positions as a matter of fact, no small bit of spreadsheeting requiring a host of specialized user functions.

    But I never found any regular 60 and 20 year “solar orbit cycles”. The barycenter is affected by all of the planets, although the giant planets affect it more. The orbits of the planets are not generally mutually divisible. This results in a very complex and constantly changing dance of the sun around the solar barycenter … but not regular 60 and 20 year orbit cycles. Not sure what you mean by that. What am I missing here?

    The quasi 60 year cycle is a background trend showing the overall velocity modulation. In my own research this background modulation is very important when considering angular momentum and its effects of solar cycle modulation. AM follows the same quasi 20 year pattern as velocity but the background trend over 172 years is what controls cycle amplitude. Once again U/N being the modulator.

  447. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 5:10 pm
    So why do they say in their paper:
    “the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid is the tidal force.”

    Because they as any other good scientist would know that in free fall the Sun only senses tidal forces.
    It raises a tide ∼ 1 mm high at the solar surface, which is ∼ 10−11 to ∼ 10−9
    times the vertical displacements of convective flows that will be involved in our mechanism.

    Because the depth of the convection zone is 200,000 km or 2E11 times 1 mm. And if the convection cell doesn’t span the whole zone but only, say, one percent you get 2E9 times 1 mm. So the vertical movements in a convection cell is max ~E11 times the direct tidal influence.
    We ignore tidal effects in the rest of this paper
    Because of the above it seems very safe to ignore the simple tidal effects.

    Now, Potential energy exists when there is a force [the restoring force] acting upon a body that can restore it to a lower energy configuration. In free fall there are no forces acting on the body, so no potential energy exists, except that related to tides due to the finite extent of the central body.

    Kinetic energy of a body is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to it velocity. As the Sun is in free fall it does not feel any acceleration going around the barycenter and thus gains no kinetic energy. That, I think, is the flaw in W&P’s equations 2 and 4. Let me think a bit more about this and formalize my thoughts.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 28, 2011 at 5:46 pm
    there would also be no perturbation to velocity
    All this is irrelevant as the sun is in free fall and does not feel any effects of moving with changing velocity.

    Once again we are not talking about tides.(the 33% figure doesn’t sound right?)
    Sound right? In science we calculate: The eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit is about 5%, that means that the difference between perihelion and aphelion distances is twice that, namely 10%. As tides vary with the inverse cube of the distance, the difference in tides is 3 times the 10% or 30%. A more precise calculation gives the 33%.

  448. To Richard S Courtney & Mike Jonas says:
    Nicola – The posts are long so rather than cut & paste here is a link to the main one:

    I tried to understand your argument. A accurate response is difficult. It seems to me that you are arguing that because a clear physical mechanism is still missing and the calculations were done on a short time series than the result of our analysis should be “rejected”.

    I believe that it would not be appropriate to reject our result on such bases. In fact, under those assumptions I believe that you may at most be entitled to search for an alternative interpretation of the data, but you cannot “reject” our result. The length of the data is short for everybody, not only for us and it is well known that clear physical mechanisms are still poorly understood, which is again a problem for everybody, not just for us.

    “Rejecting”, in fact, means to “prove” it false. Simply stating, “there might be another explanation” is not an evidence that a proposed theory is false.

    What is done in science when alternative theories are proposed is to compare them and see which of the two better reproduces the dynamical patterns emerging from the data.

    Unfortunately the alternative theory currently available is the one built on the IPCC GCMs and, as I shown in my 2010 paper, those models do not reproduce the 60-year modulation observed in the data since 1850. Thus, the IPCC theory is already not supported by the data.

    You may say that the IPCC GCMs adopt forcings and climate sensitivities characterized by huge error, and perhaps it may be possible to find a combination of parameters that would produce computer model simulations that might better agree with the temperature. But a theory which needs huge errors-bars to agree with the data is not very useful, in my opinion.

    On the contrary, we have shown that a quasi 60-year modulation is present in several proxy records before 1850, thus our hypothesis that the modulation observed from 1850 to 1950 was due to this 60-year cycle was supported by the available information.
    Then we used the temperature record from 1850 to 1950 to calibrate the amplitude of the cycle, and we used the model to check whether it could tell us something about the period 1950-2010. And the model was able to reproduce the observed modulation: cooling until 1970, warming from 1970 to 2000, and little cooling since 2000. The only difference was an upper quasi linear trend, that would be compatible with an exponential increase of GHG plus other anthropogenic contributions and possible UHI and other similar biases. This exercise shown that the model is potentially able of approximately forecast this climate variations. On the contrary the alternative IPCC theory did not reproduce the modulation of the temperature from 1850to 2000 and predicted a warming since 2000 at a rate of 2.3 C/century..

    So, our model should be evaluated by “comparison” with the alternative available theories that claims that those cycles do not exist because they do not reproduce them.

