By Dr. Nicola Scafetta
It is time to update my widget comparing the global surface temperature, HadCRUT3 (red and blue), the IPC 2007 projection (green) and my empirical model (black thick curve and cyan area) based on a set of detected natural harmonics (period of approximately: 9.1, 10-11, 20 and 60 years) which are based on astronomical cycles, plus a corrected anthropogenic warming projection of about 0.9 oC/century. The yellow curve represents the harmonic model alone without the corrected anthropogenic warming projection and represents an average lower limit.
The proposed astronomically-based empirical model represents an alternative methodology to reconstruct and forecast climate changes (on a global scale, at the moment) which is alternative to the analytical methodology implemented in the IPCC general circulation models. All IPCC models are proven in my paper to fail to reconstruct all decadal and multidecadal cycles observed in the temperature since 1850. See details in my publications below.
As the figure shows, the temperature for Jan/2012 was 0.218 oC, which is a cooling respect to the Dec/2011 temperature, and which is about 0.5 oC below the average IPCC projection value (the central thin curve in the middle of the green area). Note that this is a very significant discrepancy between the data and the IPCC projection.
On the contrary, the data continue to be in reasonable agreement with my empirical model, which I remind, is constructed as a full forecast since Jan/2000.
In fact the amplitudes and the phases of the four cycles are essentially determined on the basis of the data from 1850 to 2000, and the phases are found to be in agreement with appropriate astronomical orbital dates and cycles, while the corrected anthropogenic warming projection is estimated by comparing the harmonic model, the temperature data and the IPCC models during the period 1970-2000. The latter finding implies that the IPCC general circulation models have overestimated the anthropogenic warming component by about 2.6 time on average, within a range between 2 to 4. See original papers and the dedicated blog article for details: see below.
The widget also attracted some criticisms from some readers of WUWT’s blog and from skepticalscience
Anthony asked me to respond to the criticism, and I am happy to do so. I will respond five points.
- Criticism from Leif Svalgaard.
As many readers of this blog have noted, Leif Svalgaard continuously criticizes my research and studies. In his opinion nothing that I do is right or worth of consideration.
About my widget, Leif claimed many times that the data already clearly contradict my model: see here 1, 2, 3, etc.
In any case, as I have already responded many times, Leif’s criticism appears to be based on his confusing the time scales and the multiple patterns that the data show. The data show a decadal harmonic trending plus faster fluctuations due to ElNino/LaNina oscillations that have a time scale of a few years. The ENSO induced oscillations are quite large and evident in the data with periods of strong warming followed by periods of strong cooling. For example, in the above widget figure the January/2012 temperature is out of my cyan area. This does not mean, as Leif misinterprets, that my model has failed. In fact, such pattern is just due to the present La Nina cooling event. In a few months the temperature will warm again as the El Nino warming phase returns.
My model is not supposed to reconstruct such fast ENSO induced oscillations, but only the smooth decadal component reconstructed by a 4-year moving average as shown in my original paper figure: see here for the full reconstruction since 1850 where my models (blue and black lines) well reconstruct the 4-year smooth (grey line); the figure also clearly highlights the fast and large ENSO temperature oscillations (red) that my model is not supposed to reconstruct.
As the widget shows, my model predicts for the imminent future a slight warming trending from 2011 to 2016. This modulation is due to the 9.1 year (lunar/solar) and the 10-11 year (solar/planetary) cycles that just entered in their warming phase. This decadal pattern should be distinguished from the fast ENSO oscillations that are expected to produce fast periods of warming and fast period of cooling during these five years as it happened from 2000 to 2012. Thus, the fact that during LaNina cooling phase, as right now, the temperature may actually be cooling, does not constitute a “proof” that my model is “wrong” as Leif claimed.
Of course, in addition to twist numerous facts, Leif has also never acknowledged in his comments the huge discrepancy between the data and the IPCC projection which is evident in the widget. In my published paper [1], I did report in figure 6 the appropriate statistical test comparing my model and the IPCC projection against the temperature. The figure 6 is reported below
The figure reports a kind of chi-squared statistical test between the models and the 4-year smooth temperature component, as time progress. Values close to zero indicate that the model agrees very well with the temperature trending within their error range area; values above 1 indicate a statistically significant divergence from the temperature trending. It is evident from the figure above that my model (blue curve) agrees very well with the temperature 4-year smooth component, while the IPCC projection is always worst, and statistically diverges from the temperature since 2006.
I do not expect that Leif changes his behavior against me and my research any time soon. I just would like to advise the readers of this blog, in particular those with modest scientific knowledge, to take his unfair and unprofessional comments with the proper skepticism.
- Criticism about the baseline alignment between the data and the IPCC average projection model.
A reader dana1981 claimed that “I believe Scafetta’s plot is additionally flawed by using the incorrect baseline for HadCRUT3. The IPCC data uses a baseline of 1980-1999, so should HadCRUT.”
This reader also referred to a figure from skepticalscience, shown below for convenience,
that shows a slight lower baseline for the IPCC model projection relative to the temperature record, which give an impression of a better agreement between the data and the IPCC model.
The base line position is irrelevant because the IPCC models have projected a steady warming at a rate of 2.3 oC/century from 2000 to 2020, see IPCC figure SPM.5. See here with my lines and comments added
On the contrary, the temperature trending since 2000 has been almost steady as the figure in the widget clearly shows. Evidently, the changing of the baseline does not change the slope of the decadal trending! So, moving down the baseline of the IPCC projection for giving the illusion of a better agreement with the data is just an illusion trick.
In any case, the baseline used in my widget is the correct one, while the baseline used in the figure on skepticalscience is wrong. In fact, the IPCC models have been carefully calibrated to reconstruct the trending of the temperature from 1900 to 2000. Thus, the correct baseline to be used is the 1900-2000 baseline, that is what I used.
To help the readers of this blog to check the case by themselves, I sent Anthony the original HadCRUT3 data and the IPCC cmip3 multimodel mean reconstruction record from here . They are in the two files below:
itas_cmip3_ave_mean_sresa1b_0-360E_-90-90N_na-data
As everybody can calculate from the two data records that the 1900-2000 average of the temperature is -0.1402, while the 1900-2000 average of the IPCC model is -0.1341.
This means that to plot the two records on the common 1900-2000 baseline, there is the need to use the following command in gnuplot
plot “HadCRUT3-month-global.dat”, “itas_cmip3_ave_mean_sresa1b_0-360E_-90-90N_na.dat” using 1:($2 – 0.0061)
which in 1850-2040 produces the following graph
The period since 2000 is exactly what is depicted in my widget.
The figure above also highlights the strong divergences between the IPCC model and the temperature, which are explicitly studied in my papers proving that the IPCC model are not able to reconstruct any of the natural oscillations observed at multiple scales. For example, look at the 60-year cycle I extensively discuss in my papers: from 1910 to 1940 a strong warming trending is observed in the data, but the warming trending in the model is far lower; from 1940 to 1970 a cooling is observed in the data while the IPCC model still shows a warming; from 1970 to 2000, the two records present a similar trending (this period is the one originally used to calibrate the sensitivities of the models); the strong divergence observed in 1940-1970, repeats since 2000, with the IPCC model projecting a steady warming at 2.3 oC/century , while the temperature shows a steady harmonically modulated trending highlighted in my widget and reproduced in my model.
As explained in my paper the failure of the IPCC model to reconstruct the 60-year cycle has large consequences for properly interpreting the anthropogenic warming effect on climate. In fact, the IPCC models assume that the 1970-2000 warming is 100% produced by anthropogenic forcing (compare figures 9.5a and 9.5b in the IPCC report) while the 60-year natural cycle (plus the other cycles) contributed at least 2/3 of the 1970-2000 warming, as proven in my papers.
In conclusion, the baseline of my widget is the correct one (baseline 1900-2000). My critics at skepticalscience are simply trying to hide the failure of the IPCC models in reconstructing the 60-year temperature modulation by just plotting the IPCC average simulation just since 2000, and by lowering the baseline apparently to the period 1960-1990, which is not where it should be because the model is supposed to reconstruct the 1900-2000 period by assumption.
It is evident that by lowering the base line a larger divergence would be produced with the temperature data before 1960! So, skepticalscience employed a childish trick of pulling a too small coversheet from a too large bed. In any case, if we use the 1961-1990 baseline the original position of the IPCC model should be shifted down by 0.0282, which is just 0.0221 oC below the position depicted in the figure above, not a big deal.
In any case, the position of the baseline is not the point; the issue is the decadal trend. But my 1900-2000 baseline is in the optimal position.
- Criticism about the chosen low-high boundary levels of the IPCC average projection model (my width of the green area in the widget).
Another criticism, in particular by skepticalscience, regards the width of the boundary (green area in the widget) that I used, They have argued that
“Most readers would interpret the green area in Scafetta’s widget to be a region that the IPCC would confidently expect to contain observations, which isn’t really captured by a 1-sigma interval, which would only cover 68.2% of the data (assuming a Gaussian distribution). A 2-sigma envelope would cover about 95% of the observations, and if the observations lay outside that larger region it would be substantial cause for concern. Thus it would be a more appropriate choice for Scafetta’s green envelope.”
There are numerous problems with the above skepticalscience’s comment.
First, the width of my green area (which has a starting range of about +/- 0.1 oC in 2000) coincides exactly with what the IPCC has plotted in his figure figure SPM.5. Below I show a zoom of IPCC’s figure SPM.5
The two red lines added by me show the width at 2000 (black vertical line). The width between the two horizontal red lines in 2000 is about 0.2 oC as used in my green area plotted in the widget. The two other black lines enclosing the IPCC error area represent the green area enclosure reported in the widget. Thus, my green area accurately represents what the IPCC has depicted in its figure, as I explicitly state and show in my paper, by the way.
Second, skepticalscience claims that the correct comparison needed to use a 2-sigma envelope, and they added the following figure to support their case
The argument advanced by skepticalscience is that because the temperature data are within their 2-sigma IPCC model envelope, then the IPCC models are not disproved, as my widget would imply. Note that the green curve is not a faithful reconstruction of my model and it is too low: compare with my widget.
However, it is a trick to fool people with no statistical understanding to claim that by associating a huge error range to a model, the model is validated.
By the way, contrary to the claim of sckepticalscience, in statistics it is 1-sigma envelope width that is used; not 2-sigma or 3-sigma. Moreover, the good model is the one with the smallest error, not the one with the largest error.
In fact, as proven in my paper, my proposed harmonic model has a statistical accuracy of +/- 0.05 oC within which it well reconstructs the decadal and multidecadal modulation of the temperature: see here.
On the contrary, if we use the figure by skepticalscience depicted above we have in 2000 a 1-sigma error of +/- 0.15 oC and a 2-sigma error of +/- 0.30 oC. These robust and fat error envelope widths are between 3 and 6 times larger than what my harmonic model has. Thus, it is evident from the skepticalscience claims themselves that my model is far more accurate than what the IPCC models can guarantee.
Moreover, the claim of skepticalscience that we need to use a 2-sigma error envelope indirectly also proves that the IPCC models cannot be validated according the scientific method and, therefore, do not belong to the realm of science. In fact, to be validated a modeling strategy needs to guarantee a sufficient small error to be capable to test whether the model is able to identify and reconstruct the visible patterns in the data. These patterns are given by the detected decadal and multi-decadal cycles, which have amplitude below +/- 0.15 oC: see here. Thus, the amplitude of the detected cycles is well below the skepticalscience 2-sigma envelope amplitude of +/- 0.30 oC, (they would even be below the skepticalscience 1-sigma envelope amplitude of +/- 0.15 oC).
As I have also extensively proven in my paper, the envelope of the IPCC model is far larger than the amplitude of the temperature patterns that the models are supposed to reconstruct. Thus, those models cannot be properly validated and are useless for making any useful decadal and multidecadal forecast/projection for practical society purpose because their associated error is far too large by admission of skepticalscience itself.
Unless the IPCC models can guarantee a precision of at least +/- 0.05 oC and reconstruct the decadal patterns, as my model does, they cannot compete with it and are useless, all of them.
- Criticism about the upcoming HadCRUT4 record.
Skepticalscience has also claimed that
“Third, Scafetta has used HadCRUT3 data, which has a known cool bias and which will shortly be replaced by HadCRUT4.”
HadCRUT4 record is not available yet. We will see what happens when it will be available. From the figures reported here it does not appear that it will change drastically the issue: the difference with HadCRUT3 since 2000 appears to be just 0.02 oC.
In any case for an optimal matching the amplitudes of the harmonics of my model may need to be slightly recalibrated, but HadCRUT4 already shows a clearer cooling from 1940 to 1970 that further supports the 60-year natural cycle of my model and further contradicts the IPCC models. See also my paper with Mazzarella where the HadSST3 record is already studied.
- Criticism about the secular trending.
It has been argued that the important issue is the upward trending that would confirm the IPCC models and their anthropogenic warming theory.
However, as explained in my paper, once that 2/3 of the warming between 1970 and 2000 is associated to a natural cycle with solar/astronomical origin (or even to an internal ocean cycle alone) the anthropogenic warming trending reproduced by the models is found to be spurious and strongly overestimated. This leaves most of the secular warming tending from 1850 to 2012 as due to secular and millennial natural cycles, which are also well known in the literature.
In my published papers, as clearly stated there, the secular and millennial cycles are not formally included in the harmonic model for the simple reason that they need to be accurately identified: they cannot be put everywhere and the global surface temperature is available only since 1850, which is a too short period for accurately locate and identify these longer cycles.
In particular, skepticalscience has argued that the proposed model (by Loehle and Scafetta) based only on the 60-year and 20-year cycles plus a linear trending from 1850 to 1950 and extrapolated up to 2100 at most, must be wrong because when the same model is extrapolated for 2000 years it clearly diverges from reasonable patterns deduced from temperature proxy reconstructions. Their figure is here and reproduced below
Every smart person would understand that this is another skepticalscience’s trick to fool the ignorant.
It is evident that if, as we have clearly stated in our paper, we are ignoring the secular and millennial cycles and we just approximate the natural millennial harmonic trending with a first order linear approximation that we assume can be reasonable extended up to 100 years and no more, it is evident that it is stupid, before than being dishonest, to extrapolate it for 2000 years and claim that our result is contradicted by the data. See here for extended comment by Loehle and Scafetta.
As said above in those models the secular and millennial cycles were excluded for purpose. However, I already published in 2010 a preliminary reconstruction with those longer cycles included here (sorry in Italian), see figure 6 reported below
However, in the above model the cycles are not optimized, which will be done in the future. But this is sufficient to show how ideologically naïve (and false) is the claim from skepticalscience.
In any case, the secular trending and its association to solar modulation is extensively addressed in my previous papers since 2005. The last published paper focusing on this topic is discussed here and more extensively here where the relevant figure is below
The black curves represent empirical reconstruction of the solar signature secular trending since 1600. The curve with the upward trending since 1970 is made using the ACRIM TSI composite (which would be compatible with the 60-year cycle) and the other signature uses the PMOD TSI composite which is made by manipulating some of the satellite records with the excuse that they are wrong.
Thus, until the secular and millennial cycles are accurately identified and properly included in the harmonic models, it is the studies that use the TSI secular proxy reconstructions that need to be used for comparison to understand the secular trending, like my other publications from 2005 to 2010. Their results are in perfect agreement with what can be deduced from the most recent papers focusing on the astronomical harmonics, and would imply that no more that 0.2-0.3 oC of the observed 0.8 oC warming since 1850 can be associated to anthropogenic activity. (Do not let you to be fooled by Benestad and Schmidt 2009 criticism that is filled with embarrassing mathematical errors and whose GISS modelE performance is strongly questioned in my recent papers, together with those of the other IPCC models) .
I thank Anthony for the invitation and I apologize for my English errors, which my above article surely contains.
Relevant references:
[1] Nicola Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005
[2] Adriano Mazzarella and Nicola Scafetta, “Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change.” Theor. Appl. Climatol. (2011). DOI: 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4
[3] Craig Loehle and Nicola Scafetta, “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data.” The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5, 74-86 (2011). DOI: 10.2174/1874282301105010074
[4] Nicola Scafetta, “A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 74, 145-163 (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013
[5] Nicola 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
Additional News and Links of Interest:
Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change, Larry Bell
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/astronomical_harmonics.pd
Nicola, Thank you for sharing your research with us here. Its because of your sharing, and then the discussions afterwards, that gives people a chance to consider the different arguments involved.
Of course, in addition to twist numerous facts, Leif has also never acknowledged in his comments the huge discrepancy between the data and the IPCC projection which is evident in the widget.
True to form, let me note that IPCC being wrong does not mean that you are right. As far as I can see, your ‘prediction’ has already failed. Of course, as you point out, you do not predict the actual detailed changes. In effect you are saying that you predict no changes at all for a long time to come. Any deviation from that ‘prediction’ is just irrelevant detail.
As a long time reader and some time poster on WUWT I find myself more drawn to those who observe and explain than those who bang away on little tin drums.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2012-0-12-deg-c/
Does anyone else see the 4 year frequency of peaks in the UAH data? Looks obvious to me, but I’ve never seen this short cycle discussed.
Maybe this sounds mean, but I just can’t take it.
My equally valid geo-gravitational climate model is based on experimental evidence of the elevation change of a marble rolling on the kitchen floor. There are ups and downs due to linoleum texture, but otherwise, I predict essentially flat temperature going forward. You can repeat the experiment any time to get the next prediction. Hey, my results are better than CO2-based models.
I’d certainly quibble with this statement:
“By the way, contrary to the claim of sckepticalscience, in statistics it is 1-sigma envelope width that is used; not 2-sigma or 3-sigma.”
…since it is indeed far more common to work with a 95% confidence interval (or p< 0.05).
However, I don't think the burden of proof is to disprove the IPCC model. The model is not the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is natural climate change and the CI or p-values should relate to the statistical test comparing the alternate hypothesis (CO2-driven change, solar-driven change) to the null hypothesis.
Dr. Scafetta,
Thanks a ton for sharing your work. Really interesting!
Scafetta’s calculation of the model means is wrong.
Leif,
It seems quite clear. When the ob data moves outside the cyan area of Nicolas prediction it’s due to inter-annual climate variability due to ENSO which is unpredicted by nis model. These excursions aren’t “irrelevant”, require explanation but aren’t predictable.
Nicola,
maybe you need a second envelope around your cyan area which represents the potential temp change that can be induced by ENSO with a proviso that excursion into this region should be temporary and in phase with the ENSO effect on GST.
Nicola,
Please don’t waste your time at SKS; they can’t be confused by facts. The site applies censorship in an extreme way and it has become another echo chamber as exemplified by Joe Romm’s Climate Progress. The “Moderators” such as “Daniel Bailey” and “dana1981” are religious fanatics, deaf to reasoned arguments.
I am not surprised that your predictions are better than the IPCC’s AR4. The AR4 was published in 2007 so you have almost five years more observations than they had.
Looking ahead, the IPCC’s AR5 will be based on technical (WG1) studies due for completion in September 2013 so the IPCC will have the opportunity to “tweak” their predictions to eliminate at least part of the 6 sigma variance between their most relevant AR4 temperature scenario and current year observations.
So will the AR5 temperature predictions be more plausible than those in AR4? Having studied most of the AR5 WG1 “Zero Order Drafts” and some of the “First Order Drafts” I can assure you that unless there is a U-turn, the predictions will be no better than those in AR4. Some of the GCMs have been “tweaked” in the wrong direction (stronger influence of CO2).
If the AR5 is published in September 2014 based on current WG1 drafts, the temperature variance could easily be 8 sigma unless there is a sharp increase in global temperatures over the next couple of years. Somehow I don’t think that even the IPCC will be blind to the problem so they may be forced to choose between an “Agonizing Reappraisal” or appearing even more ridiculous.
A two to four year smooth on the HadCRUT3 would assist interpretation ….
Nicola, I will say it again: your yellow curve (lower average limit) is to high. Solar cycles 23 and 24 are too long (weak) for the anomaly to stay that warm. HadCRUT3 will be at zero anomaly until 2020.
I have no insight as to whether the presented model is correct or even founded on accurate assumptions about climatic variation but it is substantially more accurate than all the IPCC models and that makes it more interesting and potentially more useful. I’m not sure how much funding Dr. Scafetta has required to develop his model but the failed IPCC models cost at least tens of millions. I imagine the ROI when plotted as dollars spent vs. model variance from measured temp makes Dr. Scafetta’s work seem like a great investment by comparison.
The attempts by the zealots at “Skeptical”Science to minimize the failure of the IPCC models highlights the weakness of their position. The wider they try to make the error bars in an effort to stay in-bounds also makes the IPCC “projections” not very alarming.
Scafetta’s estimates are a fraction too high around his peak in 2014 – 2015. More detail asto my reasons will be on my publication at http://principia-scientific.org/ in about 30 hours from now.
REPLY: This is just repackaged “Slaying the Sky Dragon” rubbish. Cotton asked me to carry it and I’ve flat out refused. They created a “journal” to try to legitimze papers published there, which to me speaks of desperation.
Readers might want to revisit this story where Dr. Fred Singer talks about the issue:
“Climate Deniers” Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name
-Anthony
Hoser: You raise a good point. If your linoleum floor model out performs a more complex model in terms of its ability to predict future events, then you must accept it as a more valid model. Not the answer you wanted, but testing against reality is really the only valid measure there is.
Climate modeling is a modeling exercise, not a physics problem, contrary to what some may otherwise profess. Many stochastic processes, chaotic interactions, many unknowns, etc… If you want accurate forecasts, treat it like a forecasting problem.
There will not be an anthropogenic 0.9 oC/century rise. The underlying 1,000 year trend shows no such rise and is, in fact reducing from 0.06 C deg/decade early in 20th century to 0.05 C deg/decade at present with no indication of any CO2 sensitivity at all. This rate will continue to decline until a maximum is reached 50 to 200 years from now It is very unlikely that the long term trend will increase more than 0.5 C deg / century between now and then, more likely 0.3 to 0.4 C deg./century as the sinusoidal trend starts to top out.
In 2015 the disconnect between a “moderate” IPCC projection and Scarfetta prediction will be 0.25 to 0.30 C. The global temperature will not have risen for 15 years. For a “settled” science and “certain” outcome, these facts should be terminal: CAGW is moving forward only because it is “fact”, not theory. We need to act, not understand.
If Hansen and Gore have to admit that nature, not man, has dominated the since 2000, without dropping their meme of C02, then their rhetoric must become more shrill. Like the Harold Camping of 2011, they must rise to a bluster that is impossible to misinterpret. We need to encourage them to tear their hair and clutch their chests as the days pass.
Scarfetta suggests that after 2015 the global temperatures will drop. All hail the fall! Not because I wish the temperatures to drop, because dropping temperatures are generally not good, but because there is a size limit to what even the noble gullible can swallow.
And, by the way, a moderate temp drop will only bring us back to 1965. I don’t think that 1965 was a bad time climate-wise. Of course, GISS records might tell me that we had a mini-ice-age in 1965, and I forget because I am stupid.
This is a model, folks. An interesting exercise in curve fitting, but, until we have a couple of thousand years of data, they are no more than pass-times, like crossword puzzles or darts.
I am not really aware of the theory and mechanisms that Dr. Scafetta is advancing, but after reading the above article, I will read his paper. The above article is very clear and effective on addressing the criticisms against it.
I note in particular that the criticisms that SkepticalScience levels are almost identical to the same accusations against Bob Tisdale’s work. Dr. Scafetta makes short work of those critcisms, and shows them to be as ridiculous as Bob did.
I look forward to reading this paper.
There are number of various pointers to falling temperatures. Extrapolation from the existing CET record, based on reconstruction of three recurring periods
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
assumes that all major periodic external forcing (solar, planetary etc) is in the 350 year long data record already.
Thanks to Dr Scafeta for sharing his work and thoughts.
This is indeed, as mentioned in some comments, nothing more than some curve fitting exercise (mathematically a decomposition in Fourier series, obtained by looking at the Power Spectrum of the data). But this can be a very useful and promizing prediction tool. In another field, Kelvin waves have been identified in the same way and are are presently the most accurate and widely used way of predicitng tidal waves. And nobody can claim that the associated complex mechanisms are understood or satisfactory modelled, for the time being.
Predicitng is not necesserly understanding all the details…..but poliitcal decisions are based on predictions, and the last ones are better accurate if one wants to develop and implement sound policies.
Harmonic component?
Like the bogus Camp Century Cycles which created the global cooling scare?
Like the bogus Camp Century Cycles whose lack of predictive power forced climate searchers to look for an even bigger forcing like exaggerated CO2.
The whole nature of 1/f noise is that it appears to have cycles. Indeed, I would suggest it is better called “fractal noise” as it has the property that sections appear to repeat (almost). That is why the early 20th century warming looks like the late 20th century warming. Add them together and it appears as if we have a 50 year cycle.
Another more technical point.
Dr Scafetta does not consider longer period sinusoïds (with periods of one century or more), because of some discrepencies and inaccuracies in the time series for the proxies used to reconstruct the climate over a longer period. He is right of course.
But if we add to his curves a longer period sinusoïd, we can simulate the exit from a mini-glaciation age (Maunder and more recently Dalton) as well as the medieval optimum.
In fact there are four levels of periodic phenomena
1- Milankovitch cycles (20 000, 40 000, 100 000 and 400 000 years). The IPCC recognizes this, but states the variations are too slow to be significant at the horizon of one or two generations; they are right on this point.
2- cycles with periods ranging around one or a few centuries (there is some geological evidence for a cycle of roughly 200 years)
3- the multi-decennal set on which Dr Scafetta focuses his work (9.5, 10-12, 22, 60 years)
4- short term quasi periodic phenomena El Nino, or even the moon cycles (which affect the tidal amplitudes), also mentionned by Dr Scafetta but not included in his model.
Consideirng cycles of a century or more (category 2) has an important consequence. It challenges indeed the concept of “a flat temperature, averaged over space and a period of 30 years, from which “anomalies” are deduced, which is curent practise (reference periods are1930-1960; 1960-1990 and the nexrt one will be 1990-2020).
If the true basis line is actually the ascending branch of a sinusoïd, say with a period of 200 years, (as is the case: we still come out of the Dalton mini glaciation period 1800-1830) the fact of “using a flat basis line” induces automatically a “hockey stick effect”.
Another consequence could be (according to the phase of this 200 years sinusoïd) that we reach the maximum of this sinusoïd, which could explain the leveling of temperature since 2000 and even the decline observed during the very recent years. This means that the anthropogenic contribution could well be even less than what has been estimated by Dr Scafetta (already 2.6 smaller than the estimations of IPCC°.
A third theoretical comment this time.
The climate system is known to be (mathematically) complex and non linear (otherwise oscillations would not exist), even chaotic (dynamical system): the temperature oscillates between a few attractors (glaciation, tempered climate, and even probably one or two intermediate states).
In such systems, rather independent periodic oscillators (resulting each from the parallel setting of a (thermal) resistance and a (thermal) capacity) can get synchronized by a LEGION mechanism (see Wilkipedia): If the loading of the capacitance is slower than its discharge, and if each time the threshold level for discharge is reached by anyone of the oscillators, it sends a signal (a small step increse in charging), after a while the different oscillators will synchronize. This mechanism has been identified as the working principle of information transmission through neurones and it explains also the synchronized luminescence of some insects (light worms). It can be descibed as a kind of “intermittent mutual and exhaustive symetric causal link” between the different oscillators. In simpler words, I compare it to a “spaghetti bowl”: If you pull anyone of the strings, the whole bowl vibrates, without having any fixed causal link between the strings.
Greg says:
March 11, 2012 at 9:20 pm
NO Greg. Trenberth tried that one. Sorry it doesn’t work. The null hypothoses is that CO² Controlles the climate.
Nicola,
the extension of your model back for 2000 years is nonsense for the reasons well explained by yourself. But l am wondering whether any other attempts for a back projection of that length were made, in particular were IPCC used for any backprojection?
Very interesting article.
There has been much written over the past few years with regards to various natural oscillations effecting the climate. Bringing these together has been long overdue.
Vukcevic has produced a lot of very interesting graphics over the past that I always check out.
Scafetta, Vukcevic, and others are showing pieces of a puzzle that should have been shown years ago if proper research had been done with regards to climate issues.
The chase for the ’cause’ of any minor temperature change due to CO2 has hijacked much research that could have been better invested. The 60 year cycles coupled with other longer cycles could have very serious consequences in our current society if cooling is pronounced and rapid.
If Scafetta’s suggestions turn out to be correct and the temp only flattens out over the next decade or two and we stop the renewable madness, society should be OK. If the temps fall considerably and we continue with the current energy policies and green mandates in transportion then colder winters and more snow will have devastating consequences. It could be like getting caught in a blizzard while wearing your bathing suit. Where I live 6 ” of snow shuts everything down. Those of us with a 4wd have to baby sit those without. Electric cars anyone?
I hope Scafetta is correct with the leveling of temps for two reasons. One, maybe it will stop the green madness. Second reason, maybe the temps will not plumment. I fear the latter.
mattedin@
Does anyone else see the 4 year frequency of peaks in the UAH data? Looks obvious to me, but I’ve never seen this short cycle discussed.
It is an imprint of the AMO on the global temperatures (~4-5 year is a second harmonic of the fundamental around ~9.5 years), it is well known, its origins aren’t, but many attribute it to the luni-solar tidal oscillations. Here you can see http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GT-AMO.htm
clearly all the way through the global temperature records.
Looks like “climate change” is gonna get very very boring, even for the next 2 generations LOL
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image41.png
mattedin@gmail.com says:
Does anyone else see the 4 year frequency of peaks in the UAH data? Looks obvious to me, but I’ve never seen this short cycle discussed.
That’s the effect of El Niño/La Niña you’re noticing.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
For all the discussants
Strangely enough, in most cases, as evidence for the existence of something, using data from previously published sources, which are often based on unfounded or erroneous model assumptions
How can a body can heat up at all?
Just bringing some energy: either direct heat or other types of energy in various ways can be transformed into heat energy.
For Earth, this second variant of the electro-magnetic energy (magnetic fields) is transformed into heat in a certain way, which should be made.
Earth nothing else can millions of years to heat and cool than this type of energy.
What is the most important thing in all this?
We need to find:
fundamental causes of these phenomena and the mechanism of transformation of the entire system.
Sunspot cycle and the reconnection of magnetic poles of the Sun are the main causes of these phenomena.
How this occurs all-seeing, d is currently unknown to science.
I have no need or possibility of mathematical models of real or unfounded assumptions, on which I set up a claim.
I have some mathematical confirmation regarding the cause of the above phenomena.
There are almost countless cycles and sub-cycles in all time periods (past, present and future).
To do this draft and realise as a program, it needs a lot of work and resources that can provide only a powerful institutions like NASA or the U.S. Government.
Who among you has the ability and interest to assist in this you have my e-mail.
I just can’t make myself believe that this cycle-based prediction has any better predictive skill than IPCC models. My opinion is, neither has any. Both come from assumption that certain properties will continue their trend as it is up to now, they only differ in which properties do they concentrate on. And while 10 year old models are already noticeably diverging from the reality, the cyclic prediction will IMO take another 15-20 years before it will start to significantly diverge as well.
There’s no dispute many natural changes come in cycles. But these real natural cycles undergo changes as well, they may change in amplitude and some may change in frequency as well – for example I bet atlantic oscillation had smaller amplitude and higher frequency way back when America was closer to Africa/Europe than it is today. Of course you can express these changes using cycles as well, the problem is these new cycles are not natural already and they’re indistinguishable from artifacts brought in by the analysis.
Dr. Scafetta states:
“Another criticism, in particular by skepticalscience, regards the width of the boundary (green area in the widget) that I used, They have argued that
“Most readers would interpret the green area in Scafetta’s widget to be a region that the IPCC would confidently expect to contain observations, which isn’t really captured by a 1-sigma interval, which would only cover 68.2% of the data (assuming a Gaussian distribution). A 2-sigma envelope would cover about 95% of the observations, and if the observations lay outside that larger region it would be substantial cause for concern. Thus it would be a more appropriate choice for Scafetta’s green envelope.”
From my sketchy and ancient statistics it would seem they are trying to use a 2-sigma envelope for individual data points and then apply it to an average. However the distribution of a moving average will always have less variation than the distribution of the individual points.
Congratulations to Nicola for standing up to the insane logic of the IPCC and their followers that include Leif.
Accurate data stands up to rhetoric over the longer term.
Note added to my above post. You can tell the Warmists are using individual points because every time there is a hot day they scream it is proof of CAGW.
One more comment on sinusoïds and linear trend lines:
The “least square” linear trend line for a sinusoïd is a perfect horizontal (and does not provide so much information on the amplitude and period of the sinusoïd).
But, when the slow “basis line” sinusoïd exhibits a period close to (but not exactly equal to) the extend of the “measurement window” of the time series, anything can happen with the slope of the “least square” straight line, according to the point “along the phase” of the sinusoïd where you start the measurement window (initial date) and the point where you close the window (final date considered): the “least square” linear trend line can indeed be horizontal or presenting an increasing or a decreasing slope. The IPCC did exactly this on an “increasing portion of the 200 years sinusoïd, leading them to the fallacious conclusion that there is a temperature increase of (a fraction of) a tenth of a degre C per year. Actually they have detected nothing else than a “border effect” of their measurement window.
I would be delighted to hear Dr Scafetta comments on this remark, and also on my previous ones. I hope my comments will reinforce his statements and allow him to make the real breakthrough he deserves for his work.
Stomata says:
March 12, 2012 at 3:10 am
Looks like “climate change” is gonna get very very boring, even for the next 2 generations LOL
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image41.png
___________________________
Stomata, shame on you! Especially with that name. To farmers, especially in Canada and Russia that is anything but boring. A consistent drop in temperature can wipe out borderline crops areas. The freezes in Florida destroying the citrus fruit crops is a case in point.
“….Thirty odd years ago, Middle Florida produced practically all of the citrus fruit grown in Florida, over three-quarters of the entire crop being shipped from Ocala, the seat of Marion County. The industry at that time was in a most prosperous condition. Money was being made on every side, and that money was being reinvested in new and larger groves. Then came the great freeze of ’95, and in a single night, as it were, the whole citrus industry of Florida was wiped from the map, nearly every grove being destroyed and over four million boxes of luscious fruit being killed on the tree.
Never in history, perhaps, did any industry receive a severer blow than this, and it was a blow that shook to its foundations the whole industrial fabric of the state, for Florida…” http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/docs/f/fruit.htm
As several of us keep saying warm and wet is better than cool and dry. More CO2 that makes plants grow faster with less water is better than borderline plant starvation which is what 250 ppm of CO2 actually is.
WHEAT: “…The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values….” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034
Note that the plants are dropping the CO2 to 310 + 5 ppm and not down to 250 ppm. The following shows just how fast the plants will gobble up available CO2.
CO2 depletion in a greenhouse
“….Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion…” Source
Henri Masson says:
March 12, 2012 at 1:59 am
A third theoretical comment this time.
The climate system is known to be (mathematically) complex and non linear (otherwise oscillations would not exist), even chaotic (dynamical system): the temperature oscillates between a few attractors (glaciation, tempered climate, and even probably one or two intermediate states).
In such systems, rather independent periodic oscillators (resulting each from the parallel setting of a (thermal) resistance and a (thermal) capacity) can get synchronized by a LEGION mechanism (see Wilkipedia): If the loading of the capacitance is slower than its discharge, and if each time the threshold level for discharge is reached by anyone of the oscillators, it sends a signal (a small step increse in charging), after a while the different oscillators will synchronize….
_____________________________________________
So if the loading capacitance (the Sun) is slower than its discharge mechanism (Ocean oscillations) you could see the changes in the SST that we see as ~ 60 year cycles and also as ENSO.
And we come back again to “Its the Sun Stupid!” The fact that TSI does not have a large variation does not matter.
NICOLA
Making forcasts is a difficult process. We know that IPCC’S forecasting record is off.Paul Hudson’s blog reported that the MET Office has been wrong for about 11 years now being high most of the time . This was the case again in 2011. Their forcast for 2012 seems no better as they are again predicting 2012 to be warmer than 2011. Too much emphasis on CO2 impact? Girma Orssengo’s simple mathematical overlay model using the historical Hadcrut3 global mean temperature data seems to be the only one that has got it about right recently. His model predicted the GMTA to be 0.375 C for last year . The actual was about 0.347C . He is predicting a drop again this year and a steady decline to about 2030. Persoanlly I think the actual global temperature anomaly trend as opposed to isolated years [which can vary] will go below your yellow curve and stay below it . Ocean cycles and solar trends seem to support this .I dont think we will have warming to 2015/2016. I dont think that “the climate will likely stay steady until 2030/2040” as your written material states . I think temperatures will drop more than stay steady. I see nothing in the ocean’s cycles or the lagged solar signals or future solar predictions to indicate global warming to 2015 or a steady climate to 2030. Your prediction of a warming 0f 0.3C to 1.2 C by 2100 seems reasonable, but that is too far away to call at this time . Your numbers are a much improvement over IPCC’S figures
Greg says:
March 11, 2012 at 9:20 pm
…
However, I don’t think the burden of proof is to disprove the IPCC model. …
Indeed, IF the “policy makers” were viewing the IPCC model in a proper, skeptical scientific manner, we probably wouldn’t even be discussing it. However, they are not – they use the “wide-eyed, boy looking in a candy shop window” view followed by “we are all gonna die!”. The more that is done to show that the model does not show what is happening and it is not a good predictor of what will happen, the better.
Dr. Scafetta shows that the IPCC model does not agree with observations while the IPCC model’s supporters attempt to hide the decline (haven’t we heard that before?) of the observed temps as these observed temps diverge from their projection. I know, it is a travesty, But in real skeptical science, life doesn’t imitate the art of deception practiced by the IPCC crowd.
Dr. Scafetta also provides an alternative “projection/prediction” possibility. Whether it is reasonable or not does not change the fact that the IPCC model does not track well with the observed temperatures.
Gail Combs says:
March 12, 2012 at 5:20 am
Note added to my above post. You can tell the Warmists are using individual points because every time there is a hot day they scream it is proof of CAGW.
And, every time there is a cold day they scream it is proof of climate change caused by CAGW by CO2.
🙂
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 11, 2012 at 8:36 pm
“In effect you are saying that you predict no changes at all for a long time to come. Any deviation from that ‘prediction’ is just irrelevant detail.”
Eh? How did you come to that conclusion from this article? I thought we were trying to determine decadal trends, not annual variability. Therefore any annual deviation from the prediction is meaningless unless it is part of something that persists for long enough to drag the trend away from the moving average. What’s wrong with that?
It is perfectly plausible to suggest that the climate is subject to the same kinds of natural oscillations that exist in many other complex systems. Dr Scafetta is suggesting one such characterization, provided reasoning for it, and giving a falsifiable prediction based on it. What’s wrong with congratulating him on his hard work, making some suggestions on things he might have missed, and then checking back in a few years time to see how the prediction is getting on?
If the temps veer wildly to left and give us 4 or 5 years in line with where the IPCC said we should be at, or glaciers appear in Muswell Hill (London) again, we’ll know he was wrong. He has even given you a very low error range you could hold him to.
The yellow curve is the one that will provide the best match. The 0.93/century anthro add-on is an unnecessary fudge.
As far as I can tell, 2-sigma (95%) is a standard confidence and prediction interval in most scientific fields. Soft sciences like psychology may use lower, large-scale sciences like physics may use higher.
Agnostic says:
March 12, 2012 at 6:07 am
“In effect you are saying that you predict no changes at all for a long time to come. Any deviation from that ‘prediction’ is just irrelevant detail.”
Eh? How did you come to that conclusion from this article?
The first point is clear as a straight horizontal line with no trend falls within the cyan error band. The second point is Scafetta’s excuse for deviations.
Agnostic says:
March 12, 2012 at 6:07 am
If the temps veer wildly to left and give us 4 or 5 years in line with where the IPCC said we should be at, or glaciers appear in Muswell Hill (London) again, we’ll know he was wrong.
but if there is no change at all, we cannot conclude that he is right as there could be many reasons for no change. My new and improved phenomenological model [that the climate mirrors the mass of my old shoes] also predicts no change at all.
To Leif Svalgaard
“but if there is no change at all, we cannot conclude that he is right as there could be many reasons for no change. My new and improved phenomenological model [that the climate mirrors the mass of my old shoes] also predicts no change at all.”
This argument would be fine if your basing your argument on the fact you know completely how the climate system works.