    And in my opinion our model performs much better in interpreting the information embedded in both temperature and proxy records that we have. Finally, as I shown in my 2010 paper in more details the climate contains many oscillations, not just the 60-year one, that match astronomical cycles. So, it is there that one should more likely look for hoping to solve the issue.

    Of course, there are still several open issues that need to be further investigated that will eventually confirm or rebut our proposed interpretation of the climate record. We will see. In Italy we say: “Se sono rose, fioriranno” :)

  449. I tried to understand your argument. A accurate response is difficult. It seems to me that you are arguing that because a clear physical mechanism is still missing and the calculations were done on a short time series than the result of our analysis should be “rejected”.
    ##########
    nicola. your ‘argument’ is not rejected. It is not an argument. it is not an explanation. the way explanations work is that they identify agents and forces or laws. Physical entities or posits.
    Youve made a detailed OBSERVATION about the results of calculations. But since you havent proposed a clear physical mechanism, there’s nothing much more to say.

    “I believe that it would not be appropriate to reject our result on such bases. In fact, under those assumptions I believe that you may at most be entitled to search for an alternative interpretation of the data, but you cannot “reject” our result. The length of the data is short for everybody, not only for us and it is well known that clear physical mechanisms are still poorly understood, which is again a problem for everybody, not just for us.”

    The point is you have no real result. No argument, no hypothesis that connects to mechanisms we can either accept, reject, refine or test. The best we can do is shrug. We cannot ask “what does your model predict for tropospheric temps? for sea level rise, for extreme weather. That you find a pattern in the low order, 2 dimensional metric of a complex spatio temporal system is singularly uninteresting.
    ######

    “Rejecting”, in fact, means to “prove” it false. Simply stating, “there might be another explanation” is not an evidence that a proposed theory is false.
    #######
    There is no THEORY to prove false. There is an observation and conjecture.
    #####
    What is done in science when alternative theories are proposed is to compare them and see which of the two better reproduces the dynamical patterns emerging from the data.
    #####
    Fine. What does your theory predict for precipitation? for OHC? for arctic ice? for diurnal
    range? for snow cover? for tropospheric temperatures? for El nino frequency? for hurricanes?
    you cannot displace a theory that is much broader and more comprehensive with one that does one thing: Your theory fits a METRIC. global temperature is an index. A composition of two different measures entirely. Its not even physically real.
    #####
    Unfortunately the alternative theory currently available is the one built on the IPCC GCMs and, as I shown in my 2010 paper, those models do not reproduce the 60-year modulation observed in the data since 1850. Thus, the IPCC theory is already not supported by the data.
    ####
    you would have to look at individual realizations of models. NOT the ensemble averages.

    When you can match things like sea surface salt and ocean circulation, and ocean acidification with the model, when you find a force which can produce the kind of near instaneous response that you need, then you are onto something.

  450. In the midst of all the arguments about cycles /orbits/elasticity and what not, I think there is something that many of you seem to forget.
    Let us take a look again at this model/graph here.

    (I wonder who wrote this model, can somebody help me there?)
    Let us assume for a minute that this model is 100% correct.
    Note the blue and red areas where we got more cooling and warming respectively than what we had expected. An old saying goes: the climate is what you expect, the weather is what you get….
    I have been thinking a bit about that and about those blue and red areas. I think I know what happened. That extra cooling must have happened due to an extraordinarly amount of earth being covered with snow and ice, which then led to the snowballing effect of deflecting more light from earth than would otherwise be the case. Earth simply could not absorb as much heat as it used to.
    The extra warming (red areas) must have occurred simply because something like the opposite happened: due to volcanic eruptions or massive forest fires,or even possibly because of earth having been hit by other objects flying through space, etc, etc, black soot settled on many of our snow covered ice- and landmasses which then prevented much of the light being reflected back to space causing earth to warm up more than would otherwise be the case.

    But eventually, looking at it objectively, the weather came again and again, each year, and with time it did what it always does:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/willis-publishes-his-thermostat-hypothesis-paper/

    ::: in a narrow band, it always brings us back to the straight line.

    It appears that it was simply the weather that covers many of earth’s and the universe’s and perhaps even some of our own transgressions.
    So before you curse the weather around you, remember;
    the weather is good (of God).

  451. bravo mr mosher.
    statistics is not a substitute for science.
    they are the circumstantial evidence in a case. they are not proofs. the residuals – they are the marmite at the bottom of the probability fermenter. you have to be fed that stuff as a kid to like it.

  452. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    Sound right? In science we calculate: The eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit is about ….

    Thanks for that, I was aware of the inverse square law but not up with the orbit eccentricity. But all of this is irrelevant as tides are not in question. Interesting that you had no comeback on the importance of U/N in the 60 year cycle, I take it you will now have to recant your comment about my “silly” statement?

    To wit, the silly statements that a 60-yr cycle is due solely to Uranus and Neptune.

  453. On the new paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011 and the subsequent Reuters headline “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism”

    I’m guessing Loehle and Scafetta can redo the stats to make this fit. Not sure where you’d start the second slope though. From the date of this new paper or 1950?

  454. Steven Mosher: When you can match things like sea surface salt and ocean circulation, and ocean acidification with the model, when you find a force which can produce the kind of near instaneous response that you need, then you are onto something.

    A model meeting all of your requirements might not be available before the year 2100. What we need are some reasonably accurate models, reasonably well-tested, by about 2030 at the latest, for planning purposes. A really useful goal would be to decide whether the climate sensitivity is close to 0C, close to 0.6C, or close to 4.0C. The exact distribution of rainfall changes is not needed.

    Why do you say that the average global temperature is not “real”? Do you say the same of your core body temperature, blood pressure, hematocrit, or mass of O2 molecules? The change in global mean temperature over time is as useful an index as the change in body weight of an individual, and in both cases there is no process that is directly a function of either.

  455. steven mosher says:
    July 28, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    “But since you havent proposed a clear physical mechanism, there’s nothing much more to say.”

    Sure there is. Based on the long term at-least-quasi cyclical processes observed in the history record, we can expect that we are in for a near term cooling which is going to last maybe 2-3 more decades. The IPCC takes the opposing position, that in that time, the global temperature metric (GTM) will rise relentlessly.

    The rest of your diatribe is like imagining someone going up to Newton after the Principia and sneering, “yeah but, can you build a rocket?” I mean, give it up, dude. The climate establishment has spent decades and billions, and they still don’t have a clue what’s going to happen in the next decade. We who are not handicapped by dogma can confidently assert that it is extremely likely the GTM will fall.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 28, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    “…this background modulation is very important when considering angular momentum and its effects of solar cycle modulation. .”

    There is no related mechanical effect absent the tidal forces.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    “The eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit … tides vary … 33%.”

    But, keep in mind, the per-unit-length strength of Jupiter’s tidal forces at the Sun is at most about 3 millionths of the same measure of the Moon’s tidal forces on the Earth. We’re talking really small.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    “That, I think, is the flaw in W&P’s equations 2 and 4.”

    There are some obvious problems with the kinetic energy equations 2a and 2b. But, of greater import, there are forces acting on the cell due to neighboring constituents of the Sun, and the delta-kinetic energy has to include the contributions due to work done by them. Those constituents are being acted upon by the same gravitational “force” acting on the cell, and the work they do is going to cancel any change in overall energy due to gravitation other than that due to the tidal forces.

    This is the essence of how the overall effect of gravitational forces acting on an object are reduced to the net effect of tidal forces in the Newtonian mechanical view. As I related in my example of the rigidly attached accelerometer in a previous comment: an accelerometer senses the gravity at its position in space. But, it is also being tugged along by the space vehicle to which it is attached, which is moving according to the force of gravity at the system CG. Ergo, the accelerometer only measures the delta-gravity between where it is located and the CG. The principal is the same with a flexible body or a fluid. Everything evens out in the wash so that the only gravitational effect is tidal.

  456. “…the per-unit-length strength of Jupiter’s tidal forces at the Sun is at most about 3 millionths of the same measure of the Moon’s tidal forces on the Earth.”

    If you work it out (by all means, check my math), that means the tidal force from the Moon acting at the surface of the Earth’s oceans is more than 1000 times greater than the tidal force from Jupiter acting at the surface of the Sun.

  457. Nicola Scafetta says “It seems to me that you are arguing that because a clear physical mechanism is still missing and the calculations were done on a short time series than the result of our analysis should be “rejected”. … “Rejecting”, in fact, means to “prove” it false.“.

    I think I demonstrated why your analysis should be regarded as unreliable. I don’t know whether that constitutes “rejection”, or whether some other term is more appropriate, but let’s look at the logic. You have a short period in which you detect a cycle operating. You don’t have any mechanism for the cycle, ie, you don’t know its cause, so you can only guess as to whether the cycle continues with similar amplitude, length, shape and underlying slope. My claim is that this is an unsafe basis for your analysis. I used the solar cycles as an example of how unreliable your method could be in a real-world example.

    I’ll take the solar cycle figures one step further, and map them to the sort of findings that you made:

    Let us suppose that you had detected a cycle in some data. Unknown to you, that data was a fragment of my smoothed sunspot data. You only had a bit more than one complete cycle of data to use as a base, and you used that to project forward one cycle. The difference between the slope of the base cycle and the slope of the next observed cycle was then used to quantify something which was thought to be causing the difference. What is the chance that this difference was simply a natural variation from one cycle to the next, and what is the chance that you have identified a genuine divergence?