If however you admit you don’t fully understand the climate system then any model no matter how outside the normal it may be as long as it predicts correctly is fundamentally the best model to use.
If your old shoe model works then it is still the best model… which says more about the failure of the other models then it says about the “process”/”look” of yours.
If someone reading tea leaves can predict the future out years and be right then the other predictions made out into longer time periods can also be weighted more heavily as being the most likely outcome.
Only when we know how exactly a system works and thus can predict it 100% can one claim that the old shoes model is wrong.
1)
Leif, I have already explained where your argument is wrong. You need to separate the time scales. You are looking at the fast ENSO oscillations (time scale is a few years) while the model is limited to the dacadal and above time scale patterns. If you do not understand this, I do not know what I can do. Try to use a paper and draw some picture with two superimposed oscillations with period let us say 3 yeas and 20 years. You may realize that even when the 20 year cycle is warming, the superposition of the two cycles may actually momentarily cool because the 3-year cycle was momentarily cooling.
Come on, Leif. It is not difficult to understand the point, just focus a little bit, OK?
Perhaps, can some readers help Leif?
2)
Some other readers have addressed the problem of the 0.9 C/century trend that I estimated for the anthropogenic component. You need to read my paper to understand this point well.
The estimate is based on a set of conservative hypotheses, the real anthropogenic trend may be less. That is why I also plotted the other yellow curve, which ignores it.
Essentially, that 0.9 C/century trend comes from the period 1970 to 2000 where this component of the model is calibrated, and it is the left over warming trend after that the warming coming from the cyclical component is detrended from the data. That left over warming trend is conservatively interpreted as “net anthropogenic component”.
However, as I clearly stated in the paper, part of that left over warming trend may be also due to other natural cycles not taken into account in the harmonic model, or to UHI and LUC effects left in the data, to math errors in processing the data etc. in addition to be a combination of anthropogenic GHG (warming) and aerosol (cooling).
So, there might be deviation from this 0.9 C/century warming trending as other cycles are identified as well as better algorithms to clean the data from UHI and LUC (and other things) are implemented. That is the reason why I also added the yellow curve estimate without that trending. So, the temperature may well fall between the black and the yellow limits
3)
Some readers are also insisting about the 2-sigma width. They are missing the point. The issue is that physical models must be scientifically validated to be physically acceptable. To be validated a proposed model needs to have an error bar smaller than the amplitude of the detectable data patterns. A explained above, the error bars associated to the IPCC models as acknowledged by skepticalscience is far too larger that the amplitude of the temperature patterns, so those models cannot be validated according to the scientific method.
Anyone who has seen the temperature graph [1] of from the Vostok station ice core data can plainly see that the climate is always changing. Indeed, on average the climate is so cold that much of the arable land on earth is covered in snow and ice. The essential issue then must be to what extent is human activity perturbing the climate in a way that is harmful in a meaningful way?
To that question I make two observations:
1) The case that humanity is changing the climate for the worse has yet to be made. First, nobody has put forth any data as to what the ideal climate should be. So how can we evaluate the present climate and any human-caused changes?
2) Too many people, both in science and the media are clearly in a rush to impose a cure to solve a problem when we have yet to fully define it. Further, every one of those solutions involve bigger government, less personal freedom and less prosperity. One gets the impression that climate change is merely a horse being ridden to accomplish an ideological goal.
It is on the last point that I am most concerned. Already advocates of climate change have seriously proposed that those who dispute their thesis should be treated as criminals and their ability to object be suppressed by the State, by which they mean, by coercion and the threat of deadly force if necessary. Although polite people will never say it, the raw truth is that whenever someone proposes to use the State to effect their personal policy preference, they are willing to send men with guns to deal with anyone so foolish or resolutely opposed as to refuse to comply.
I have seen this attitude before. It resulted in the deaths of millions in the previous century. It tells me more than I need to know about the real agenda here.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 7:40 am
I do not know what I can do.
That just about sums up the whole argument.
Nicola
To what degree does your model use ocean cycles if at all ? AMO, PDO / ENSO ,etc.
Nicola Scafetta, whom I had the pleasure of meeting when we both made presentations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory’s climate science conference in Santa Fe late last year, has been very patient in answering the baseless, impolitely-expressed, and to a large extent fabricated criticisms of those who have inexpertly and inappropriately attempted to dismantle his careful work.
He began running his forecast in the year 2000. Twelve years later, it is surely blindingly obvious that his projection has proven very considerably closer to observed reality than those of the IPCC, which – as almost always – is demonstrated to have erred monstrously in the direction of exaggerating the imagined effect of CO2 on global temperature.
I have long suspected – but have lacked the knowhow to demonstrate – that deducting the 60-year ocean-oscillation cycles would allow some estimate of the true warming component from CO2 to be derived. Dr. Scafetta puts this anthropogenic warming component at 0.9 C/century, or perhaps less, compared with the 2.8 C/century imagined by the IPCC.
On this ground alone, his work is valuable. It implies a climate sensitivity about one-third of the IPCC’s 3.3 C per CO2 doubling. If he continues to be correct for another decade, even the intolerant IPCC, which seems at present hell-bent on persisting with its extremist projections notwithstanding the mounting evidence that they are prodigiously overblown, will have to rethink its position fundamentally, if it has not been swept away by then. Congratulations and many thanks to Dr. Scafetta for so patiently, politely, and thoroughly exposing the grievous defects in his ill-intentioned critics’ arguments.
If you were punting on how much the planet would warm over the next decade, would you bet the farm on Dr. Scafetta’s forecast, or on that of the IPCC?
Monckton of Brenchley says:
March 12, 2012 at 8:24 am
If you were punting on how much the planet would warm over the next decade, would you bet the farm on Dr. Scafetta’s forecast, or on that of the IPCC?
Since his ‘forecast’ agrees with that based on my old shoe, I’ll tend to submit to confirmation bias and not bet the farm on IPCC.
@Leif: “but if there is no change at all, we cannot conclude that he is right as there could be many reasons for no change. My new and improved phenomenological model [that the climate mirrors the mass of my old shoes] also predicts no change at all.”
For heaven’s sake, you could at least conclude that he is not wrong. At least he is saying something concrete about what WILL happen. And you could say that about just about anything, including the recent warming.
The IPCC have projected continuing warming from assumptions made about the 1970-2000 warming, where as Dr Scafetta proposes there is 60 year oscillation that may account for some of that warming. Since the oscillation should be starting its cooling phase from around 2000 onwards based on the cycle, then it follows that temperatures would stop increasing and start to decline, and then continue to decline very slightly. This appears to be happening, contradicting the IPCC version and supporting Dr Scaffeta’s.
So we have 3 possibilities – a massive jump in temps and over the next 4 or 5 years a return to IPCC’s version of how things should be, a sudden drop into an ice age, or continuation of a fairly flat trend. From the point of view of policy, I would be putting my money on the most accurate prediction so far – that of Dr Scaffeta’s, but I would allow for the possibility he might be wrong.
From an objective point of view, the complete dismissal of Dr Scaffeta’s work strains credulity. He may yet be wrong – and some of the apparent cycles mere coincidence, but it is more than worthy of very serious consideration if only based on the principle of using the past as a guide to the future. I would like to see suggestions made to improve the model, make additions or consider things known to not be known, rather than simply deride an easily understandable idea, that is well supported by his research. It seems willfully obtuse.
“The first point is clear as a straight horizontal line with no trend falls within the cyan error band. The second point is Scafetta’s excuse for deviations.”
You’ve lost me. I understand perfectly what he is saying and it seems utterly reasonable and uncontroversial. It may yet be wrong (though I would be surprised) but I can’t seeing anything wrong with looking at 4 year moving average to detect an overall short term multi-year trend. It tells me something that is much more meaningful and useful when looking at longer term trends.
Great!
Thanks Dr. Scafetta, I have updated your graph in my pages.
To all interested in cyclical phenomena… As a chartist, here’s what may seem a silly question but has been burning me for quite some time now: has anyone tried using well-established technical indicators and oscillators that we use in *finance*, such as momentum, relative strength indicator (RSI), moving average convergence/divergence (MACD), etc., with different triggers and time frames, in order to test-model the temperatures? Don’t laugh, those oscillators reflect human behaviour in the financial markets, which is also natural and also cyclical.
“Come on, Leif. It is not difficult to understand the point, just focus a little bit, OK?
Perhaps, can some readers help Leif?”
Why do you waste your time trying to get through to Leif? I think he and Mr. Gleick share the same worldview. No amount of empirical evidence will stop his sniping. Too much money at stake. Who would fund their enterprises if there is a simple(natural) explaination and the human caused CO2 warming is minor( abt 1C)?
I look forward to your periodic updates.
I would like to thank Lord Monckton of Brenchley for having helped Leif to recover a little bit of objectivity, nobody and nothing succeeded in the task up to now. Thank you very much.
Let us hope that it last.
About the baseline chosen from skepticalscience, shown above, it was based on 20 years from 1980 to 2000. As I said above the right baseline is the period 1900-2000 because the IPCC models are supposed to reconstruct he 20-century warming trend. So, it is the 1900-2000 baseline that needs to be used, as I did.
In any case by using the baseline 1980-2000, the gnuplot command to plot the graph is
plot [1850:2040]’HadCRUT3-month-global.dat’,’itas_cmip3_ave_mean_sresa1
b_0-360E_-90-90N_na.dat’ using 1:($2-0.0474)
Which is just 0.041 C below the optimal 1900-2000 baseline
It is evident that by choosing skepticalscience 1980-2000 base line, the huge divergence between the IPCC model and the temperature around 1940, for example, would be even larger that what it is shown in the figure above.
@ matt v. says: March 12, 2012 at 8:22 am
I am not using explicitly any ocean cycles. I am using temperature cycles deduced from the global surface temperature and I am using frequencies and phases mostly taken from astronomical considerations.
@MAVukcevic says:
March 12, 2012 at 12:49 am
The old Socrates had a method of inquiry he called “Maieutics”,(from the Greek “μαιευτικός”, pertaining to midwifery), as it is similar to delivering a baby,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maieutics
Which involved, as example in this case: What is it the cause of temperature, climate, etc.
No one, with your exception, would survive Socrates´ Maieutic method. Such a method would scare to death any “post modern, new age” and “cool” scientist.
For them a trivia, just to start with: Why does the earth spin?
@Nicola Scafetta: You said in your article: “By the way, contrary to the claim of sckepticalscience, in statistics it is 1-sigma envelope width that is used; not 2-sigma or 3-sigma.” This is incorrect and is very basic, so it calls into question everything you say.
In your reply to my pointing this out (along with others), you say, “To be validated a proposed model needs to have an error bar smaller than the amplitude of the detectable data patterns.” Which seems to be correct.
Why not eliminate the incorrect sentence in your article? It’s incorrect as stated, and it does not state what your actual (correct) point is. It’s lose-lose: those with any amount of statistical experience will immediately assume you don’t even know the basics, and it isn’t what you really meant to say anyhow.
Agnostic says:
March 12, 2012 at 9:05 am
For heaven’s sake, you could at least conclude that he is not wrong.
One can be right [like my old shoe and Scafetta] for the wrong reason. That IPCC is wrong does nor prove my old shoe right, nor Scafetta. This is good example of the False Dilemma Fallacy:
Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim X is false.
Therefore claim Y is true.
To Lord Monckton: your quote:
Nick…….”has been very patient in answering the baseless, impolitely-expressed, and to a large extent fabricated criticisms of those who have inexpertly and inappropriately attempted to dismantle his careful work…”
This patience is also shown in this latest widget update….. But him, being a real climate science
pioneer and being miles ahead of out time, I do not see sufficient reason of being so patient
and dealing with straightforward BS/slander of Leif/Moscher/Physicist/Lack/Skepticalscience
and the rest of the Warmist howling crowd ……he does not have to be patient, to apologize for whatever reason….he should be ABOVE low quality attacks and should rather have lost
patience, as I have for some time already…thumbs down sign…….
The Lack confessions on the Lack page prove it: Climate villains are motivated
by a dogma/paradigm and twist and bend and lie, heaping one BS upon the other
in order to cause damage…..the likes as the climate Gleicks….
I believe one has to learn to be arrogant for dealing with the likes……..
JS
Dear Prof. Scafetta. rather than try and estimate the error bars on the IPCC projections from a magnified diagram from the IPCC report which doesn’t have the resolution to give a reasonable estimate, why not do what I did and go and get the A1B model runs from the publically available archives and plot them, along with the temperature data? If you do, you will get an image like this one
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/sresA1B.png
which shows the IPCC model runs project that temperatures both warmer and colder than observed during the past decade. I note also that the error bars you have estimated from the IPCC diagram are for annual data, which has a substantially lower variance than the monthly data that you plot. I would be happy to discuss your criticisms in depth, one by one, over at Skeptical Science.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scafetta-widget-problems.html
best regards
Dikran Marsupial
1) Could we please have a -residual- plot of your model? That is plot ‘model – observed’ with the y-axis being sigma. I’ve always found this to be quite useful examining empirical models for -further- patterns that might be discernible.
2) Wow, you would think no one had ever made an empirical model. Kudos for doing so.
3) I’d also appreciate a ‘running squared error’ for the main plot. This would provide a concrete number for not just any current deviation, but the running-accumulated deviation for both your model and the IPCC.
@ Wayne2 says: March 12, 2012 at 10:00 am
I do not think that it is incorrect. In statistics people use 1-sigma as the base-unit error width. Then people may use 2-sigma, 3-sigma etc just for expanding the comparison.
See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule
However, the basic error width is 1-sigma, and I am using the same error area that was used in the IPCC figure SPM.5 I depicted above. Why should I use something different from what the IPCC has used in its own figure?
Moreover, if it was 2-sigma the basic error width, statisticians would have simple redefined the Gaussian function is such a way that the new 1-sigma would correspond to the old 2-sigma. In fact, it is highly uncomfortable to use unit measures that start with a 2-value units!
In any case, as I said, that is not the point. The point is that the decadal-multidecadal data patterns have an amplitude of +/- 0.05 to +/- 0.12, so to validate a model it must have an accuracy of at least +/-0.05 or less. The IPCC models, as acknowledged by skepticalscience figures themselves, do not guarantee that accuracy because their error is above +/-0.15, thus they cannot be even validated according the scientific method. This is a very simple and straightforward argument.
Since Dr. Scafetta has not presented a comprehensive and direct step by step link from the sun (planets) to the projection of the future temperature change, readers may consider these six steps as contained in the available data and graphically illustrated here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTC.htm
On the trail of the global temperature change
1. Planets regulate solar oscillation cycles
2. Solar oscillations induce changes in the flow of the North Atlantic currents
3. Flow of the North Atlantic currents initiates two well known North Atlantic oscillations: the NAO & AMO
4. Flow of the North Atlantic currents also regulates the Central England Temperature – CET
5. Central England temperature – CET correlates well with the Global Temperatures – GT
6. Future CET (and the GT) projection based on the extrapolation of the existing components.
Spectral compositions of the SSN, NAP, AMO, CET & GT do not contain 60 year components but all have 52-55, 68 and 90 years. The inferior Fourier transformation is unable to resolve 52 to 68 range so it misleadingly shows as ~60(+) in the relatively short global temperature data set for 1860-2011. This can be easily demonstrated by analysing the CET for 1860-2011 and 1660-2011 periods separately (composite spectra graph will be added shortly).
I am expecting strong objection from Dr. Svalgaard , but if Lord Monckton of Brenchley or Dr. Scafetta wish to remark on any aspect of the above, as anyone else’s comments, they are more then welcome.
@Leif:
“One can be right [like my old shoe and Scafetta] for the wrong reason. That IPCC is wrong does nor prove my old shoe right, nor Scafetta.”
I absolutely agree with this reasoning. But that is just as applicable to the IPCC – or anything else for that matter. At the very least though, you can say that he has not been disproved, and until he has then it is as worthy as any other prediction. Since the IPCC’s predictions have not followed reality, are we going to apply the same logic to their assessment of 1970-2000 warming? Yes it warmed, but for the wrong reason?
Taking this a stage further, Dr Scafetta is saying something concrete about the future you can hold him to. In fact he has been saying it for 12 years. In another 5, that makes Ben Santers 17 years of significant time to say something about a trend, if you accept that that is an appropriate time frame.
In a science so complex, immature and important as climate science, wouldn’t it make sense to propose different models to conceive broadly how the system works? You then compare how they run against observation over time, how well they hindcast. This in effect is what happens, but without properly accounting for uncertainty and unknowns. What you need to do is state a physical reason why you think Dr Scaffesta’s model is not plausible, otherwise it is not any less valid than any other model. In fact it has 12 years of pretty reasonable validation by any measure suggesting that it is at least not wrong, whether for the right reason or not.
You haven’t actually addressed my criticisms. For example, the fact that a 1-sigma envelope only covers 68% of model runs, that changing the baseline to 1900-2000 as you’ve done would also change that uncertainty envelope (which you have not done), that HadCRUT3 has a known cool bias and you could have used any number of other data sets, that it is you who is trying to fool the eye by using an incosistent baseline, etc. etc. All you’ve done is created a bunch of incorrect and straw man arguments (i.e. saying that changing the baseline would not change the trend – of course it wouldn’t!) to defend your flawed widget instead of correcting your mistakes.
As a scientist, I just want to say that Leif Svalgaard’s summary is spot on, provided the null hypothesis is that of unchanging temperature. But the likes of Trenberth and Hansen would have it that warming should be the new null hypothesis, so Scafetta’s prediction is an effective rejoinder to that.
Prof. Scafetta, If I make a computer model of a fair six sided die, and I roll it 1,000 times to predict the expected score whenever I roll a real die, I get a mean of 3.5810 with a standard devaition of 1.7171. Thus a one-sigma region covers the scores 2, 3, 4 and 5. So if I roll the real die and I get a 1 or a 6, does that mean I have falsified my computer simulation? No, of course not, because (for a Gaussian distribution) the +/- one sigma region only contains 68.2% of the data, so we would expect a bit over 30% of the time for the model to be “falsified” even if it were exactly correct. In other words, it wouldn’t be very surprising to see an observation outside a 1-sigma error bar, even if the model was right. That is why a two-sigma region is used more often, because then there is only approximately 5% of the observations that would be expected to lie outside the error bars. In that case, it would be surprising to see observations lying outside the 2-sigma error bars. Note that 5% is also the common threshold used in hypothesis testing.
To Dikran Marsupial.
The unit symbol of the kelvin is K, not °K.
@ dana1981 says: March 12, 2012 at 10:36 am
Sorry dana1981, my arguments are correct.
I repeat the important point just for you
In any case, as I said, that is not the point. The point is that the decadal-multidecadal data patterns have an amplitude of +/- 0.05 C to +/- 0.12 C, so to validate a climate model it must have an accuracy of at least +/-0.05 C or less. The IPCC models, as acknowledged by skepticalscience figures themselves, do not guarantee that accuracy because their error on average is above +/-0.15 C, thus they cannot be even validated according the scientific method. This is a very simple and straightforward argument.
Did you get it? Or I need to repeat it ad infinitum?
Read my last paper where you will find that I have analyzed all models of the IPCC and I proven that all of them do not reconstruct any of the decadal and multidecadal patterns thatthe temperarture shows during the period 1850-2010.
Those models simply do not contain the right physics.
Nicola
I see where there is a difference between your forecast and that of Orssengo, both of which are based partly on historical GMTA records. In your model the data is modified by other factors. His is not . Your model has a very small difference between the trough and valley [ I eye balled about 0.2 C] and Orssengo uses about 0.42 C. The observed cooling for the last 2 typical cooling cycles [due to ocean cycles ?] were 1880-1910 was 0.42 C and again 1940 to 1970 was o.42C .I can see now why you propose a steady climate to 2030/2040 and his shows a significant dip. I guess time will tell which model turns out to be more realistic .
Agnostic says:
March 12, 2012 at 10:36 am
What you need to do is state a physical reason why you think Dr Scaffesta’s model is not plausible
No, the shoe is on the other foot. He needs to show a physical reason why it is plausible. He is committing yet another fallacy:
Description of Questionable Cause
This fallacy has the following general form:
A and B are associated on a regular basis.
Therefore A is the cause of B.
otherwise it is not any less valid than any other model
but also not any more valid than any other model. In fact it is just a valid as my old shoe model, I’ll have to concede that.