    Let us look at the smoothed sunspot data and see how we would fare picking one cycle from the 21 available. The two data columns are: (1) slope of cycle, (2) change in slope to the next cycle (divergence) as a multiple of (1):
    2.24 0.01
    2.26 -0.67
    0.75 -7.19
    -4.63 -0.89
    -0.53 -5.01
    2.11 1.34
    4.93 -1.28
    -1.39 -0.16
    -1.17 -2.71
    2.00 -2.66
    -3.31 -1.30
    0.98 -2.08
    -1.06 -2.41
    1.50 -1.39
    -0.59 -5.06
    2.38 0.19
    2.84 0.31
    3.70 -2.53
    -5.65 -1.60
    3.37 -1.10
    -0.35 6.59

    14 of the 21 divergences are outside the range +-1. You would therefore have a 66% chance of thinking you had found a divergence at least as high as the one you actually found in your paper. Yet the data I was using was from a natural cycle, and there certainly wasn’t a GHG influence from any one cycle to the next. Your conclusion is not justified because there is a very high probability that you didn’t isolate an external influence at all. (And maybe you were lucky not to hit a really high divergence, or you might have thought that the GHG influence was higher than the IPCC’s estimate).

    Basically, you need a mechanism or a longer history, so that you can get some credence for the idea that the divergence represents GHGs.

    If you were to map your cycles’ underlying slope to the IPCC’s analysis of RF, as I outlined in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-707459, it’s trickier but I think you do then avoid the problem.

    Nicola Scafetta also says “What is done in science when alternative theories are proposed is to compare them and see which of the two better reproduces the dynamical patterns emerging from the data. “.

    I agree that the IPCC’s effort is atrocious and should be binned. I agree that at least yours recognises the existence of a cycle and tries to deal with it. But your portrayal of what is done in science isn’t quite right. If science is faced with alternative theories, they are tested to see whether either of them is credible. If neither is credible then both are rejected.

  458. Should have said: This is the essence of how the overall local effect of gravitational forces acting on an object are reduced to the net effect of tidal forces in the Newtonian mechanical view. Obviously, in the larger picture, the object itself is made to follow the path dictated by gravity.

  459. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2011 at 5:10 pm
    So why do they say in their paper:
    “the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid is the tidal force.”
    Because they as any other good scientist would know that in free fall the Sun only senses tidal forces.
    “It raises a tide ∼ 1 mm high at the solar surface, which is ∼ 10−11 to ∼ 10−9
    times the vertical displacements of convective flows that will be involved in our mechanism.”
    Because the depth of the convection zone is 200,000 km or 2E11 times 1 mm. And if the convection cell doesn’t span the whole zone but only, say, one percent you get 2E9 times 1 mm. So the vertical movements in a convection cell is max ~E11 times the direct tidal influence.
    “We ignore tidal effects in the rest of this paper.”
    Because of the above it seems very safe to ignore the simple tidal effects.

    I notice the introduction of the word ‘simple’, that implies that you think maybe the W&P mechanism is some other type of tidal effect. This might be correct, I’m not sure. Tthey say the PE is more likely to be released on the side of the Sun facing the barycentre. Since the barycentre has no mass and cannot itself exert a tidal influence, I think it unlikely, though clearly the side of the Sun facing the barycentre is also facing the larger part of the distribution of the rest of the solar system mass.

    Now, Potential energy exists when there is a force [the restoring force] acting upon a body that can restore it to a lower energy configuration. In free fall there are no forces acting on the body, so no potential energy exists, except that related to tides due to the finite extent of the central body.

    W&P state:
    “We will discuss
    a fluid perturbation that depends on the distance and velocity of a star relative to the
    barycenter (mass centroid) of its planetary system. This motion creates potential energy per
    unit mass (PE) that can be released by flows pre-existing inside the star.”

    Kinetic energy of a body is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to it velocity. As the Sun is in free fall it does not feel any acceleration going around the barycenter and thus gains no kinetic energy. That, I think, is the flaw in W&P’s equations 2 and 4.

    W&P state:
    “Occasional small mass exchanges near the solar center and in a recently proposed
    mixed shell centered at 0.16Rs would carry fresh fuel to deeper levels. This would cause
    stars like the Sun with appropriate planetary systems to burn somewhat more brightly and
    have shorter lifetimes than identical stars without planets.”

    Let me think a bit more about this and formalize my thoughts.

    Thank you sincerely for taking the time and effort to give further consideration to the paper.
    We both need to think about it a bit more, I don’t claim to understand their paper perfectly.

  460. Nicola Scafetta:

    Again, sincere thanks for your willingness to engage with comments on your paper.

    At July 28, 2011 at 9:14 pm you reply to Mike Jonas and me saying:

    “I tried to understand your argument. A accurate response is difficult. It seems to me that you are arguing that because a clear physical mechanism is still missing and the calculations were done on a short time series than the result of our analysis should be “rejected”.
    I believe that it would not be appropriate to reject our result on such bases. In fact, under those assumptions I believe that you may at most be entitled to search for an alternative interpretation of the data, but you cannot “reject” our result. The length of the data is short for everybody, not only for us and it is well known that clear physical mechanisms are still poorly understood, which is again a problem for everybody, not just for us.”

    I am sorry that we each failed to be sufficiently clear. We are saying something much more profound than
    “because a clear physical mechanism is still missing and the calculations were done on a short time series than the result of our analysis should be “rejected”.”

    Let me try to itemise it.

    1. Apparent cycles may be ‘real’ or ‘coincidental’.

    2. Your analysis derives ‘climate sensitivity’ from comparison of the amplitudes of adjacent cycles of the same frequencies (i.e. 20 and 60 years).

    3. But adjacent cycles of the same frequency vary in amplitude.

    4. Therefore, a comparison of the amplitude of adjacent cycles provides an indication of ‘climate sensitivity’ that contains inherent error from the natural variations in amplitude.

    5. The magnitude of this inherent error in indicated ‘climate sensitivity’ is not known but is probably much larger than magnitude of the indicated ‘climate sensitivity’.

    6.It will never be possible to determine the magnitude of this inherent error because it is not possible to deconvolute all the possible causes of the variations to the amplitude(s) of the cycles.

    7. An estimate of a parameter has no practical appplication when it has inherent errors of unknown magnitude probably larger than the magnitude of the parameter.

    In other words, your estimate of ‘climate sensitivity’ has no practical appplication because it has inherent errors of unknown magnitude that are probably larger than the magnitude of the estimate.

    I hope the matter is now clear.

    Richard

  461. “If you work it out (by all means, check my math), that means the tidal force from the Moon acting at the surface of the Earth’s oceans is more than 1000 times greater than the tidal force from Jupiter acting at the surface of the Sun.”

    That is to say, the magnitude of the force acting on a mass element at the surface. But, perhaps the actual computation for comparison is more involved than that, taking into account fluid properties and the fact that all the elements below are going to experience a tidal force as well. Given the relative radii of the Sun and the Earth, or perhaps rather the depth of the Earth’s oceans, maybe the overall effect wouldn’t be so small after all.

    Not sure, and it’s late. Stream of consciousness theorizing is usually best kept to oneself, but I’ve already stepped in the pile. Maybe Leif has done these calculations before and can shed light on it…

  462. Richard S Courtney says:
    July 29, 2011 at 1:12 am

    “In other words, your estimate of ‘climate sensitivity’ has no practical appplication because it has inherent errors of unknown magnitude that are probably larger than the magnitude of the estimate.”

    It has one practical application. It says that the IPCC has overestimated the climate sensitivity. If there is any at all, it is significantly smaller than what they say it is.

  463. Bart says:
    July 29, 2011 at 12:35 am

    As I related in my example of the rigidly attached accelerometer in a previous comment: an accelerometer senses the gravity at its position in space. But, it is also being tugged along by the space vehicle to which it is attached, which is moving according to the force of gravity at the system CG. Ergo, the accelerometer only measures the delta-gravity between where it is located and the CG.”

    Hi Bart,
    In the Newtonian framework, as the Earth moves round its annual orbit, it is both being pulled towards the Sun (plus any superior planets on the other side of it and all inferior planets) and being pulled away from the sun by the superior planets it passes beneath. Is the net effect of that that the Earth orbits the Sun-Earth barycentre, or the solar system centre of gravity (solar system barycentre SSB), or somewhere in between?

    I’m thinking the answer is “Somewhere in between” but that it’ll be much closer to one or the other, probably the Sun Earth barycentre. But there will be perturbations, which probably account for the gradual synchronisation of the Moon’s orbital parameters with other solar system frequencies. And this will apply to other planets too, eventually forming the close ‘coincidences’ we find throughout the timings of various solar system orbits and their inter-relations.

    These also are in synchronisation with the timing of changes in solar activity. For example the sunspot asymmetry correlation with barycentric motion in the z-axis, and this plot of Jupiter, Earth and Venus alignments along the Parker Spiral (solar wind speed compensated)

    As you agreed earlier, there is something going on between the planets and the Sun.
    The Wolff & Patrone mechanism is one possibility under investigation. What else might there be?
    You said re: W & P:

    There are some obvious problems with the kinetic energy equations 2a and 2b.

    Can you clarify what you believe those problems are please?

    Thanks

  464. One more comment on gravitational influence on the Sun, and then I call it a night. I was sloppy with my wording and I want to clear things up a little, if I can.

    Internal dynamics can ONLY be affected by tidal forces. Any change that comes about on an internal mass element due to gravity, neglecting the tidal differential, is also going to affect every neighboring mass element as well and in equal measure. As a result, there is no direct gravitationally induced internal reaction, there is only the tidal differential to consider for that.

    As a whole, externally, the entire mass is going to move under the direct influence of the gravitational field but, internally, it’s a different ballgame.

    That is the Newtonian viewpoint. The Einsteinian framework is much simpler conceptually. Every mass element is following a geodesic line in spacetime. The only internal dynamical effect comes about from the small deviation of geodesic lines for neighboring mass elements, which is what the tidal forces really are.

  465. Bart says: “It has one practical application. It says that the IPCC has overestimated the climate sensitivity. If there is any at all, it is significantly smaller than what they say it is.