@weibel many thanks, I have fixed it in the MATLAB code for next time I replot it. I hope you agree that if you actually plot the model output, the recent observations are clearly still consistent with the models (although they are currently in the lower tail).
Gail Combs says:
March 12, 2012 at 5:44 am
“The freezes in Florida destroying the citrus fruit crops is a case in point.”
What the quote she gives doesn’t make clear is the the “freeze of ’95” was 1895. My great grandfather was growing oranges in north Florida at that time. My father always told me that the freeze permanently moved the orange growing area over 100 miles south.
@ Scafetta – what “patterns”? Are you talking about your climastrological cycles which have no bearing on the long-term temperature trend?
Dikran Marsupial has also demonstrated why a 1-sigma band is insufficient with a very simple analogy. Nicely done.
Scottish Sceptic says:
March 12, 2012 at 1:32 am
“The whole nature of 1/f noise is that it appears to have cycles.”
Not so regularly. And, while 1/f style “noise” is widespread, cyclic phenomena are even more so. In nature, pink noise is generally what you have left when you have removed all of the regular and repeatable sources of variation, i.e., it tends to be second order.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2012 at 8:54 am
“Since his ‘forecast’ agrees with that based on my old shoe, I’ll tend to submit to confirmation bias and not bet the farm on IPCC.”
But, your old shoe has no widely observed manifestation in every scientific and engineering discipline known to humankind. Your old shoe model is absurd. The likely existence of cyclic or quasi-cyclic behavior in data quantifying a natural phenomenon is most decidedly not.
I do agree, however, that appealing to astronomical phenomena for the driving influence is, at the very least, premature, and not very likely IMO.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 9:34 am
” I am using temperature cycles deduced from the global surface temperature and I am using frequencies and phases mostly taken from astronomical considerations.”
The frequencies and phases should simply be deduced from least squares or other fitting of the data.
Wayne2 says:
March 12, 2012 at 10:00 am
“This is incorrect and is very basic, so it calls into question everything you say.”
It is a convention – there is a very fuzzy line between right and wrong. But, if your error in general lies entirely outside a 1-sigma band, you’ve got problems with your model that no amount of handwaving or appeal to convention can gloss over.
Dikran Marsupial says:
March 12, 2012 at 10:18 am
“…which shows the IPCC model runs project that temperatures both warmer and colder than observed during the past decade.”
Which shows that the IPCC models have little, if any, predictive value, and there is no basis for upending the world economy based on their projections.
Dikran Marsupial says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:04 am
“… it wouldn’t be very surprising to see an observation outside a 1-sigma error bar, even if the model was right.”
You are getting tied up in word games, a.k.a., flailing. It is very suprising when the error is consistently outside the 1-sigma error bar.
Dikran Marsupial says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:04 am
“It is very suprising when the error is consistently outside the 1-sigma error bar.”
Continuing…
And, all the more so when the supposed driving factor of CO2 concentration continues its relentless rise. You’ve got real problems here, Dikran, and you are stuck in a state of DENIAL.
Seems people are interested in prophets and math mantras more than in science work.
Update:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/scafetta_vs_doormann_1.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/scafetta_vs_doormann_2.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/scafetta_vs_doormann_3.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/scafetta_vs_doormann_4.gif
Since satellites are used to measure global observables, for the global sea level this is documented since 1993, was it possible to the solar scientists to compare solar tide functions with the measured global sea level oscillations. Despite the synthetic linear increase, taken from the obvious increase of the whole last century, they would have found, the main solar tide function from Mercury/Earth is mirrored in the sea level oscillations with the same frequency and mostly phase coherent in time.
See here
V.
Dikran Marsupial says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:04 am
Dikan,
I am no statistican expert, but I believe that your analogy is somewhat flawed in this case.
If 68.2% of the datapoints were covered with a one sigma range, that would mean that 68.2% of the datapoints would be within the range that was predicted with a one-sigma range prediction.
That would probably mean that the mean, would be within the one sigma range, since in this instance there would be datapoints above and below the mean, causing the mean to be within the one-sigma range, and the forecast to be right.
However, Dr. Scafetta CLEARLY demonstrates that the mean has fallen OUT of the IPCC forecast range.
This means that 68.2% of the datapoints are NOT within the IPCC one-sigma forecast, and therefore, the IPCC’s forecasts are wrong.
dana1981 says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:38 am
“Dikran Marsupial has also demonstrated why a 1-sigma band is insufficient with a very simple analogy. Nicely done.”
His “demonstration” is for a “system” with completely random outcomes. If the outcome of the models is completely random, why are we having this discussion? They are useless.
If he got his data for the distribution of dice rolls from a model assuming independent, uniformly distributed outcomes, and then taking a real set of dice, found that he consistently rolled sixes, it would then be reasonable to conclude that his model did not fit the real dice, and the real dice are loaded.
To Dana: dana1981 says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:38 am
your quote:
“”””@ Scafetta – what “patterns……..
Are you talking about your climastrological cycles which
have no bearing on the long-term”????
Answer to Dana : Too bad when 5th graders joint the discussion with: “””I know
nothing about cycles and CO2….therefore there are no cycles and no CO2…””
Try to google “Climastrological Cycles” and no wonder that none would come
up that you tell the world from your rooftop in Micronesia: “There are None…
them cycles did not show up no more…..”
JS.
Bart says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:43 am
But, your old shoe has no widely observed manifestation in every scientific and engineering discipline known to humankind. Your old shoe model is absurd. The likely existence of cyclic or quasi-cyclic behavior in data quantifying a natural phenomenon is most decidedly not.
The key point in Scafetta’s ‘model’ is the astronomical cycles. Other than that it is just curve fitting which may or may not have predictive value for the near future [but probably not in the long run]. His ‘error-band’ is so wide that it encompasses the ‘prediction’ of no change at all. To postulate that if IPCC turns out to be wrong that implies that Scafetta’s astronomical cycles must be correct is as absurd as my old shoe model. That there are quasi-cycles in many geophysical phenomena is not in doubt and need not be debated. That these cycles are forced by astronomical cycles is the basis and premise of Scafetta’s claims. If he drops that claim and simply points out that the climate has had approximately 60-year variations since the 1850s and that if said variations continue then he ‘forecasts’ what he does. So, now it is up to him to do just that.
To Leif:
Are you prepared as scientist to take your uncyclic Warmist position back when
substantial cycle evidence is right on the table? Answer yes/no or avoiding the
answer with empty talk?? I am sure not , so as a person named Lack, admitting
on his homepage…..obstinate to the roots of his hair…..
The cycles are THERE, one first hint: The CYCLE DIAGRAM of Davis, J.C und Bohling,G.C.
graphic GISP2 Holocene Power Spectrum (Fixed Time Intervals) …given
in the recent WUWT Post “Why William D. Nordhaus is wrong….”.etc, further
down in the text…..we have 60/ 61 year CYCLE of 16 times per millenium over the
COMPLETE HOLOZAEN for 10,000 years…..of course, no CO2-Warmist cycles
around to see, because cycles are not produced by CO2-changes, or…?
If CO2 does NOT produce cycles, then the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles (Rahmstorf 2002:
“A precise clock…..etc” are not/or yes produced by CO2…. or is ASTRONOMICAL?
Really…..? How?
…. Just besides, I completed the 60/61 year cycle dynamics calculations last week….
and we can let Nick do HIS studies, and we leave the cycles to others who are more
into this subject…..also take back your stack of accusations……
JS
Allan MacRae says: February 11, 2012 at 8:05 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/#more-56210
Allan MacRae says: February 9, 2012 at 12:36 am
In this complex case, I suggest that the best test of one’s scientific credibility is the degree to which one can accurately predict future global temperatures.
How many of you are prepared to go on record with your best estimate?
___________________________________________
This is a good start (regarding Nicola’s 10Feb2012 post).
…
I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections) ? 0% probability of occurrence
2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
Hope I am wrong.
____________________
Two possible weaknesses of Nicola’s approach:
1. Use of Hadcrut3.ST with its apparent warming bias of about 0.07C per decade. Should also be plotted with UAH LT as a check of Hadcrut3..
2. Assumption of a humanmade warming component that will keep global temperatures ~constant – I wish. I will bet on the cooling yellow line or similar , not the level black line.
Leif,
don’t you realize that having numerous natural cycles that coincide with astronomical cycles by simply “coincidence” would be even more surprising?
I remain with my idea that these cycles are astronomically based.
You are free to think what you want.
Leif Svalgaard [March 12 @ 11:16]
Your allusion to the “Description of Questionable Cause” fallacy as “A and B are associated on a regular basis. Therefore A is the cause for B” , is very interesting indeed.
It describes to a T one of the core reasons for [healthy] climate scepticism. For more than 25 years now, anyone who has wanted to listen -and even those who didn’t- has been told “ad nauseam” by the IPCC and its followers that CO2 [A] and temperature [B] are associated on a regular basis, and that therefore [an increase in ] CO2 causes [an increase in] temperatures.
An appropriate “Description of a Questionable Cause” fallacy, when there clearly are a number of other plausible variables at play.
tetris says:
March 12, 2012 at 12:54 pm
the IPCC and its followers that CO2 [A] and temperature [B] are associated on a regular basis, and that therefore [an increase in ] CO2 causes [an increase in] temperatures.
On the surface it might seem that they commit the same fallacy. On the other hand, they believe they have a physical theory explaining the association. In science, such claims are validated or not by how well their prediction holds. So, we shall see. So far it doesn’t look to good for them, although they can [for a while at least] say that ‘natural’ and ‘statistical’ variability stand in the way. After a while, that begins to look a bit hollow.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 12:48 pm
don’t you realize that having numerous natural cycles that coincide with astronomical cycles by simply “coincidence” would be even more surprising?
As we have discussed at length, some of those coincidences are based on flawed data [northern lights, remember those?] and thus look more like wishful thinking.
Leif and northern lights.
Yes, Leif, I remember well that your argument was that the data are wrong!
Believe what you want, Leif!
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2012 at 12:29 pm
“To postulate that if IPCC turns out to be wrong that implies that Scafetta’s astronomical cycles must be correct is as absurd as my old shoe model.”
As far as I can tell, we are in basic agreement.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 12:48 pm
“…having numerous natural cycles that coincide with astronomical cycles by simply “coincidence” would be even more surprising?”
There is a distinction needing to be made here between random coincidence, and correlated coincidence. And, another entirely to say that one process is driving another.
Random coincidence may seem unlikely, but many purely random coincidences seem uncanny as well. There are a number of them between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations, for example. In my first probability class, the first thing we did was go around the room and find out everyone’s birthday, and were amazed that three people shared the same one. Then, the prof calculated the probability of having two or more people in the class having the same birthday as greater than 2 in 3.
Many problems in probability are anti-intuitive. My favorite is the Monte Hall dilemma.
Intuition can be effective in leading to new paths, but it can also often be misleading. The Warmist faction intuited that the seemingly large amounts of CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere in the last 100 years had to have a significant effect. It is becoming clearer each day that they were wrong. There’s no reason to commit to a particular theory of how the cycles come about before we have established that they do.
@Snowlover123 “However, Dr. Scafetta CLEARLY demonstrates that the mean has fallen OUT of the IPCC forecast range.”
No, Dr Scafetta have shown that the MONTHLY observations, not “the mean” have fallen out of the 1 sigma error bars for ANNUAL data. Monthly averaged data have a higher variance than annually averaged data, so the true 1-sigma error bars for monthly data would be wider than those shown.
Consider a case where we know the ground truth. Say I use a climate model to predict what the future climate is going to be like under some particular scenario. I have computer time to burn and I want as good an indication of the uncertainty as I can, so I generate say 1000 model runs. I look at the distribution of temperatures for (say 2050) and find they have a roughly Gaussian distribution with mean 2 and standard deviation 1.2 (say). Now if I generate another model run for the same scenario and I get a projection for that model of 3.4, does that falsify the model?
No, of course not, because roughly 30% of all model runs (including those in the ensemble) will have predictions that are outside the 1-sigma error bars, EVEN THOUGH THE MODEL WAS KNOWN TO BE EXACTLY CORRECT BY CONSTRUCTION (i.e. it was predicting its own next projection).
So if the 1-sigma test will “invalidate” the model 30% of the time when we know the model is correct, why should we expect it to be useful when we don’t know that the model is correct.
This is an argument of the same form as the die thought experiment, the differences here are that the outcome is not entirely random, and that a Gaussian distribution is a reasonable choice. The IPCC have a publicly available archive of the model runs that were used in the WG1 report, so if you are in any doubt, then you can download the data and try it for yourself.
@Leif:
No, the shoe is on the other foot. He needs to show a physical reason why it is plausible.
No he doesn’t. You do not need a physical reason to show that gravity exists. You say that if you let go of an apple it will fall to the ground and demonstrate that it does exist even if you don’t fully understand the mechanism.
Dr Scafetta is making the observations that there appears to be a cyclic pattern to the climate (actually superimposed cycles) and that if the cycle continues in the way that it appears to in the way he has observed the climate should respond in a certain predictable way. He does not need to have a mechanism, but he has a suggested one that is plausible and testable, but it may well be wrong – like anything in science.
He is committing yet another fallacy:
Description of Questionable Cause
This fallacy has the following general form:
A and B are associated on a regular basis.
Therefore A is the cause of B.
No he is not. You are conflating “cause” with observation. To re-write your A/B analogy, “A and B are observed to be associated with each other on a regular basis according to a certain pattern. Therefore, if the pattern holds A should correspond with B in a predictable way.
I really do not see this as so hard. You could (and probably should) say: “I am skeptical about this for these reasons (and name legitimate ones). I would therefore not be too confident that the predictions will hold or if they do, for the stated reasons.”
Dr. Vukcevic asks me to comment on the various periodicities that seem evident in the evolution of global temperatures. In general, one should be wary of complicating the picture with too many periodicities, or one will end up re-creating the once-fashionable “biorhythms” nonsense, where the hucksters’ trick was to choose three mutually-prime numbers, assign each arbitrarily to some physical characteristic, and then plot the supposed well-being of the sucker who fell for it.
One has only to look at the global temperature record since 1850 to discern a single, influential periodicity just shy of 60 years in length. Broadly speaking, in the first 30 years of each period, natural reductions in cloud cover (see e.g. Pinker et al., 2005, for the most recent such period) cause a rapid warming; then, in the second 30 years, the cloud cover returns and there is a cooling. Professor Anastasios Tsonis, at last August’s seminar of the World Federation of Scientists on planetary emergencies at Erice, Sicily, gave a most interesting presentation on this 60-year periodicity, which he had detected not only in the AMO, mentioned by Dr. Vukcevic, but also in the PDO, whose influence seems to predominate.
It is necessary to bear in mind that correlation does not necessarily imply causation: but, that said, there is a respectable correlation between the 60-year cycles of the PDO and the 60-year cycles in the global temperature anomalies. Dr. Scafetta, after years of thought, has found a way to eliminate these 60-year cycles, so as to isolate and quantify the warming effect of CO2 and other anthropogenic influences, which he says amounts to 0.9 Celsius per century at present. Global temperature has been rising at 1.2 Celsius per century since 1950, so, if Dr. Scafetta’s estimate is correct, approximately three-quarters of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is anthropogenic. This is consistent with the IPCC’s estimate that more than half of the warming since 1950 is attributable to us; but, of course, it is inconsistent with the IPCC’s bizarrely overblown prediction that in the remaining 90 years of this century there will be warming at more than three times the previously-observed rate. It is this discrepancy between what we may infer was the anthropogenic component in past warming and the thrice-larger anthropogenic warming predicted by the IPCC for the rest of this century that I call the IPCC’s credibility gap. Take away this over-egging of the climate pudding and the imagined “climate crisis” is seen for what it is – imaginary.
To Lord Monckton, and also to “Fabron” and the tedious “Leif”:
I agree with LITTLE cycles, a few years or months long, we can do away with
the peanuts but we have to stick to the “big stuff”, which is one of the 2 preponderant
cycles: the 60/61 year cycle, which is powerful….and the other longer cycle…..
Literature: WUWT post on “Why William D. Nordhaus is wrong about global…..”
and in this text, in the middle, find the graphic:
“GISP2 Holocene Power Spectrum (Fixed Time Intervals), by Davis, J.C and
Bohling, G.C.
it is shown that for 10,000 years, there exists a strong 60/61 year re-occuring
cycle in the frequency of 16 times per 1,000 years (try the pocket calculator)…..
do you want to dispute this away……??
CLEARLY: This 60/61 year permanently recurring cycle is NOT caused by
CO2—- unless a Warmist can prove otherwise, I am willing to learn…..—-
……it is wrong to let natural cycles, as this important astronomical cycle, to
disappear under the table…. this is what the Warmismus wants, that only CO2
remains in the race…..
….. further, clear is that Earthly cloud cover, AMDs, PDOs and so forth
do NOT have an ASTRONOMICAL effect….. but it is vice versa…..thus:
60 year ocean and atmospheric cycles are a quasi-PROVE for natural cycles,
which are there and will cyclicly continue to influence the
climate….and the years to come: We are on the flat temp plateau since 2000
and temps will slightly decrease by 0.1’C to the end of this decade BECAUSE
of this 60/61 years cycle and you will see that all of the CO2 [[reaching 400 ppmv
soon, we can celebrate – no heating near and far]] is not capable to lift GMT
somewhat, because CO2 has a next to nothing/nil effect….but rather natural
cycles have the great power…..and we should recognize this in full…..
JS
Dr. Scafetta – A few notes.
* The IPCC models are indeed baselined to the 1980-1999 period. Shifting the baseline as you do, giving the illusion of a worse agreement with the data is, to quote: “just an illusion trick” on your part.
* Climate models are not intended to reproduce decadal variations, but rather long term changes in climate – hence multiple runs to bracket short term variations. Demanding that they reproduce short term variation (as you do) is a strawman argument.
* Your widget is still showing monthly temperatures (high variability) against yearly (lower uncertainty) 1-sigma ranges for the IPCC models – “just an illusion trick”?
* Worst of all – You have no physical relationship between your cycles and the climate. As far as I can see you have just hand-picked frequencies that roughly fit the variations of the climate (a hand-generated Fourier decomposition), curve-fitting to the data, which is a reasonable description of data within that period – without being in any way a model of the processes occurring. This means that your curve-fits will have little to no predictive value as climate forcings change.
It makes a pretty picture, and I can see how it appeals. But it’s curve-fitting, not physics. Descriptive, not predictive. It tells us exactly nothing outside the fit period.
I hate this comment: (1) see all other works of Nick Scafetta, he is dealing extensively
about your missing facts…. he can’t just in every new paper rehearse the full background
for you, science has to advance and before you make a “Ultra-smart comment comprizing
your amazing statistical knowledge, please consult first Scafetta’s pre-modelling papers….
(2) coming along and moaning about missing background and that (3) his curves do fit
observations….
……I bet that non of your own curves ever fitted any observations, unless you quote your
works …..
better just do the reading to learn and do less opining….your reply simply has lowest/if any quality…..prove your own curves…..
JS
Nicola Scafetta wrote “don’t you realize that having numerous natural cycles that coincide with astronomical cycles by simply “coincidence” would be even more surprising?”
No, the human eye is extremely good at spotting correlations and patterns in data where none exists. There are many astronomical cycles to choose from, if you only have a relatively short period of observations (relative to the length of the cycle) then spurious correlations are likely to crop up. In statistics it is known as “over-fitting”.
That is why a plausible physical mechanism that can account for the existence of the correlation and the strength of the effect is required as this argues that the corellation is not merely a coincidence.
@ Nicola Scafetta
1.I am not entirely convinced about ’60 year cycle’ since the BEST team found only 72 and 22-24 year periods (see Santa Fe presentation on the natural variability).
2.20 to 30 years of no trend looks totally un-natural considering the past record.
@MAVukcevic says:
“readers may consider these six steps as contained in the available data and graphically illustrated here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTC.htm “
1. your charts are in fact very good, but there is an woeful lack of explanation, although I can see your train of thought.
2. I am not familiar with the atlantic precursor, which appear to be critical (on the chart looks plausible) link between sun and the oceans. What is NAP? Where one can find the data?
Vuckevic you should give more information for each of your steps to give some credibility to your theory.
@Leif Svalgaard
I value your views, even when would disagree. I consider Vuckevic theory ‘closer to reality’ on account of stronger looking correlation, despite lack of any explanations.
another non-starter?