    IMHO there is no sound basis for any such conclusion. Liking the result does not make it right. The right result for the wrong reason is still bad science.

  466. Joachim Seifert says:
    July 28, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    Reply to “tallbloke” and all others interested:
    …(see my new book: “Das Ende der globalen Erwaermung”- End of global
    warming- ISBN 978-3–86805-604-4) is totally resolved, but the text is still in German and I am
    in the midst of the translation. Please wait until next spring and you will clearly recognize the
    astronomical forces onto the climate by transparent calculations for everyone.

    Hi Joachim,
    We do group science for free here, but don’t worry, we’ll catch up with your work eventually when you tell us more about it. You said eager people can ask questions, very kind.

    What is the principle astronomical mechanism your hypothesis rests on?

  467. tallbloke says:
    July 29, 2011 at 1:41 am

    “Is the net effect of that that the Earth orbits the Sun-Earth barycentre, or the solar system centre of gravity (solar system barycentre SSB), or somewhere in between?”

    Everything in the Solar System orbits the barycenter, including the Sun, but the orbits are not purely Keplerian due to the multi-body aspect.

    “But there will be perturbations, which probably account for the gradual synchronisation of the Moon’s orbital parameters with other solar system frequencies.”

    For synchronization to occur, you must have energy dissipation. Such dissipation occurs due to tide-induced friction. Tidal locking, such as we see in Sun-Mercury and Earth-Moon, occurs because there exists a minimum energy state which is reached through energy dissipation. Minimum energy states often (though not necessarily – see Sun-Mercury) involve synchronization of some sort. Once the minimum energy state is reached, there is no further dissipation. Clear as mud?

    “As you agreed earlier, there is something going on between the planets and the Sun.
    The Wolff & Patrone mechanism is one possibility under investigation. What else might there be?”

    My actual wording was, I think, that there were “curious coincidences”.

    I’m not so sure anymore that tidal forces are negligible (see previous rambling posts). I also mentioned previously the possibility of cosmic ray modulation, via velocity induced changes in the Lorentz force which deflects them, affecting the Earth’s climate (though, I still haven’t made any calculations to see whether that idea holds any water). Other than that… I can’t think of anything offhand, but perhaps other ideas will emerge in time.

    “Can you clarify what you believe those problems are please?”

    Well, I haven’t look at how significant they are. Obviously, though, the equations only capture kinetic energy due to velocity orthogonal to R. And, is little “r” not also changing with time?

    But, the big problem, as I said, is that there is no accounting of the influence of work done by neighboring mass elements. The motion imparted by gravity on a given mass element is also, neglecting tidal forces, imparted on every neighboring mass element as well. Where there is no change in relative motion, there is no change in ongoing interactions.

  468. Bart:

    Thanks for your comment to me at July 29, 2011 at 1:22 am.

    It refutes my summary of the conclusion reached by Mike Jonas and me that I put to Scaffeta and Loehle; viz.

    “In other words, your estimate of ‘climate sensitivity’ has no practical appplication because it has inherent errors of unknown magnitude that are probably larger than the magnitude of the estimate.”
    You comment says to that;
    “It has one practical application. It says that the IPCC has overestimated the climate sensitivity. If there is any at all, it is significantly smaller than what they say it is.”

    With respect, your comment amounts to the point that I put to Mike Jonas (at July 28, 2011 at 2:48 am ), but later and in response to his comment (at July 28, 2011 at 6:36 am) I conceded (at July 28, 2011 at 11:44 am ) that my – and your – point is wrong.

    Simply, it is wrong because one cannot deconvolute the causes of the amplitude variations any estimate could be an indication of natural variation in the amplitudes. Hence, one cannot say the indicated ‘climate sensitivity’ indicates anything.

    Please note that I am convinced by the work of Idso (see
    http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm )
    that climate sensitivity is small, so my view on this is not prejudiced.

    Richard

  469. It is interesting how many of us refuse to be willing to look at data that shows us something new and unbelievable. It generally happens because cause and effect are not clear at the time and we get into this almost violent skeptical mode. I assure you that I am a great believer in this skeptical attitude but I also think we need to look carefully at the data.

    About 3 or 4 years ago when all the IPCC hype became trumpeted in the media, I began to wonder whether CO2 was really going to be the end of the world. I started to gather New Mexico surface temperature data to see whether NM had joined this march into hell. I have since decided that surface temperature data is not the best approach to this problem but, hey, it did show me a 60 year signature and in some remote NM sites no upward trend in the overall temperature plot. El Paso TX has the 60 year signature with what I think is an urban heat island upward trend (especially in the last 60 years). I can see about two cycles in a few sites in this southwestern region (most SW sites have only a 60 year record). Granted not really long enough or enough data for me but it got me looking at other data. Over the years I have noticed other folks have seen this trend. See Girma Orrsengo’s view of it and his simple model using HadCRU temperature data:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/

    Also Verity Jones looked at the data and saw a noisy but clear pattern. Anthony showcased her work on WUWT but see it here:

    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/

    Scafetta sees it too. And with this and earlier papers he (and Loehle) try to explore why this might be happening. My early view tied it to Pacific and Atlantic decadal oscillations. But H2O (moisture/humidity, clouds, ice and snow) modulation of solar input seems to drive those cycles. I don’t dismiss CO2 completely but H2O seems a much bigger player. But frankly, I really don’t know the answer to why or how – just that the data shows some cyclical effects that need to be understood. I think we all need to look at the data ourselves – and we can all enjoy the hunt for what it means without being unkind to those of us who are really struggling to find why it is so. None of it requires faith but sometimes a little belief helps some of us get through the day.