The BEST people mostly belong to the Warmism team or are half-baked Warmists…..
Therefore, they did make an effort to identify the dominant 60/61 year cycle…simply because
the CO2 does not produce any 60 year natural cycles and for this reason, BEST abstains
from mentioning natural cycles, it does not fit into the Warmist approach to climate….
……Better have a look into my literature quoted to Lord Monckton, you and the obstinate
leif just a few replies further up… and here you get your cycles proven for more than 10,000
years, I believe this should do it……
also compare this to: CO2-AGW operates with only 250 years
(see “www. radiative forcing 1750-2000”) time span, before no effect of CO2, no cycles all
left out on purpose……..
Cheers
JS
Dikran Marsupial says:
March 12, 2012 at 1:47 pm
‘No, Dr Scafetta have shown that the MONTHLY observations, not “the mean” have fallen out of the 1 sigma error bars for ANNUAL data.’
Yes, his argument was specious. But, so is yours. See my comments above.
To all: you are misreading Leif’s objection. He does not have a problem recognizing and remarking on cyclic influences. He has a problem ascribing it to motion of the outer planets. I find that notion far fetched, too. Not impossible, but not very likely. And, unnecessary at this stage.
Agnostic says:
March 12, 2012 at 1:47 pm
No, the shoe is on the other foot. He needs to show a physical reason why it is plausible.
No he doesn’t. You do not need a physical reason to show that gravity exists.
The point is not that there are quasi-cycles, but he is claiming that those are caused by astronomical cycles, and that he needs a mechanism for.
if the cycle continues in the way that it appears to in the way he has observed the climate should respond in a certain predictable way.
He is making a much stronger claim, namely that the cycles must continue because they are caused [70% ?] by astronomical cycles that do exist.
Monckton says “if Dr. Scafetta’s estimate is correct, approximately three-quarters of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is anthropogenic. This is consistent with the IPCC’s estimate that more than half of the warming since 1950 is attributable to us; but, of course, it is inconsistent with the IPCC’s bizarrely overblown prediction that in the remaining 90 years of this century there will be warming at more than three times the previously-observed rate.”
That is absolute nonsense. You acknowledge that the IPCC is correct about CO2-driven warming, and then follow by saying that the projected accelerating CO2 emissions won’t cause accelerating warming.
I’d prefer to focus on the many problems with Scafetta’s widget, but that was an entirely nonsensical comment.
fabron says:
March 12, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I consider Vuckevic theory ‘closer to reality’ on account of stronger looking correlation
Vuk does not have a theory, only an undocumented claim. As long as there are no published details he has no theory or even hypothesis.
KR says:
March 12, 2012 at 1:57 pm
“This means that your curve-fits will have little to no predictive value as climate forcings change.”
IF the forcings change significantly. As of right now, there is no indication at all that the climate is responding to any external anthropogenic forcing to which it has not responded in typical fashion in the past. The run up in the global average temperature metric (GATM) in the 30 year interval 1970-2000 is almost precisely what it was in the interval 1910-1940.
“But it’s curve-fitting, not physics. Descriptive, not predictive. It tells us exactly nothing outside the fit period.”
Given the ubiquity of cyclical behavior in all branches of physics and engineering, its predictive value is strong. But, if it indeed told us nothing outside the fit period, that would still be better than the IPCC projections, which are wrong even within the fit period, and there is no evidence that they will get better as time goes on. Indeed, there is an awful lot of catching up to do for the GATM to get anywhere close. I.e., the race is near the finish line, and your horse isn’t even in the lead pack.
If a layman is permitted to attempt an answer to KR’s points, here goes:
KR1: “The IPCC models are indeed baselined to the 1980-1999 period. Shifting the baseline as [Dr. Scafetta does], giving the illusion of a worse agreement with the data is, to quote: “just an illusion trick” on [Dr. Scafetta’s] part.”
M of B: If KR will refer to Fig. 10.26 of IPCC (2007), he will see that all of the IPCC’s principal temperature and related predictions, of which the one at Fig. SPM.5 is explicitly cited by Dr. Scafetta in his excellent posting here, are baselined on the entire 20th century.
KR2: “Climate models are not intended to reproduce decadal variations, but rather long term changes in climate – hence multiple runs to bracket short term variations. Demanding that they reproduce short term variation (as you do) is a strawman argument.”
M of B: Refer to Fig. 10.26 of IPCC (2007) again. It will be evident that the models relied upon by the IPCC are generating curves that display anomalies at the sub-decadal as well as the supra-decadal scale. Dr. Scafetta reasonably points out in his numerous peer-reviewed papers, and in his head-posting here, that attempts to rely solely upon CO2 as the tuning-knob of the climate will gang agley unless one also makes allowance for the well-established (and, indeed, supra-decadal) 60-year periodicity in the global surface temperature anomaly record), to say nothing of the shorter periodicities caused by Sun/Moon interactions and by the 10.6-year (though variable) sunspot cycle. If the models do not even reproduce the 60-year periodicity that is evident not only in the temperature record but also in the phases of the great ocean oscillations (see e.g. Tsonis et al., 2006), then they will fail. Indeed, they have failed. Dr. Scafetta’s forecast made in 2000 is on target: the IPCC’s forecast has overshot badly, and that, frankly, is the elephant in the room.
KR3: “[Dr. Scafetta’s] widget is still showing monthly temperatures (high variability) against yearly (lower uncertainty) 1-sigma ranges for the IPCC models – “just an illusion trick”?”
M of B: With respect, this is a silly point. Dr. Scafetta, in demonstrating whether his long-run (lower-uncertainty) projection based on the known periodicities in the climate, has overlain upon it the actual monthly (higher-variability) anomalies as determined by observation. Naturally, the observations show more fluctuation than the projections (which, to answer another silly point, this time by Dr. Svalgaard, is why from time to time the observed record passes furth of the one-sigma cyan band in Dr. Scafetta’s projection). But it is simple enough to determine a least-squares linear-regression trend on the observed data since 2000 (hint: there has been no statistically-significant temperature change over the period, in line with Dr. Scafetta’s projection but very substantially below that of the IPCC, whose one-sigma zone is shown in green on the chart).
KR4: “Worst of all – You have no physical relationship between your cycles and the climate. As far as I can see you have just hand-picked frequencies that roughly fit the variations of the climate (a hand-generated Fourier decomposition), curve-fitting to the data, which is a reasonable description of data within that period – without being in any way a model of the processes occurring. This means that your curve-fits will have little to no predictive value as climate forcings change.”
M of B: KR should really read Dr. Scafetta’s papers, and indeed his head posting here, before making such an absurd assertion. Dr. Scafetta has written numerous papers on the influence of solar variability on climate, for instance. And the 60-year periodicity in the global temperature data needs no Fourier decomposition to identify it: one can see it with the naked eye. It also tracks closely the various ocean oscillations (see Tsonis et al., 2006, for an excellent discussion and for further references); and, as Dr. Pinker pointed out in her 2005 paper, one observed physical mechanism is the startling reduction in cloud cover from 1983 to late in 2001, causing some 6 W/m2 of forcing (the entire gross anthropogenic forcing from greenhouse gases since 1750 is little more than half that). It is not necessary for Dr. Scafetta to be able to explain every mechanism that influences the oscillations that he describes. The 11-year sunspot variability, for instance, cannot yet be fully explained: but the sunspot record demonstrates that it exists in reality.
KR’s posting does seem to fall short of the high standards of intellectual honesty that were once customary in the sciences. It has become noticeable that whenever any scientist mounts a serious challenge to the IPCC/RealClimate storyline there are numerous attempts, such as that of KR, to put something – anything – on the record somewhere by way of an attack on that challenge, so that others can later say that the scientist’s work has been “discredited” or “debunked”. Attempts to behave in this fashion by those whose faith in the IPCC is strong are becoming too numerous and too baseless to be any longer credible. Anyone looking in on this debate with a clear and unprejudiced eye can determine who is trying to tell the truth and who is not: and this is one of the chief reasons why the climate scare is no longer believed anything like as widely as once it was. Magna est veritas, et praevalet!
You are right….you said it…just Amen…..
Myself, I am looking forward to 2014, when the
[coined by foreign exchange trader ] (1) “psychological important threshold” of 400 ppmv
CO2 will be crossed and (2) the temps are further down….thus more to laugh about Warmism
and their forecasts……(see Warmist Judith Lean: 0.14 ‘C GMT up 2010-2014)
Greetings
JS
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Which arrogant list of points! You need to read my papers first and understand them. Then, come back.
“Climate models are not intended to reproduce decadal variations, but rather long term changes in climate”? The fail the long term changes as well, do not worry. To have any physical importance a model needs to reconstruct at least something, don’t you agree? In any case, people are not interested in what will happen next century, they want to know what will happen in the next 10-30 years. If the models fail this time span they are useless.
fabron says: March 12, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Please read my paper. The 60-year cycle has a long history. I show very long sequences that contain that cycle, explicitly and in the references.
Bart says: March 12, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Bart, be patient.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Leif, open your closed mind!
If we were living in 1600 would you have said that the moon was causing the tides on the Earth? (everybody was beliving so, but you would have opposed it, don’y you?)
Or if we were in 1880 would you have agreed that sunspot activity was connected to the geomagnetic fluctuations? (surely not, by considering your way of thinking).
Sam Kean [The Disappearing Spoon] has this very fitting description of Pathological Science [which goes for both IPCC and Scafetta, IMHO]: “Pathological Science is not fraud, since the adherents believe they’re right – if only everybody else could see it. It is not pseudoscience, like Freudianism and Marxism [and Vuk’s], fields that poach on the imprimatur of science yet shuns the rigors of the scientific method. It is not politicized science, like Lysenkoism, where people swear allegiance to a false science because of threats or a skewed ideology [some may disagree]. Finally, it’s not general clinical madness or merely deranged belief. It’s a particular madness, a meticulous and scientific informed delusion. Pathological scientists pick out a marginal and unlikely phenomenon that appeals to them for whatever reason and bring all their scientific acumen to proving its existence. But the game is rigged from the start: their science serves only the deeper emotional need to believe in something. […] And actually, pathological science doesn’t always spring from fringe fields. It also thrives in legitimate but speculative fields, where data and evidence are scarce and hard to interpret. […] Pathological science takes advantage of that caution [not to extrapolate too far]. Basically, its believers use the ambiguity about evidence as evidence – claiming that [other] scientists don’t know everything and therefore there’s room for my pet theory, too”
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Is that your final argument? Do not have anything better?
Do not be so obtuse. Be at least open a little bit. After all, you are not the creator of the universe, don’t you? Things are not always as they appear: sometimes something new comes out.
Monckton of Brenchley says: March 12, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Thank you for the excellent response. I wish to be able to write so well.
It’s tiresome enough to point out Scafetta’s errors without Monckton compounding them. I will simply point out that the caption of the figure in question says:
“Figure SPM.5. Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–1999)…”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-5.html
Thus the appropriate baseline is undeniably (and I use the term ironically here) 1980-1999.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 2:33 pm
“Bart, be patient.”
With respect, Nicola, I believe it is you who have jumped the gun here. You do not need to posit an attribution at this stage. On a purely battlefield metaphorical level, it is not a little like Germany opening up the Eastern Front before it had the Western Front secured. You are now fighting on two fronts, and it is sapping your strength from the battle you can assuredly win.
I suppose you are already committed, but I would have advised you to fight one battle at a time and, when you had incontrovertible evidence of a linkage between the planetary orbits and the climate, then launch your attack on that redoubt.
Nicola Scafetta – “The(y) fail the long term changes as well, do not worry.”
Actually, they do not: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html
“In any case, people are not interested in what will happen next century, they want to know what will happen in the next 10-30 years. If the models fail this time span they are useless.”
10 years? There will likely be ~0.17 C anthropogenic warming per decade, with short term variability due to ENSO, solar cycles, and volcanic aerosols being larger in scale than the anthropogenic contribution. 30 year? The same, with ~0.17 C/decade warming clearly discernible against the other climate variations that have no long term trend.
If you want short term predictions of ENSO, go to the ENSO models (initial value predictions, akin to weather forecasts) – although they’re quite frankly not very good yet. Solar is more predictable, but for volcanic activity you’re better off flipping coins.
That’s the whole idea of discussing climate, as opposed to weather or variations – the long term outlook, the trends.
“Which arrogant list of points!” – I’ve seen far worse in peer review comments. And you have not actually addressed any of the points that I made.
To KR: All Warmists are afraid of recognizing natural cycles, because CO2 is
not capable of generating cycles…..tough luck, but its not the Skeptics fault….
Using arguments of Warmist S. Rahmstorf: His paper of natural cycles of 2002:
“”….a precise clock…..”
Try it out and see how he detects and descibes natural cycles in paleohistory…..
Keep in mind: These guys are the sneaky type (for example his : www. Klimalounge”:
offering a climate BET for temp increases in the 2010-2020 decade: As soon as
I accepted all his terms and he, realizing he was going to loose, because of stagnant
temps this decade, he refused to take the bet and immediately stopped his blog
deadright, not even a complaint to the blog organizer helped… Warmists immediately
stop responding if you take up their offer…..)
…… better watch out, with whom you deal with….
…. Another sneaky feature: Omittance of the 60/61 natural cycle for the 20/21 Cty
and instead hyping up “”ENSO, solar, volcanic and the linear trend -no cycles-“”
as you write.
Everybody knows, that temperature driving CAUSES are only short term on less
than decadal scales thus uninteresting for the climate, only for meteorology….
and knowing this, as well as we know,
makes Warmists arrogant, obstinante and unpleasant in dialogues….too bad….
JS
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Do not be so nervous. read my papers. The IPCC models do not reconstruct any of the detectable cycles, patterns observed since 1850. Yoou are not getting the issues. The IPCC has projected a warming of 2.3 C/century since 2000, by the way, not your 0.17 C per decade.
About your points: Lord Monckton has already responded your points very well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/11/scafetta-prediction-widget-update/#comment-920966
Moreover is your name “KR” or you are called in a different way?
My thanks to Lord Monckton of Brenchley for the time and effort allocated to evaluate and comment on my post.
May I add, I am not in possession of PhD degree, hence just an ordinary practical engineer, with some experience of analysing periodic signals, natural, resonant and forced oscillations.
I am much obliged to your lordship.
Dr. Scafetta:
Harmonic cycles and such are a bit above my paygrade, and since I recently retired, I say I am on a “fixed income.” (Indeed, I was intructed to say this loudly and often in a recent course I took, “Our most vulnerable group, Seniors.”) But I have studied and was much impressed by the paper you wrote with Dr. Willson on the ACRIM Gap controversy. Looking at several critical papers, other commentary (such as your reponse (linked to above) at Pielke Sr.’s blog to Benestad and Schmidt (2009), I think you and Willson clearly got the better of the overall argument. Are you still confident in your analysis in that paper, and in particular, do you remain confident in your estimates of the ramp up of TSI and its likely contribution to the increase in global surface temperature prior to the end of the Grand Solar Maximum in 2000-2001?
If “yes” or “pretty much yes” is your answer, I would note that even on skeptical blogs, most people of a skeptical bent regarding “global warming” seem automatically to accept that that TSI decreased over the latter part of the 20th century (as per the PMOD reconstruction), and then begin to look for evidence of other Solar effects (e,g,, solar wind electro-scavaging, cosmic ray-cloud modulation, larger than expected UV increases, etc.) to find a positive Solar contribution to temperature increases. I have no problem with the latter endeavors and there is plenty of evidence to support looking very carefully into each of them. Just thought that while you are here I would ask about would ask about the TSI recon issue. I know you will give me an honest answer.
Monckton of Brenchley – “M of B: If KR will refer to Fig. 10.26 of IPCC (2007), he will see that all of the IPCC’s principal temperature and related predictions, of which the one at Fig. SPM.5 is explicitly cited by Dr. Scafetta in his excellent posting here, are baselined on the entire 20th century.” (emphasis added)
That would be quite incorrect. The data Dr. Scafetta drew from, in Fig. SPM.5 (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-5.html) states explicitly: “Figure SPM.5. Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–1999) for the scenarios…” (emphasis added)
I do not think the error could be any more clear.
“…evident that the models relied upon by the IPCC are generating curves that display anomalies at the sub-decadal as well as the supra-decadal scale…”
That is quite right. Individual model runs are showing decadal and somewhat longer variations, as is to be quite expected if they are accurately representing the physics involved. The particular evolution of a single model run, however, is more an initial value issue, and hence running multiple models with multiple initializations allows mapping out the range expected of the physics of the climate.
No individual run is expected to reproduce the exact evolution of the climate – but an assembly of runs can show an expected range. Your argument is a strawman.
If Dr. Scafetta were to show the 1-sigma range of monthly model results, rather than against the rather smaller yearly results, that would not be a problem. But monthly against yearly is an apples/oranges misrepresentation.
Finally, correlation without causation isn’t physics. What Dr. Scafetta has done is descriptive signal decomposition, not establishment of cause/effect relationships. That’s fine within the period of signal decomposition as a description, but until he provides solid mechanisms (preferably testable ones) that are better supported by the evidence than the basic spectroscopy and energy conservation supporting the greenhouse gas effect and anthropogenic contributions, it’s still just correlation without causation.
And hence it won’t provide strong predictive capabilities outside the curve-fit period, such as backprojections of his cycles that clearly diverge.
Nicola Scafetta – Regarding 0.23C/decade and 0.17C/decade, I am using the numbers from Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022), wherein they perform an attribution analysis against ENSO, solar, volcanic, and a linear trend, which will include include greenhouse gases, aerosols (not separated in that work), and other influences generating that trend. Not just the CO2 contribution.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 2:33 pm
If we were living in 1600 would you have said that the moon was causing the tides on the Earth? (everybody was beliving so, but you would have opposed it, don’y you?)
Lemme see… Galileo didn’t believe so.
Or if we were in 1880 would you have agreed that sunspot activity was connected to the geomagnetic fluctuations? (surely not, by considering your way of thinking).
what do you know about what I would believe? I would have agreed that in 1858: http://www.leif.org/research/H02-FRI-O1430-0550.pdf
KR says:
……Finally, correlation without causation isn’t physics. What Dr. Scafetta has done is descriptive signal decomposition, not establishment of cause/effect relationships. That’s fine within the period of signal decomposition as a description, but until he provides solid mechanisms (preferably testable ones) that are better supported by the evidence than the basic spectroscopy and energy conservation supporting the greenhouse gas effect and anthropogenic contributions, it’s still just correlation without causation.
And hence it won’t provide strong predictive capabilities outside the curve-fit period, such as backprojections of his cycles that clearly diverge…..
…………………………………
Correlation without causation may not be physics but it IS a start and a heck of a lot better than completely ignoring very obvious cycles. Our ancestors did not have to know astrophysics to be able to predict eclipses, tides and predict the correct time to plant seed, so please spare me the “hence it won’t provide strong predictive capabilities outside the curve-fit period” crap. Mankind has been using the study of cycles for eons without knowing the underlying physics so that part of your argument doesn’t hold water.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2012 at 2:42 pm
“Pathological Science is not fraud, since the adherents believe they’re right – if only everybody else could see it. It is not pseudoscience, like Freudianism and Marxism [and Vuk’s], fields that poach on the imprimatur of science yet shuns the rigors of the scientific method.”
hence it’s a fraud – he thinks (mav remark).
Hi Doc
I suggest have a quick look at : http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTC.htm
Your excursion into psychoanalysis is interesting.
I should be flattered to belong to same groping as Karl Marks, whose works I have ( had to ) study for about 3 years. I wander have you red any of Das Kapital.
Freud and Marks believed what they wrote, and many millions did and do too. Belief is a ‘quasi-knowledge’ without questioning i.e. kind of a religion.
Science is ‘knowledge with questioning’ and as such subject to change, modification, evolution or even total rejection.
If you allow me to return the ‘favour’ I would assume that you would put yourself into the second rather than first grouping.
What I write and post here and elsewhere, I would consider ‘science lite’ rather then pseudoscience, since I do it as a hobby and for personal pleasure and amusement.
Do I believe in it?
Definitely NOT.
Do I question it?
Occasionally, if I see something might be outrageously wrong.
Is it science?
Only the bits that may be correct, according to the current understanding.
Is it pseudoscience?
Definitely NOT, pseudoscience is meant to deceive, but since it contains parts which can’t be proven correct or wrong, it might lead the ‘fearful’ (as a mean of defence) to classify it and its author as such (pseudo-science).
Thank you “dana1981”, “Dikran Marsupial” and “KR” for attempting to critique Nicola Scafetta’s widget. You are being treated with more courtesy than you deserve while nothing you say is being censored.
Contrast that with the way SkepticalScience operates. That alone shows your cause is lost.
“dana1981” – Your sneering comment about Climatastrology may come back to bite you. Imagine a mechanism linking the solar wind to the motion of the larger planets. Ridiculous you say?
Monckton of Brenchley says:
March 12, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Dr. Scafetta, after years of thought, has found a way to eliminate these 60-year cycles
Scafetta believes that ~70% of climate is driven by the planets [or the moon], that is, by astronomical cycles. Since you are so enamored by Scafetta’s pathological science, perhaps it is appropriate to inquire if you also believe that the planets control our climate on a time scale of centuries and decades.
KR—why don’t you start your analysis from say 1850? You will see a steady recovery from the LIA which is lower.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/guest-post-the-continuing-recovery-from-the-little-ice-age-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/
dana1981 says: March 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm
I have already responded to you. The IPCC models are supposed to reconstruct the 20-century temperature, thus the natural baseline is 1900-2000 as I used. Try to think a little bit instead of acting as a cult believer. The IPCC models are already very bad in reproducing the 1900-1970 periods, if you put your base line even lower than the 1900-2000 base line the discrepancy with the temperature before 1970 would be even larger.
Leigh B. Kelley says: March 12, 2012 at 3:48 pm
The issue between ACRIM and PMOD is still open. Unfortunately, there are only two ways to solve it: 1) go back in time and take again the TSI measurement during the ACRIM gap (1989-1992), which we cannot do; 2) understanding the solar dynamics which we may be able to do, and I am working on it.
My last paper on the topic is here
N. Scafetta, “Total Solar Irradiance Satellite Composites and their Phenomenological Effect on Climate,” chapter 12, pag 289-316.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-easterbrook.pdf
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 3:57 pm “Regarding 0.23C/decade and 0.17C/decade, I am using the numbers from Foster and Rahmstorf 2011”
Foster and Rahmstorf are doing the following thing “When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability)”
The major problem is that they do not detrend the 60-year cycle which is evident in PDO and AMO. They also use an hypothetical solar record (PMOD) with no trending which may be wrong. And they approximate the residual with a straight line.
The calculations need to be done with the 60 and 20 year cycles as in my papers and I arrived to a very different conclusion. You also need to understand that there is the need to look at the patterns in the data since 1850 as I do, not just since 1979 as done in Foster and Rahmstorf who then use linear fitting functions.
You find a critique to Foster and Rahmstorf here
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011-global-temperature-evolution-1979-2010/
KR says:March 12, 2012 at 3:57 pm
… it’s still just correlation without causation. And hence it won’t provide strong predictive capabilities outside the curve-fit period
That would be true only if the correlation is completely accidental. If it turns out to be predictive, what then? IMO, if you can use the correlation to predict then knowing the cause merely satisfies curiousity. Dismissing it simply because the mechanism is not understood is just wishful thinking.
Gail Combs says:
March 12, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Mankind has been using the study of cycles for eons without knowing the underlying physics so that part of your argument doesn’t hold water.
Gail, the difference is that Scafetta knows [at least he claims so] what cause the cycles: the influence of the planets.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 4:36 pm
“Lemme see… Galileo didn’t believe so.”
And nobody, not one, believed Galileo about his theory of tides. Galileo himself rejected the theory later, don’t you know?
Everybody believed Kepler, and thousands other astrologers, who were telling the right thing based on common sense: if we see a correlation between the lunar phases and the tides, the tides are caused by a “mysterious” lunar “influence” (which Newton called gravity later).
On the contrary, you would have been the only one in rejecting the theory of lunar-induced tides well known to every fisherman, on the basis that no physical mechanism was known.
Leif says: “what do you know about what I would believe? I would have agreed that in 1858: ”
No, you would not have believed it. No physical mechanism linking sunspot variation to geomagnetic activity was known at the time, there was only a correlation. You would have said that the sun is too far from the earth and the magnetic field from the sunspots would be too weakened by the long distance to effect the geomagnetic activity.
Dikran Marsupial March 12 @ 2:02
You say that humans have a propensity to see correlations and patterns in data where none exist. How very true. We have been told for far too long to “see” a linear “correlation” and in fact a causal “pattern” between increased CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. Problem is of course that no such correlation or pattern exists demonstrably in the real world. Whether it is for the entire 20th century or for e.g. the post-1998 flatlining, no meaningful correlation exists nor does any demonstrable “pattern” of causality between increased CO2 concetrations and increases in global temperatures. That purported causality however, remains the null hypothesis, for which there is less and less credible evidence.
It might be interesting to you to try and obfuscate that reality by partaking in a witch hunt on Scafetta, but it does not make that reality any less true and visible to those interesting in taking a hard look. Unless you of course have access to verifiable data that provides incontrovertible proof for the null hypothesis, in which case it would most useful and kind of you if you would share that information with all of us.
Dr. Scafetta:
Thank you for your reply! Downloaded, saved, perused… . Excelent! Much to analyze. Thank you.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 5:22 pm
On the contrary, you would have been the only one in rejecting the theory of lunar-induced tides well known to every fisherman, on the basis that no physical mechanism was known.
A physical theory is not needed if the correlation is REALLY good [works every time without fail] and is not based on faulty and fabricated data, and yours aren’t good and that is the difference. And BTW, a physical mechanism WAS ‘known’ [it was wrong though], as he said: “If the earth ceased to attract the waters of the sea, the seas would rise and flow into the moon…” which does not explain why there is a tidal bulge on the side of the Earth away from the Moon.
You would have said that the sun is too far from the earth and the magnetic field from the sunspots would be too weakened by the long distance to effect the geomagnetic activity.
Again you forget the issue of validated predictions. Rudolf Wolf who discovered the relationship between sunspots and the regular daily geomagnetic variation, every year when he computed the sunspot number for the year predicted what the amplitude should be and was always correct, year after year: http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf not just in the overall run of the curves but in small details as well. That would have been good enough for me. On the other hand, Wolf is also the originator of the planetary theory for sunspots and eventually abandoned that because it didn’t hold up: “this research (by myself and others) never produced any really satisfactory results”, and it still doesn’t.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 4:46 pm
“Monckton of Brenchley says: March 12, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Dr. Scafetta, after years of thought, has found a way to eliminate these 60-year cycles
Scafetta believes that ~70% of climate is driven by the planets [or the moon], that is, by astronomical cycles. Since you are so enamored by Scafetta’s pathological science, perhaps it is appropriate to inquire if you also believe that the planets control our climate on a time scale of centuries and decades.”
Leif, what kind of reasoning is this? Is Monckton of Brenchley the person who is doing this research? What he believes or does not believe is irrelevant to my results.
The research is still not concluded yet. There are only two possible outcomes: 1) my theory is correct; 2) my theory is wrong. Wait and see how the things develop, Lord Monckton will do the same. He will wait to see how the things develop.
You are not proving any of the two points. You are simply arguing that my theory “must” be wrong just because you do not understand the physical mechanism: so you are talking about your own scientific limitations only. This is not a valid scientific argument against my theory.
What is certain up to now is that climate presents a set of cycles that apparently well correlate to some astronomical cycles and that the climate models used by the IPCC are not able to produce these cycles.
Nicola Scafetta – WRT longer time frames than Foster and Rahmstorf analyze, I would recommend the attribution analysis done in Lean and Rind 2008 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf) using the records of aerosols, solar level, ENSO, and greenhouse gases. F&R 2011 discuss the last 30 years, quite relevant to the 10-30 year predictions you asked about.
In the L&R analysis there appear no significant ’60-year’ or ’20-year’ cycles remaining in the regression residuals. Nor such cycles in the forcing records – based upon the physics of these forcings, established and testable cause-effect relationships, etc. The PDO (http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/aboutpdo.shtml) and AMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg), to mention two major long term variations you discuss in your work, do not show consistent cycles either.
In terms of predictions from the physics (as opposed to frequency decomposition of the past), Lean and Rind 2009 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Lean_Rind.pdf) extend their work to 2030, based upon reasonable assumptions of the evolution of forcings, including regional predictions that stand apart in predictive detail from your global cycles.
I feel that Tamino has more then answered Tisdale in support of his work, and I will leave that to him.
—
I’ll summarize my objections, which have not been addressed.
You have (IMO) misrepresented the IPCC projections with baseline offsets (as noted above), monthly data plotted against yearly projection ranges, and a rather limited (1-sigma) range overall. You’ve repeatedly argued the strawman of decadal variations against multiple-run model averages that make 30-year predictions.
And while your frequency decomposition of past global temperatures can certainly fit past temperatures (given enough different frequencies any signal can be provably fit to arbitrary tolerances), they lack any physical/causal connection – and hence there is no support for predictions outside that range of training. The only way to extend outside that range is to introduce more and more longer frequencies (as you note, “millenarian cycles”), more curve-fitting, which I would consider the equivalent of Ptolemaic epicycles. Descriptive, yes. Predictive, no.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Leif, also my correlations are very good! Look better at my figures.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/scafetta_60-20.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/scafetta_2011_fig11.png
Moreover, my correlations are at least better than the IPCC models!
And they are for far longer periods than the correlations that Wolf had. Thus, you would have been in the group of people who were opposing Wolf, not supporting him. Do not tell lies.
Wolf, for example, supported Schwabe about the 11-year solar cycle: Schawabe had only 17 years of data. Don’t tell me that you would have sided with Wolf!
Wolf was not tinking like you, sorry Leif!
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 6:12 pm
“Nicola Scafetta – WRT longer time frames than Foster and Rahmstorf analyze, I would recommend the attribution analysis done in Lean and Rind 2008 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf) using the records ”
and I recommend you to read my paper”
N. Scafetta, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 1916–1923 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/ATP2998.pdf
where I rebut among other things Lean and Rind 2008 who made incredible mistakes.
They claim that the climate responds “linearly” with the forcing which is crazy.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Leif, also my correlations are very good! Look better at my figures.
We are talking about correlations with the planets… Not about simple curve fitting.
Wolf, for example, supported Schwabe about the 11-year solar cycle: Schawabe had only 17 years of data. Don’t tell me that you would have sided with Wolf!
Wolf went through hundreds of volumes at the library of Berne to collect 240 years of data in order to fix the sunspot cycle. And he did not ‘support’ Schwabe, as you do not support observations. Wolf simply used Schwabe’s observations. As I said, the validation of Wolf’s discovery of the sunspot connection with geomagnetic variation comes from it generally being a prediction, year after year, of what the observatories should find [which they subsequently did].
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Leif, what kind of reasoning is this? Is Monckton of Brenchley the person who is doing this research? What he believes or does not believe is irrelevant to my results.
But very much to his reputation.
You are simply arguing that my theory “must” be wrong just because you do not understand the physical mechanism: so you are talking about your own scientific limitations only.
Well, then what is the physical mechanism? just saying that the ‘planets are doing it’ is not physics.
A linear multiple regression is quite justifiable – if (for example) the climate response to a forcing change is a ramp-up/ramp-down, or exponential decay to a new value, a linear regression for a +/- forcing change will converge on a lag centered in the response, with balanced +/- residuals at the turning points.
For larger scale non-linearities you would need some physical justification – within the observed climate range, with the notable exception of the T^4 Stephan-Boltzmann response, there is little support for significant forcing non-linear effects. Yes, “…climate science predicts that time-lag
and the climate sensitivity to a forcing is frequency dependent.”, which is why there is significant literature on the transient versus equilibrium climate response. And quite frankly given the ups and downs of global temperature over the last few centuries there have been primarily transient responses.
You, on the other hand, attribute the vast majority of climate change (up to 65%) to solar irradiance, despite a general decrease in irradiance over the last half century. I believe Lockwood 2010, Domingo et al 2009, and Benestad et al 2009 (and others) appropriate responses to your paper.
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 6:50 pm
“You, on the other hand, attribute the vast majority of climate change (up to 65%) to solar irradiance, despite a general decrease in irradiance over the last half century.”
You are too sure of yourself, don’t you? There exists a controversy about what he sun did in which world do yo live?
Read my papers, for example
N. Scafetta, “Total Solar Irradiance Satellite Composites and their Phenomenological Effect on Climate,” chapter 12, pag 289-316.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-easterbrook.pdf
and my paper with willson
and see here
http://acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 6:50 pm
“A linear multiple regression is quite justifiable – if (for example) the climate response to a forcing change is a ramp-up/ramp-down, or exponential decay to a new value, a linear regression for a +/- forcing change will converge on a lag centered in the response, with balanced +/- residuals at the turning points.”
Really? so why do people use climate models (EBM and GCM) if a simple linear regression of the forcings sufficies to reconstructs the climate. Read well my papers, everything is explained there.
“I believe Lockwood 2010, Domingo et al 2009, and Benestad et al 2009 (and others) appropriate responses to your paper.”
All those papers are wrong and ridiculous, in particular Benestad et al 2009 which is pure trash. See here
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/nicola-scafetta-comments-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming-by-benestad-and-schmidt/
As also Lord Monckton has noted, you are not familiar with my papers. So study them first, and then come back.
On the contrary, the temperature trending since 2000 has been almost steady as the figure in the widget clearly shows.
HadCRUT3 is actually steady for 15 years, since March, 1997. (I know the February number is not out yet, but with RSS and UAH going down slightly in February, but GISS going up slightly, it is obvious that HadCRUT3 will not show much change in February.)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.16/trend
Nicola Scafetta
“You are too sure of yourself, don’t you? There exists a controversy about what (t)he sun did in which world do yo(u)l live?”
I would suggest looking at Usoskin et al 2004 (http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf), summarized in a graph here: (http://tinyurl.com/y95km4p). Recent warming simply does not track TSI changes.
“Really? so why do people use climate models (EBM and GCM) if a simple linear regression of the forcings sufficies to reconstructs the climate.”
Because backward attribution studies such as L&R 2008 and F&R 2011 can be done with regression of cause-effect temporal relationships without explicit detail, while forward projection of climate evolution needs to be done with detailed physics. I would think that quite obvious.
“All those papers are wrong and ridiculous, in particular Benestad et al 2009 which is pure trash.”
Then I look forward to your peer-reviewed response to these peer-reviewed papers.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 6:48 pm
why don’t you want to wait, are you in hurry? are you dying?
Why should I discuss with you my ideas on a blog? You know well that you cannot be trusted, and it is inappropriate to discuss research in progress publicly in a blog, in any case.
We are discussing only published literature, so do not go beyond it. Your arguments are based only on your ignorance, which is not a strong scientific argument.
The astronomical cycles are there and they are very clear and are correlated with the temperature data. Look at my figures in the papers, for example,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/scafetta_60-20.png
the black is the temperature and the red is astronomical cycles. It is not a curve fitting, Leif. It is a superposition. Do you deny that the correlations are very good? On which argument?
Moreover, my model is not based on just curve fitting, as you say. It is much more complex that it. It is based on harmonic hindcast tests, as currently done with the ocean tides (you have never understood it, don’t you): I use astronomical frequencies and I see whether a model based on those frequencies calibrated on the period 1850-1950 is able to reproduce climate variability from 1950 to 2010, and vice versa. This is not curve fitting, it is hindcast testing, that you do not understand at all.
Of course you are not stupid, so you are simply try to twist the reality as usual, and more and more readers of this blog are realizing day after day that you are not a honest person nor in your comments nor in your criticisms. What do you think to accomplish with your methods, Leif? Do you believe to change reality?
If you think that my analyses are wrong, prove it.
If you think the theory that I propose is wrong, prove it.
Here we are discussing the model I have proposed above. Do you agree or not that such a model agrees with the data much better than the IPCC models up to now? This is the issue here. So, keep focus on the issue.
You are very different from people like Wolf.
MAVukcevic says:
March 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm
I should be flattered to belong to same grouping as Karl Marx, whose works I have ( had to ) study for about 3 years. I wonder have you read any of Das Kapital
I actually have (as well as ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’).
Recall the definition of pseudoscience as “fields that poach on the imprimatur of science yet shuns the rigors of the scientific method”
Your dabbling certainly qualifies under that definition, whether or not you believe in it. Scafetta’s writings are not pseudoscience, but pathological science (as is that of IPCC, Mann, etc).
Scafetta in a nutshell: ‘anyone who points out my errors either hasn’t read my papers or their own research is garbage.’
Not a very scientific attitude.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Do you agree or not that such a model agrees with the data much better than the IPCC models up to now? This is the issue here.
So does my old shoe model. That IPCC is wrong does not prove me nor you correct. Remember the False Dilemma Fallacy:
Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim X is false.
Therefore claim Y is true.
If you think the theory that I propose is wrong, prove it.
You do not provide a theory at all, just curve fitting, speculation, and hand waving.
Study Kean’s definition of pathological science and recognize how it fits your work.
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 7:44 pm
“Then I look forward to your peer-reviewed response to these peer-reviewed papers.”
The peer-review papers disproving those papers are already published, read my papers and try to understand them, all of them are are peer reviewed. Do not be so foolish in your arguments, that prove only that you do not reason and that you are only a cult-believer.
The issue is very simple. There are large natural cycles such as the 60-year cycle, plus many other cycles, that the models of the IPCC, including the model used in your three papers, do not reproduce, as proven in my papers.
By not reproducing these natural cycles, those models have greatly overestimated the anthropogenic GHG by mistaking the warming since 1970 as due to GHG alone, while at least 2/3 of it was due to the positive phase of this 60-year cycle.
Once that the appropriate corrections are done, the projections for the 21st century are much less allarmistic that what the AGW advocates and the IPCC have proposed. And my forecast model since 2000 based on such assumptions agrees well with the data , while the IPCC model have failed, as the above figure shows very well up to now.
Do you believe that the (apparent up to now) truth is otherwise?
What is your contrarian argument?
That I have to prove it in a peer reviewed paper? I did it, many times. For example in
[1] Nicola Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005
[2] Adriano Mazzarella and Nicola Scafetta, “Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change.” Theor. Appl. Climatol. (2011). DOI: 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4
[3] Craig Loehle and Nicola Scafetta, “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data.” The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5, 74-86 (2011). DOI: 10.2174/1874282301105010074
[4] Nicola Scafetta, “A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 74, 145-163 (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013
[5] Nicola 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
and in many other papers.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 8:11 pm
“Scafetta’s writings are not pseudoscience, but pathological science (as is that of IPCC, Mann, etc).”
It that your scientific argument?
Only you are excluded from such a pathological science list, isn’t it? Are you sure that it is not you who have some pathological problem?
Tell me, Leif. In three words, how would you describe yourself and your behavior, which many people here have found to be dishonest and based on a long series of logical fallacies .
The list here here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
choose three fallacies that you wish, and I will prove that you have committed them in a way or in another.
You are not trying to look for the truth, Leif. And I am sorry for that.
Dr. Scafetta, I fear I greatly mistrust any time series that starts in 2000. What does your method look like for the period say 1850-2012, compared to the historical record?
Because a fit from 2000 to 2010? Sorry, meaningless to me. Please show the full record so we can have something to discuss.
Finally, you say that you are using a series of cycles of 9.1, 10-11, 20 and 60 years. You also say these were “based on astronomical cycles”.
My question is, do these cycles have the exact same cycle length, phase and relative amplitude as the corresponding astronomical cycles? Or are they “based on astronomical cycles” in the same way that Hollywood movies are “based on a true story”, meaning that you have adjusted (fit) their cycle lengths and relative phase and amplitude to match the temperature record?
I understand that you are free to ignore my question about the origin and fit of the cycles. I’d suggest for your continued credibility that you answer them and show the full 150 year comparison, but it’s up to you.
w.
PS—Bonus question. Why is one cycle 9.1 years while another cycle is “10-11 years”? Does the period of the second one vary from ten to eleven years?
Willis…..please read a bit WUWT for a change, for example, the post “Why William D.
Nordhaus is wrong about global warming skeptics”‘……..
and halfway through the text the graph of Davis, J.C. and Bohling, G.C
Graphic: “GISP2 Holocene Power Spectrum (Fixed Time Intervals) and
you can see the 61(60) year cycle, occurring 16 times EACH millenium
for the past 10,000 years, thus 160 time already in the Holocene….. this
includes the PRESENTLY occurring 60/61 year cycle…….