    If you want to talk about faith in projections (predictions) – I have a heck of a lot more faith in the data that the above folks (and my own NM effort) show than anything the IPCC has to offer with the billions that have been spent on getting them there.

    Thanks Nicolas Scafetta and Craig Loehle for continuing the search and all of us at this website for the support (and disagreement/discussion) given in this search.

    Bernie

  470. In respect to the subject: “Loehle and Scafetta calculate 0.66°C/century for AGW” (Anthropogenic Global Warming), I have just done a plot containing: 1. the global surface temperature, 2. an average fit of line 1, 3. an smoother average fit of line 1, 4. A summation of the heliocentric tide functions of five celestial bodies, and 5. an average fit of line 4.
    The amplitudes of the synodic strength were found by empery.

    I think this pure mathematical simulation of well known NASA ephemerides valid form 3000 BCE until 3000 CE is maybe the only method, which can help to answer the question to the part of AGW, because there are no terrestrial data in.

    Last month I read on a difference found between the data of hasdcrut3 and hadcrut2 especially in the years around 1940, and maybe the anomaly in the date is not really true. But if true it could be compared with the GHI5, because the GHI5 has a lot of time windows where the GHI correlates with the slightly smoothes global surface temperatures. A simple subtraction can separate the AGW part from the natural climate dancing from the sun.

    The main aspect of this method is, that there are not pure synthetic mathematic functions f (t) are taken, but real heliocentric tide functions of real matter in the solar system. This turns the method to a job, were we have to found the reason of every peak in the terrestrial temperature spectrum and have to explain it in detail with reasons what come from AGW and what comes from the singing solar system.

    “Take the fraction 16/64. Now, canceling a six on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4.”
    “Wait a second! You can’t just cancel the six!”
    “Oh, so you’re telling us 16/64 is not equal to 1/4, are you?”

    Logic works well, but we have not to believe what logic tells, we have to look for valid arguments and also on invalid arguments or fallacies.

    In this manner it also can help that the cosmic ray intensity correlates with the GHI 8+ (higher frequency limit), but not well with the terrestrial GISS data.

    And BTW. As I have mentioned, sine peaks out of a composition must not have ever a real background in nature. This cann be understood as example from a FFT analyses from the NASA Pluto data:

    There comes up a frequency tree time higher than the fundamental frequency which has no reality in the solar system. It come from the very elliptic nature of the object Pluto.

    But if one knows how to interpret FFT spectra, it can lead to a new insight in the heat music from the solar system

    I am sorry, but what should an isolated fraction of [ T/century ] tell? I don’t know.

    Volker

  471. Bart says:
    July 29, 2011 at 2:35 am

    Everything in the Solar System orbits the barycenter, including the Sun, but the orbits are not purely Keplerian due to the multi-body aspect.

    An interesting topic which has been done to death, but on this occasion the evidence is stacked up against you. Rather than clogging this thread the issue is dealt with here:

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/200

  472. Bernie McCune says:

    “Thanks Nicolas Scafetta and Craig Loehle for continuing the search and all of us at this website for the support (and disagreement/discussion) given in this search.”

    Seconded.

    Richard

  473. tallbloke says:
    July 29, 2011 at 1:41 am
    Is the net effect of that that the Earth orbits the Sun-Earth barycentre, or the solar system centre of gravity (solar system barycentre SSB), or somewhere in between?
    The Earth does not orbit the barycenter SSB, but the barycenter of the Sun and the Earth. Just like the Space Station is not orbiting the barycenter of the Earth and the Moon. Every planet orbits the barycenter of that body and the Sun, not the barycenter of the solar system. An even more easy example: imagine a satellite in orbit about the Sun, just skimming the surface [we have many such in Low Earth Orbit]. That the solar system barycenter at times is more than a solar radius above the surface, it would be impossible to have such a skimming satellite if it had to orbit the solar system barycenter. Observationally we find that the Total Solar Irradiance we measure at Earth depends on the distance between the Earth and the Center of the Sun [as the Earth-Moon-Sun barycenter is very close to the center of the Sun] and not on the distance between the Earth and the solar system barycenter. A paper by Alexander had this Figure http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png showing the Earth and the Sun in orbit about the SSB [the cross in the middle] and the TSI to be expected at four points in the orbit. http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png shows that expected TSI [red diamonds] versus the actually observed TSI [black curve]. You can see that the Earth does not orbit the cross as that predicts a TSI variation that is not observed.