This 60/61 year cycle produces a staircase STEPWISE temp. change CURVE
SHAPE: i.e: 40 years of PLATEAU followed by 20 year Step INCREASE.of 0,4’C…..
and this HARMONIC (i.e astronomic) cycle of 60 /61 years has nothing to do with
CO2, because CO2 does not produce ANY cycles (so far as I know, unless a
Warmist will think one up?)
Cheers
JS
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 8:36 pm
You are not trying to look for the truth, Leif. And I am sorry for that.
Truth? Only a cult or religion has the Truth.
dishonest and based on a long series of logical fallacies
Time to wash your mouth out with soap.
Leif Svalgaard is neither a Lysenko nor a Stalin who used draconian powers to defend Lysenko’s flawed science.
Leif is a free man who chooses to engage here on WUWT? with opinion and debate, thus meeting Anthony’s criteria of commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science… etc..
Lief does not imprison, even execute, as Stalin did; nor call for protection from any present day Stalin. He simply gives an opinion. Presents facts as he has studied them. Become exasperated at times as most of us do.
Why, in exchange for his time, do some here (effectively) curse him?
This is not science and reason. We have the keyboard options to ignore him if we choose; or to debate him if we choose ─ both civil options; but when we stoop to name-calling we demean both ourselves and the full purpose of science: to think, discover and learn.
If Leif can learn from content here I believe he will grasp the opportunity, even as he takes the opportunity to teach when that opportunity presents.
Don’t miss the wood for the trees, kids…
Willis, it’s really very simple, maybe you should take the time to actually read before commenting. The data shown from 2000+ is showing reality versus Scafetta’s prediction for what happens post 2000. There is not ‘fit’ from 2000-2012.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2012 at 5:54 pm
On the other hand, Wolf is also the originator of the planetary theory for sunspots and eventually abandoned that because it didn’t hold up: “this research (by myself and others) never produced any really satisfactory results”, and it still doesn’t.
And yet you have still not been able to debunk my research after several years that is now backed up by Wollf and Patrone which shows a a planetary link to solar grand minima and solar cycle modulation. The method predicts SC24/25 will be a solar grand minimum, along with all other grand minima through the Holocene. Nicola’s theory dovetails into my research which uses similar components.
It wouldnt matter what evidence was presented to you, as your AGW agenda and sophist strategies would be brought out to put out the fires .
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236
KR says:
March 12, 2012 at 6:12 pm
“In the L&R analysis there appear no significant ’60-year’ or ’20-year’ cycles remaining in the regression residuals.”
This analysis is very poor. They just did a fit, and ignored the trough at ~1910 and the peak at ~1940 where the fit is lousy due to the ~60 year cycle. This really is pathological science.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2012 at 6:48 pm
“Well, then what is the physical mechanism? just saying that the ‘planets are doing it’ is not physics.”
Identifying cyclical behavior in a natural system is physics. Because of the ubiquity of quasi-cyclical responses, is the first logical step in determining which leads to pursue. A well detailed physical mechanism is not necessary to prove the existence of something which is so trivially evident.
On the other hand, taking a jumble of back-of-the-envelope physical relationships and forcing a least squares fit to them and declaring that to be a physically justified and empirically confirmed theory (see KR above) IS NOT physics. It is simply an exercise in reconfirming the robustness of least squares fitting, which has already been more than adequately demonstrated since at least the time of Gauss.
KR says:
March 12, 2012 at 7:44 pm
“Then I look forward to your peer-reviewed response to these peer-reviewed papers.”
That boat sailed long ago. Nobody who can think for themselves believes any longer in an uncorrupted peer review process. The magic words have lost their power. Try another tack.
andyd says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:33 am
Thanks, andyd. You have not answered, and likely cannot answer, my question.
So I believe I’ll wait to hear from Dr. Scafetta …
w.
Dr. Scafetta,
I would be extremely pleased if you could take a moment to look at, and comment briefly the , comprehensive comments I posted on your work, earlier in this discussion.
I sincerly think I brought the discussion to another level than arguing continuously about basic statisitcs as you are obliged to do all along this (however) still very interesting discussion
Roger Carr says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:31 pm
…….
Dr. Svalgaard’s comments are like a blast of cold blizzard, time to run for cover if you are not suitably equipped. If it wasn’t for his fierce rejection, I would be more often down the pub.
Bart says:
Willis Eschenbach says:
………….
The hypothesis needs clearly to specify physical process:
– external modulation
– externally forced oscillation
– externally induced resonance
– none of the above.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 5:54 pm
A physical theory is not needed if the correlation is REALLY good [works every time without fail] and is not based on faulty and fabricated data ..
.. a physical mechanism WAS ‘known’ [it was wrong though], as he said: “If the earth ceased to attract the waters of the sea, the seas would rise and flow into the moon…” which does not explain why there is a tidal bulge on the side of the Earth away from the Moon.
.. Wolf is also the originator of the planetary theory for sunspots and eventually abandoned that because it didn’t hold up: “this research (by myself and others) never produced any really satisfactory results”, and it still doesn’t.
There is a difference between research and researcher.
A result of the analysis of the frequency shift oft the sunspot frequency is that the shift has a relation to the global temperature reconstructions:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sp_shift_vs_proxies.gif
There is a REALLY good correlation between the main frequency of the global sea level oscillation ( 1/6.3 year^-1) and the (heliocentric) synodic tide frequency of Mercury and Earth.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_rst.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/Sea_level_vs_solar_tides1.htm
Whatever the mechanism is, that echoes solar tide functions on the global sea level and/or on the global temperature (UAH, incl. land), that there is evidence for a relation between solar tide functions and the terrestrial climate, is a fact.
Paul Weiss says: “It’s one thing not to see the forest for the trees, but then to go on
to deny the reality of the forest is a more serious matter.”
If the argumentation here is shifted to fallacies because of claiming authority in general to knock down the position of the other, I think there is something wrong.
V.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 1:23 am
“Dr. Scafetta, I fear I greatly mistrust any time series that starts in 2000. What does your method look like for the period say 1850-2012, compared to the historical record?”
Willis, first of all, you need to read my papers first. It is evident from all my papers that I am using the 1850-2010 period, not just the post 2000 period. Look here, for example,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_figure-original1.png
The hindcast test has been done by separating the 1850-1950 and 1950-2010 period, independently. Of course, if you do not read my papers you will never understand them.
“My question is, do these cycles have the exact same cycle length, phase and relative amplitude as the corresponding astronomical cycles? ”
Again, you need to read my papers, first. As I clearly state in the paper:
1) the cycles are in very good phase with the astronomical cycles and I prove it in many ways;
2) the amplitude of the temperature cycles depends on the response of the climate system to them, in fact, the astronomical cycles are limit dynamical attractors around which the climate oscillates, so there are fluctuations in the observed cycles;
3) there might be other cycles not taken into account inthe model that modulate the observed cycles.
So, the temperature cycles are not rigorously “constant”, but in the paper what is proposed is a first harmonic approximation, which is sufficiently fine for a first order approach.
All these things are clearly addressed and explained in my papers, read them and come back.
@ Roger Carr says: March 12, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Leif’s way of reasoning is not finalized to a constructive and fair debate. It is propaganda based continuous slandering and on numerous red herring fallacies such as “ad Hominem” etc. where he never acknowledges the merits of the people whom he dislikes and continuously twists the facts.
Look at his contorted reasoning:
“Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 8:11 pm
“Scafetta’s writings are not pseudoscience, but pathological science (as is that of IPCC, Mann, etc).””
on one side Leif realizes that, in particular after my paper discussed here, the models of the IPCC do not hold the scientific scrutiny (they are proven by me to strongly disagree with the data and not be able to reconstruct known climatic cycles), so he correctly conclude that the IPCC science has severe problems. But at the same time he does not acknowledge any merit to my work that he has implicitly used to form his opinion on the IPCC by proving the inconsistency of the IPCC models with the data.
So, Leif implicitly acknowledges at least some merits of my work by using its results to form his expressed opinion, but explicitly at the same time he does not acknowledge not even one merit to my research that has been important for him because he has used it to form his opinion. This is a slandering and a subtle form of plagiarism.
Essentially, Leif’s way of reasoning is the following:
If John proves Tom’s position wrong, but Leif dislikes John, Leif says: Tom is wrong, that is evident, but John does not have proven anything and everything he did is clearly wrong. But Leif refuses to prove that what John did was wrong and implicitly uses John’s findings to express his opinion on Tom’s position.
Question for Leif: how can Tom’s position be wrong (after John’s proof) if everything John did was wrong by definition?
Geoff Sharp says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:36 am
backed up by Wollf and Patrone
About the ‘mechanism’ proposed by Wolff and Patrone: The obvious way to approach the matter is to work in the accelerating frame of reference about the center of the star and go through the usual analysis but with the Euler force included. It then becomes immediately obvious that the influence on the standard results of the Euler force, which modifies the effective gravity, is utterly negligible.
Of course one can choose the alternative route attempted by Wolff and Patrone of remaining in an inertial frame, which simplifies the governing equations, but complicates the boundary conditions substantially because they are now moving (with the star) relative to the static interchange, a point which has passed unnoticed by Wolff and Patrone because, unlike their forerunners, they appear not even to have considered boundary conditions, neither explicitly nor implicitly. One should also keep in mind that instability can never be proved by interchange arguments, unless one can demonstrate that the interchanges considered can be realized by the fluid; one can, in principle, demonstrate stability, however, by showing that no displacement, realizable or not, can liberate energy to drive the instability. However, when the interchange is carried out in a plausible manner which avoids this complication, as did Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar (whom W&P refer to), the outcome can be usefully suggestive. Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar usually used such arguments simply to shed light on their earlier ‘rigorous’ analyses of the differential systems describing the physical situations under consideration, although once they had gained the experience from doing that, they appear to have used interchange arguments to guide subsequent analysis of new systems that are ‘close’ to those that they had analysed previously and understood. The interchange considered by Wolff and Patrone leaves the fluid elements, apparently filling the spaces into which they have been displaced, yet moving with respect to them; therefore it is valid dynamically, for the purposes of energy computation, only for an interval of time of measure zero, which is insufficient to take the temporal derivative(s) required to determine subsequent evolution, essential, of course, for assessing stability. Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar considered certain classes of fluid interchange under restricted circumstances under which the issue of moving boundary conditions does not arise. Therefore their analyses are meaningful. Wolff and Patrone consider more general situations. What they failed to point out, however, is that in consequence application of the perfectly valid arguments of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar, inadequately modified by the modified situation, is not correct. They have fallen into the trap of many a naive modern physics student of misapplying an initially valid formula to a situation in which it is not valid.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 7:47 am
how can Tom’s position be wrong if everything John did was wrong?
That John is wrong does not mean that Tom is right.
The False Dilemma Fallacy:
Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim X is false.
Therefore claim Y is true.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 8:02 am
Why don’t you write a comment to Wollf and Patrone areticle and see what they respond?
For comparison, this is a prediction for year 2011 by the Australian cartoonist John Cook of Sceptical Science. “the world will experience record high temperatures in 2011”
http://wiki.sev.com.au/Global-Warming-Prediction
Willis Eschenbach says: March 12, 2012 at 8:57 pm
My question is, do these cycles have the exact same cycle length, phase and relative amplitude as the corresponding astronomical cycles? Or are they “based on astronomical cycles” in the same way that Hollywood movies are “based on a true story”, meaning that you have adjusted (fit) their cycle lengths and relative phase and amplitude to match the temperature record?
PS—Bonus question. Why is one cycle 9.1 years while another cycle is “10-11 years”? Does the period of the second one vary from ten to eleven years?
I think the Scafetta prediction story is leaded by the old reason of fame, which results in talking with two tongues; the basis is a confuse dark picture of discussing science that avoids clear speech on the facts. I’ll try to bring some light in this darkness.
First it is necessary not to argue on (time) cycles, but on frequencies, because astronomical frequencies never have a sinuous function and only in the dimension frequency it is possible to operate with other frequencies or harmonics or something else.
If you run a FFT of the hadcrut3 data, you will get the ‘Scafetta cycles’. But that what you get are frequency elements of strong sinusoid profile character, despite the natural possible astronomic profile character. That means that such FFT analysed frequency must not have a corresponding real astronomical frequency, and because all planetary movement is of elliptic nature, there is never a stable single frequency over the time. Moreover, if synodic functions of two objects of elliptic movement would be discussed ( I do), each ‘astronomical cycle’ in years makes no scientific sense; it’s nonsense.
If then the fame is the leader to win the prediction award, it becomes scientific terrible to reconstruct the sinusoid elements again from the FFT in a synthetic math function, because there is no knowledge about all the possible astronomical frequencies, with lower and higher frequencies, it gets worse.
There are indeed astronomical frequencies which are corresponding to terrestrial functions like the sea level oscillation with exact the same (main) frequency and a good phase stability, but these frequencies are different from the ‘Scafetta cycles’ and are always solar tide frequencies of two celestial objects. The logic for the amplitudes is unknown, and may a job for astrophysicans, but it does follow not the law of Sir Newton.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_rst.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/Sea_level_vs_solar_tides1.htm
Because of the given arguments, the claim of Scafatta’s cycles are of astronomic base is to rejected. If harmonics of fundamental frequencies play a role in his math, the term ‘harmonic’ may OK.
BTW. You can make a FFT of the sea level data from Colorado (seasonal data retained) and you get a double peak at ~6.3 years^-1 because of the nonsinusoid character of the sea level oscillation function. This shows that blind (and hidden) use of FFT leads astray; him and his consumers.
V.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:36 am
Nicola’s theory dovetails into my research which uses similar components.
It might be of interest to hear Nicola’s opinion about your proposition that the main drivers of solar activity (and hence climate) are Uranus and Neptune.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 8:09 am
Leif, you are not proving anything. You are just stating that I must be wrong without proving it.
“That John is wrong does not mean that Tom is right.”
However you conclude that John is wrong because of something that Tom has said.
Your argument is that my opinion is “necessarily wrong” simply because not everything is accurately proven yet. Your logical fallacy is called “Nirvana fallacy”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
“a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect”
In the same way you would oppose any frontier research and trust only textbook established science.
Be patient, Leif.
Science is not something that is already written in the textbooks.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:25 am
Science is not something that is already written in the textbooks.
[snip] science doesn’t make it into the textbooks.
REPLY: Leif, just a bit over the top there, Anthony
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 8:34 am
“Pathological science doesn’t make it into the textbooks.”
Ok Leif,
also Galileo’s, Kepler’s, Newton’s, Einstein’s etc science was at the beginning considered to be “pathological science”.
Do you remember the famous 100 german scientists who claimed that Einstein was wrong?
Time will tell about the merits of my ideas.
@dana1981
Scafetta in a nutshell: ‘anyone who points out my errors either hasn’t read my papers or their own research is garbage.’
Not a very scientific attitude.
?!
Well what kind of attitude do you call NOT reading his papers but pointing out “errors” imagined.
If you want a nutshell the attitude expressed here is what the poor Dr Scafetta is valiantly struggling against on this thread.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:48 am
also Galileo’s, Kepler’s, Newton’s, Einstein’s etc science was at the beginning considered to be “pathological science”.
Apart from the dubious comparison of yourself to those gentlemen, let me recall the definition of pathological science:
“Pathological Science is not fraud, since the adherents believe they’re right – if only everybody else could see it. It is not pseudoscience, like Freudianism and Marxism, fields that poach on the imprimatur of science yet shuns the rigors of the scientific method. It is not politicized science, like Lysenkoism, where people swear allegiance to a false science because of threats or a skewed ideology. Finally, it’s not general clinical madness or merely deranged belief. It’s a particular madness, a meticulous and scientific informed delusion. Pathological scientists pick out a marginal and unlikely phenomenon that appeals to them for whatever reason and bring all their scientific acumen to proving its existence.”
Fits you, but does not fit them.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:25 am
Science is not something that is already written in the textbooks.
Pathological science doesn’t make it into the textbooks.
REPLY: Leif, just a bit over the top there, Anthony
I fail to see that that general and true statement is ‘over the top’. God forbid that it be false.
@Nicola Scafetta: Do you remember the famous 100 german scientists who claimed that Einstein was wrong?
And he was!…what about his SQUARING the velocity of light, was it not that “C” was the maximum velocity?
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:09 am
Why don’t you write a comment to Wollf and Patrone areticle and see what they respond?
I have considered that, but I have more important things to do than embarrass W&P.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:09 am
Why don’t you write a comment to Wollf and Patrone areticle and see what they respond?
Why don’t you here comment on whether you also consider Uranus and Neptune to be the primary drivers of solar activity and climate?
@AdolfoGiurfa:
C squared is not a velocity, is a velocity-squared (check the units). In relativity the maximum velocity-squared is… C^2.
I hope you were joking with such “Einstein refutation”.
Leif, I leave you to your Nirvana-fallacy pathological state.
“Uranus and Neptune primary drivers of solar activity and climate?”
If Wolf would be here, as he did with Schwabe’s findings, he would respond you: “The issue needs to be carefully studied, Geoff found some interesting correlations and we need to see whether the correlation indicate a primary or secondary related cause, etc.”
I agree with Wolf’s way to approach scientific research.
And I do not agree with your approach which is based only on slandering and Nirvana-fallacy logic.
Dr. Scafetta
Spectral output (using Fourier transform based analyser) of HadCRUT3 temperature data you linked to within your article is:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HadCRUT3.htm
Dominant frequencies with periods in years are:
44, 57,72 and 89 all stronger than 62.5 which you chosen as the most important one.
Why is your choice 62.5 years and not one of the stronger components with periods of 44, 57, 72 or 89 years?
Which planet/s generate/s cycle at or near 62.5 years?
I hope the answer (if forthcoming) is clear and concise.
Thank you.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 9:58 am
“Uranus and Neptune primary drivers of solar activity and climate?”
“The issue needs to be carefully studied, Geoff found some interesting correlations and we need to see whether the correlation indicate a primary or secondary related cause, etc.”
And when one studies it carefully, one finds it wanting. But my question was how that fits into your scheme. Real science progresses by building on other’s work, so, again, do you agree with Geoff’s assessment or are you just paying lip-service? Perhaps you could hold off the ad-homs [“slandering”, etc] and try your scientific acumen on the influence of Uranus and Neptune. Or of Pluto and Quaoar: http://www.volker-doormann.org/ghi_solar_s.pdf [yet another piece frontier science – as you call it – that has not made it into the textbooks either]. Come on, have an open mind.
If I may recap, are we agreed upon anything? This is how I see things:
1) There are two whole cycles of an apparent ~60 year cyclic or quasi-cyclic process evident in the climate data.
2) It is highly likely that we will see this pattern repeat in the future, based on the very close correlation between the periods 1880-1940* and 1940 to 2000* – in particular, the run up in the global average temperature metric (GATM) between the years 1910-1940* is closely replicated in the interval 1970-2000*, with the same magnitude of the excursion over the same timeline.
3) Cyclical processes are ubiquitous in nature. It is not at all surprising to see them in climate related variables. Indeed, it would be quite exceptional if there were none.
4) Nicola and others point to apparently coincident harmonics in planetary phenomena as being a likely driver. Leif and I are both skeptical that there is any physical linkage strong enough to drive climate cycles on Earth. I do not entirely discount the possibility. It could be, for example, that there is a correlation between the solar system barycenter motion and the interception of cosmic particles from the jet of a rotating black hole or some such exotic happenstance. But, without evidence of such a phenomenon, it makes little sense to dwell on such possibilities. So, I do not entirely discount the possibility of a correlation. However, I think it is almost certain that planetary motion is not a driver of Earth’s climate.
5) I (and others? Anyone?) point to lightly damped quasi-cyclical processes which naturally arise from the solution of partial differential equations over a bounded domain, as in the widely employed Finite Element Method in structural mechanics. A lightly damped modal response will exhibit quasi-cyclical characteristics when driven by random inputs with excitation energy within the bandwidth of the modal response. The oceans and atmosphere of the Earth are bounded, and have boundary conditions at their interface with one another as well. There will be natural modal responses. The only questions which remain are, what are the frequencies, and what is their rate of damping (energy dissipation)
6) At the very least, expansion in frequency harmonics (which are typical eigenfunctions of the time dependent part of separable PDEs) form a complete functional basis to fit an arbitrary function over a finite interval and, for a smooth PDE, such a fit has predictive power to at least some degree beyond the boundaries of the fit interval. Contrast this to fitting an arbitrary hodgepodge of functions as in the awful Lean and Rind paper provided by KR, which does a poor job of fitting the data within the interval, and has NO consistent predictive power whatsoever.