  474. Bernie, thanks for clearing up as to where this graph:

    came from.

    I think this graph comes very close to what has happened in the past, also what my estimate is for the past 4 decades:

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    (My current estimate for global warming is 0.012 K/ annum for the past 37 years)

    It looks to me Orsenggo is right. I think we should definitely take note of the meaning and warning that this graph holds, namely that we are heading for some global cooling.

    I am interested in seeing those results from NM. Do you have it somewhere?

  475. HenryP
    I have a short powerpoint presentation that I have shared with a small group of mostly retired atmospheric scientists who meet once a month here in Las Cruces to have fun hashing over some of these issues. I also did a quick study of some Japanese temperature data and noticed that it was exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the NM data? All of the data is very “spikey” but fluctuation of regional patterns (statewide for NM and countrywide for Japan) is in sync with other regional data (short term and long term patterns). There is a 5 to 7 year, as much as 5 deg C fluctuation in average annual temperatures for the NM sites. It is all shown in the presentation. Orsenggo if you look carefully shows a 1.2 deg C increase from 1900 to 2100 by using the HadCRU data and trends. I think that data may be corrupted by the large number of urban measuring sites being used. I’m pretty sure that averaging global temperatures tends to turn the whole process into some sort of mush anyway.

    Bernie

  476. See – owe to Rich says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:04 pm
    “And on yet another point, it is weird that Leif considers 60 years to be 1/(3/S-1/J) rather than 3/(1/J-1/S). Of course, simple algebra shows that they would be the same thing if S=5J/2, which isn’t so far from being correct. Still, for 3/S-1/J, what thing is it that’s going round 3 times as fast as Saturn that should be compared synodically with Jupiter?”

    Hi See,
    Please lock at this graph.

    The period of Saturn is 29.457 a.
    The synodic period of JU/SA (thick light gray) is 1 / ( (1/11.86) – (1/29.457) ) = 19.8533 a
    The synodic tide period of JU/SA (thick black curve) is the half of it = 9.9267 a.
    So the syndic tide period of both is ~ a third of 29.457 a ( / 3 = 9.818 a ).

    BTW. The frequency relation is = 2.672 082 885 678 021 nHz / 1.068 498 131 381 660 nHz = 2.50078 = 5 : 2 . This is a fixed resonance.

    The function of the syndic tide period of ~9.9267 years (black – top spring tide / bottom nip tide (90°)) correlates weak with the GISS temperatures (thin light gray) (fit in red).

    This couple is an element in my summation (GHI) of mostly all neighbor couples (thin light blue or fit in thick blue) using their synodic tide functions.

    The influence of the JU/SA couples tide function is visible in the GISS data – more than the synodic period of ~19.8533 years. May be both are involved. Who knows?

    The top of the thick black triangle function is either related to a heliocentric conjuction (0°) aspect of the couple or is related to an opposition (180°) aspect.

    Volker

  477. Richard S. Courtney wrote:

    6.It will never be possible to determine the magnitude of this inherent error because it is not possible to deconvolute all the possible causes of the variations to the amplitude(s) of the cycles.
    This is harsh beyond what is reasonable. You could as well write that the speed of light in a vacuum and the gravitational constant can never be known, nor the masses of the isotopes of oxygen, or anything else in scientific knowledge. As for your use of the word “never”, research over the next 2 decades may or may not show that their estimates are close enough to inform public policy. We can not tell yet.

    7. An estimate of a parameter has no practical appplication when it has inherent errors of unknown magnitude probably larger than the magnitude of the parameter.

    In general, even a poor estimate of a parameter may be good enough to help design the next experiment to provide a more accurate estimate. Using extant results is an important part of the statistical design of experiments Look to the histories of how people learned the size of the earth, the (mean) distance from the earth to the sun, the speed of light, the rates of continental drift, the effects of aspirin in reducing the risk of recurrent heart attack. Look at how crops are improved. By your standards, the atomic theory and the laws of thermodynamics could “never” have become “useful”.

    It is possible that, 20 years from now, we’ll review the history and find that, in 2011, Loehle and Scafetta had published the most accurate assessment to date of the amount of global warming attributable to anthropogenic GHGs. Should it turn out that way, the practical applications will be obvious. What you have shown is that we should not reach that conclusion now.

  478. Reply to “tallbloke”: Your question, good question, straight to the point:
    “What is the principal astronomical mechanism your hypothesis rests on?”
    This mechanism has been completely overlooked and I will get in further contact
    with Mr. Scafetta, so he may also shed more light on the subject…..
    To the Earth’s orbit: The mechanism can be detected by looking at the true trajectory of the
    Earth’s flight path: What escaped the present attention is that this path is not a straight
    elliptical line around the Sun, but