7) We are very likely going to see the GATM continue to fall in the years ahead, which should serve to falsify the Lean and Rind prediction above, and any others which project an overwhelming influence of GHGs. Aside from short term ENSO events, it will very likely effectively replicate the interval 1940 to 1970*, just as the interval 1910-1940* is replicated in the 1970-2000* interval. IF there is a significant systematic deviation, that MAY be a manifestation of an anthropogenic influence, but it will assuredly be far less impactful than what the IPCC has estimated.
*Please note that I am using round numbers. In fact, the peak of the current ~60 year cycle appears to be about midway between 2000 and 2010.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 10:16 am
Leif, I am sorry to make you so nervous and impatient. You will see my meditated opinion on those issues when I will publish a research paper directly addressing them. That is not the topic of the present discussion.
The topic of the present discussion is my widget above and the failure of the IPCC model in reconstructiing climatic cycles, which can be modelled independly of their physical cause.
Because in my model above I am not using Uranus and Neptune, Pluto or Quaoar, your issue is off-topic. I am only using cycles related to the Sun, the Moon, Jupter and Saturn. There might be secondary effects from other planets, of course, but they are not addressed in the published papers. So, your question is off topic.
Bart says: March 13, 2012 at 10:50 am
4) Nicola and others point to apparently coincident harmonics in planetary phenomena as being a likely driver. Leif and I are both skeptical that there is any physical linkage strong enough to drive climate cycles on Earth. I do not entirely discount the possibility. It could be, for example, that there is a correlation between the solar system barycenter motion and the interception of cosmic particles from the jet of a rotating black hole or some such exotic happenstance. But, without evidence of such a phenomenon, it makes little sense to dwell on such possibilities. So, I do not entirely discount the possibility of a correlation. However, I think it is almost certain that planetary motion is not a driver of Earth’s climate.
Sceptic is not method in science.
Personal Sceptic is no science.
A personal Sceptic because of no classic physical mechanism visible makes evidence from correlations not untrue.
Evidence of such correlation phenomena is given in this thread more the one time.
Not what one is thinking what is not, is an argument; an argument that refutes the given correlation between Earth temperature/sea level and a solar tide function from planets is welcome.
Not what one is denying is relevant; relevant is what one can show.
Statements are luxury.
Authority is not science; it is the inverse of science.
V.
To Henri Masson
Sorry for the delay.
1. Henri Masson says: March 12, 2012 at 1:23 am
I mostly agree. My approach is not simply a curve fitting because I am explicitly using astronomical harmonics as Kelvin did with the tides. Mine is an “empirical approach” to the problem that points toward a macroscopic holistic modeling of the global surface temperature dynamics. This methodology is quite used in science in numerous fields and it is quite efficient and useful in general.
2. Henri Masson says: March 12, 2012 at 1:45 am
I agree about the importance of adding other cycles, in particular the long ones. They can explain most of the observed patterns at multiple time scales.
3. Henri Masson says: March 12, 2012 at 1:59 am
I agree with the synchronization conclusion. I talk about this synchronization in my papers. Everything collectively synchronize and the effect become macroscopic.
4. Henri Masson says: March 12, 2012 at 5:25 am
I agree on that point too. The IPCC modeling has mistaken a long cycle as a linear trend line and then extended this line beyond the limit of the cycle. This is the main error of Hansen’s modeling in the 80s, which has created all these problems.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 11:23 am
There might be secondary effects from other planets, of course, but they are not addressed in the published papers. So, your question is off topic.
So, you cop out and evade the issue. According to the Uranus/Neptune people those effects are not secondary effects, but are causing the grand solar minima and the little ice ages that they associate with them, thus you discount the LIAs which are not ‘secondary’ effects. But I can fully understand that you duck and run from this.
Nicola Scafetta says to Leif:
“I agree with Wolf’s way to approach scientific research.
And I do not agree with your approach which is based only on slandering and Nirvana-fallacy logic”
The ball game is over folks, and N. Scafetta has won 8 runs to zip against the slander team of Leif et al.
OK, this fight is getting out of hand. Everybody cool their jets or I’m closing comments on this thread.
Volker Doormann says:
March 13, 2012 at 11:34 am
Sceptic is not method in science.
To quote from your writings: “However, as the gap between most disciplines in science including philosophy and astrology, are still deep, new sights are always only valuable for them who have an open mind”. Closing that gap is perhaps what you have in mind. Just as Scafetta.
Volker Doormann says:
March 13, 2012 at 11:34 am
“Not what one is thinking what is not, is an argument; an argument that refutes the given correlation between Earth temperature/sea level and a solar tide function from planets is welcome.”
We’ve done that previously on another thread. There are two ways in which gravitational influences of the outer planets can affect the Earth: They slightly alter the orbit of the Earth about the Sun, and they induce tidal forces.
As tidal forces fall off with the inverse cube of distance, the influence of the outer planets on Earth tides is EXTREMELY small. And, the perturbation of the path of the Earth about the Sun from a Keplerian orbit due to the outer planets is also extremely small. It is just not reasonable to presume that such tiny effects could have a first order effect on the Earth’s climate.
I have left open the possibility of blocking or modulating influences, e.g., of the flux of cosmic particles which could perhaps affect cloud seeding or such. But, I honestly think it is a stretch.
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 11:51 am
Here is a notion that could tie it all together, though.
As I have been saying, I believe it is likely that there is a natural ~60 year resonance phenomenon which comes about due to the boundary conditions of the oceans and atmosphere. Left to its own devices, it would “ring” with a quasi-cyclic period of ~60 years due to random forcing alone.
Gradually, over eons of time, such a resonance response could become entrained such as to be more or less in phase synchronization with small but consistent forcings at that frequency.
It still appears on the surface to be a bit of a stretch, but it is possible to run numerical experiments to probe whether such an effect might be plausible. I will do so when I have a chance.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 11:41 am
Leif, do you want to stop to say nonsense? I am not responsible of what other says.
When and if I publish a paper addressing the LIA and the other grand solar minima, we will discus the issue then, if Anthony will be kind enough to post my paper in his blog.
Your comments now are simply off topic.
So, my questions for you related to this blog topic are
1) Do you agree or not that the global surface temperature since 1850 present large cycles (including a dominant 60-year cycle) which are not reproduced by any of the IPCC models, as I have shown in my papers?
2) Do you agree or not that my model based on those cycles since 2000 (the starting point of my forecast) agrees with the temperature record much better than the IPCC model projection?
3) Do you agree or not that by failing to properly reconstructing natural cycles the IPCC has very likely used computer climate models that have greatly overestimated the anthropogenic effect on climate because they have essentially mistaken the warming from 1970 to 2000 as due to hyman emission while at least 2/3 of it was caused by the warm phase of the 60-year cycle?
4) I understand that you are skeptical about a planetary influence on climate because for you that is “astrology”. It is fine for me. In my opinion that is an open physical issue that needs to be further investigated. Can you agree on this statement?
Are you able to give simple and fair answers to the above questions without using slandering and logical fallacies?
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 6:53 am
Thank you for your answers, Dr. Scafetta. First, it is apparent that the figure you linked to is different than your figure 1 above. You appear to have used different constants or something, and you have two lines instead of one. I asked about the earlier results from the particular method used in your Figure 1 above, not some other calculation.
Second, saying “read my papers” is meaningless. I asked specific questions, I expect specific answers. I will not root through every paper you ever wrote hoping to guess what you think might be an answer to a specific question.
So they do NOT have the same phase as the astronomical cycles, but merely some “good” approximation to that phase.
And you say “as I clearly state in the paper” … in what paper, and on what page, do you “clearly state” that.
But if one cycle is tiny in the data and the other one huge … why would the climate respond differently to them? That makes no sense. Presumably this is all mediated by the sun … but why should a small cycle in the sun have a big climate response, and a big cycle have a small climate response?
Yes, anything is possible, but I don’t understand what that has to do with my questions.
So if I can sum up your answers regarding the cycles:
1. You are NOT using the same phases as in the astronomical data.
2. You are NOT using the same amplitudes as in the astronomical data.
3. You are NOT using the same cycle lengths as in the astronomical data.
4. You have adjusted the phase, frequency, and amplitude of some carefully chosen cycles in order to FIT those specially-selected cycles to the temperature data.
No thanks. Two reasons. FIrst, those four facts above are enough to demonstrate that you are NOT using the astronomical cycles, you are just engaged in meaningless curve fitting.
Second, you are just waving your hands at your entire body of work in answer to specific questions, and I’m not willing to read hundreds of pages and then try to guess what you are referring to. I’ve done that before with people who made the same claim. When I came back to say that after much looking I’d finally located what I think they’re referring to, they told me no, that’s not it.
So I’ve given up playing that game. If you have something in your work that answers a specific question, then give me chapter and verse so I can find it.
Finally, you never did answer my question. Why is one cycle listed as 9.1 years, and another as 10-11 years? Bonus question—why are two cycles only given as being accurate to the nearest year, one given to the nearest a tenth of a year, and one given to a one-year interval?
Thanks,
w.
PS—Double bonus question—which “astronomical data” did each of those cycle lengths and phases and amplitudes come from, and what is their exact value to say the nearest tenth of a year? Please give a reference to a paper wherein you actually derive the values from the astronomical data, because like I said, nobody wants to try to guess what you mean.
One huge problem I have with your work is that in the solar barycentric data, the 60 year cycle is much, much smaller than the 20 year cycle. But in the climate it’s reversed, the 60 year cycle is much larger than the 20 year cycle. I see no reason that should be so, and no physical explanation of why that should be so.
As a result, if you are going to make the claim that these cycles have totally different amplitudes in the climate than in the sun, you need to propose some method or mechanism by which that might occur.
Because as it stands, you are NOT using the astronomical cycles at all. Instead, you are using similar cycles which have had their phase, amplitude, and frequency adjusted to fit the climate data … and sad to say, that’s just congenital curve fitting, and is meaningless.
Nicola Scafetta – Thank you for the paper references; when I have a chance I will look through them. However, I still feel you have not addressed the baseline, monthly vs. yearly variances, or 1-sigma range issues properly, and I’m disappointed that the discussion has long since digressed from your widget.
Bart – I strongly suggest you look into what multiple regression can (and cannot) do, as your comments simply do not match the tools.
Adieu
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
“But if one cycle is tiny in the data and the other one huge … why would the climate respond differently to them?”
One word: resonance. See above.
KR says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:12 pm
I strongly suggest you get a clue, and face reality.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
One huge problem I have with your work is that in the solar barycentric data, the 60 year cycle is much, much smaller than the 20 year cycle. But in the climate it’s reversed, the 60 year cycle is much larger than the 20 year cycle. I see no reason that should be so, and no physical explanation of why that should be so.
In fact, the solar data and auroral [geomagnetic] data do not have a 60-yr cycle, while the climate does [since the mid-19th century at least]: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-Temps.png
I guess that Nicola will counter that the planets influence the climate directly without working through the Sun, but as you said “that’s just congenital curve fitting, and is meaningless”
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:15 pm
One word. Handwaving. See above.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“One word. Handwaving.”
Right. Because resonance phenomena are so rare and unusual.
Not.
Look, I acknowledged it looked like a stretch at the present moment. But, it could explain what you asked to be explained.
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Right. Because resonance phenomena are so rare and unusual.
Not.
Except there is no 60-yr cycle in the solar, auroral, and geomagnetic data.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
I am sorry, but you need to be more humble and you need to read my papers first before criticizing my work.
It is evident that you are not caring to study the issues first. You are simply waving around. I do not have time to copy and past my entire papers on this blog. You need to read them first, including my past guest posts on this blog. There you find all answers to your questions.
I will respond just your first point that proves your arrogance and your not having done your homework first:
You say:
“First, it is apparent that the figure you linked to is different than your figure 1 above.”
As the title of the above post clearly states my first figure above is an “update” of my widget that was originally published in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafettas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperature/
Try to read the above original post (with its links) and you will easily realize that the figure that I linked in responding to you is the first figure in the original post and that is the figure in my published paper.
So, do your homework first, and then come back with interesting questions, and ask them with the proper respect if you want to receive an answer.
[SNIP: Dr. Scafetta, please, your respect for Dr. Svalgaard, in spite of your differences, shines through all your comments, but this is just pouring oil on troubled fires. Let’s not do this, Please. -REP]
To WILLIS:
Willis, don’t let you confuse by Leifs astronomical nonsense:
The HARMONIC cycle is NOT a pure solar cycle and Leifs solar data is just net
solar and aurora output…… solar and aurora output change is minuscule….
This Gleickish-Leif just remasticates his minuscule output data….. nobody,
talks about Leifs shining Aurora….
The 60 year HARMONIC CYCLE is due to a “3-body-gravitational problem”:
1. One body is SUN, the second the Jup/Sat/Asteroid belt and 3. Earth, which
interact all with gravitation and which is being taken into the JPL DE405
ephemerides …..
Willis, look at the description of JPL Horizons and you will see how JPL
did a composite job, taking VARIOUS GRAVITATIONS into account….
Forget Leif and his shining Aurora…. for me, all his shine is gone already……
2. The Interaction of the three bodies, more Lit on how the Earth orbital aspect
is taken into account by JPL: [ http://www.Chapter 8: Orbital Ephemerides of the
Sun, Moon, and Planets….pdf]
and those gravitational interactions PRODUCE the 60/61 year cycle,
Again, forget all Auroras and Leifs meagre solar data, which produce
nothing scientifically or only confusion to the uninformed reader….this is why
he stays on the blog instead of quitting…..plain to see….
JS
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm
“Except there is no 60-yr cycle in the solar, auroral, and geomagnetic data.”
Of course you are wrong. A 60-year cycle has been detected in all three records, just look at my papers and references. You simply do not know how to analyze the data, don’t you?
The things are just a little bit subtle Leif.
Please, respond the above question in
Nicola Scafetta says: March 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm
“Except there is no 60-yr cycle in the solar, auroral, and geomagnetic data.”
I have seen for myself there is none significant in the sunspot data. How long have the others been sampled? How reliable are proxies, and what precisely are they measuring?
Who determined there were no such cycles in the data, and what tools did they use?
I haven’t switched over to believing in a planetary-climate link, mind you. Just trying to leave no stone unturned.
And, any scientifically inclined person should understand that dynamical systems respond differently to different frequencies. This is the whole foundation of Control Theory.
To Bart:
The 60/61 year cycle is evident in the stepwise temp change, see HadCRUT3 or the
previous HadCRUT2: Alternating 40 year flat, followed by 20 years temp increase by
0.4 C….makes 60 years for 1 cycle……this easy system is continously repeated, since it
is astronomical and cannot switched on or off at will…… check my other replies today,
there is literature quoted for this : For 10,000 years studied, each 1,000 year section
contains 16 cycles of 61 years in length and this is due to planetary gravitation between
Sun and also the planets among each other…..maybe the magnetism of the Sun etc
also changes somewhat, well another cycle prove, be happy….
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Thanks, Joachim. I see that the GISP2 power spectrum has a cycle that is either 62 years (fixed time analysis) or 61 years (fixed depth analysis). There is NO evidence of any 60 year cycle used by Scafetta. I also see that it is a very weak cycle, much weaker than the longer cycles.
Finally, I see that the two methods give very different answers. One finds the largest cycle at 1,113 years, while the other one finds the largest cycle at 950 years … color me unimpressed. When two methods vary by that much, one or the other or both are wrong.
Finally, there is no 60 year, 20 year, “10-11 year”, or 9.1 year cycle in the data … so I haven’t a clue what this has to do with Scafetta’s cycles. In addition, the paper says:
Funny … Scafetta didn’t say anything about that.
Let me repeat it again, Joachim. It’s no good to root around trying to guess what Scafetta did. In this case, not one of the cycles you listed matches up with the 60, 20, 10-11, or 9.1 year cycles Scafetta is using. That’s why I called it “congenital curve fitting”. He has FIT the curve, Joachim, he has NOT used the astronomical cycles.
I know there are a host of cycles out there, Joachim, cycles in the sun, planetary cycles, cycles in the GISP2 ice core records. So what? I want to know exactly where Scafetta got his numbers, and for that, your guesses are obviously as useless as mine …
w.
To Willis:
The big problem is the explanation of the exact and detailed mechanism of this
60/61/62 cycle (it works with either number)….
Fact is that Warmists now embark on asking for presentation of the full cycle
background, for full mechanism calculations still fresh and steaming right on the
table and served down on the knees…..I wrote to him to be more arrogant and
less conciliatory and patient…..
Everyone who is ahead of his time should claim this right, whereas those, who
wasted billions over 30 years in AWG nonsense should be humble and remorse….
Scafetta’s Harmonic paper is out only 2 months….. meanwhile, the Warmists on the
other hand, as your very good “1979” paper showed, had 30 years and billions $ at
hand and still “assume” with “95% certainty.”..
….. Today, the cycle mechanism is clear in its smallest detail by now, I forewarded him
calculation results but his German knowledge is not so good…..
Willis, be pacient for a couple of month, I tackled the mechanism, since I am
into it for quite some time….No point that Nick looks into the harmonic mechanism,
why should the wheel be invented several times?
Some observations to your reply::
(1) Cycle weakness:
The strongest cycles are the long cycles, as the graphics show…..and the
62 year cycle is lesser in strength, but SUBSTANTIAL as we know its the 0.4’C
staircase/step increase per 62 years (40 flat/22 increasing) …….over the
complete HOLOZAEN (as in the graph) for
10,000 years and for all paleo-times before, since you cannot switch it on or
off….. A o.4′ C step increase is SUBSTANTIAL and is not weak….
(2) The long cycles (see Dansgaard-Oeschger events) ……the actual problem
with them is that nothing stays indefinite the same size ….. the calculation method
for the long cycles are meticulously presented in my booklet ..– I pointed this out
various times, if you remember…. they increase/decrease in periods and in amplitudes
by the value of 17,88 years compounded for one cycle length….
Therefore, the 1100/950/554 year values are blurred within all FIXED PERIOD
Davis/Bohling graphs,. …and could only made better if they could take
wave amplification/prolongation into the measuring process…..
Therefore, graphs are not bad but only need to be checked against the
amplification background, nothing stays fixed, I guess you know………
(3) As I wrote before, the present astronomical calculation mechanism MUST
be the same as the paleo-mechanism using the same parameters….
Just to add: The present cycle is 790 years long, with half the cycle as
recovery from the LIA and its peak after 395 years in 2043 and a short flat
top plateau on which we are on….before and after the peak……
(4) No worries…..mate…as they say…. we will finish all AGW-dinosaurs off
before 5 years time, their time has run out, just wait the astronomical comet
cometh………
Cheers
JS
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm
“I see that the GISP2 power spectrum has a cycle that is either 62 years (fixed time analysis) or 61 years (fixed depth analysis). There is NO evidence of any 60 year cycle used by Scafetta.”
I’m having a hard time understanding what such an apparently nonsensical statement means. Apparently, Willis, you want to force the model into a straightjacket of reproducing a precise number for an infinitely narrowband process. I don’t even want to say what I think of that.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm
How much do you know about time series analysis?
“I see that the GISP2 power spectrum has a cycle that is either 62 years (fixed time analysis) or 61 years (fixed depth analysis). There is NO evidence of any 60 year cycle used by Scafetta.
Finally, there is no 60 year, 20 year, “10-11 year”, or 9.1 year cycle in the (GISP2) data.”
Do you really think that a 60-year cycle is so different from a 61 year cycle? Have you tried to evaluate the error associated to the 61 year cycle in the GISP2 record?
Moreover, my best estimated cycles is a 59-63 year cycle. Not exactly 60-year. Read my papers!
Moreover, Do you know that the GISP2 record has a varing resolution from a decadal scale to a multidecadal scale during the Holocene which does not allow to detect any 20 year, “10-11 year”, or 9.1 year cycle in it?
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Again you need to read my papers where the proper references are given.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Not gonna happen, for the reasons cited above. You need to stop pointing at your whole body of work, and respond to individual questions with citations to a particular paper and page.
As for my lack of humility, I assume that this is not in comparison to you …
I never asked you to “copy and paste your entire papers on this blog”, that’s a straw man. I asked you to make specific reference to the paper and page that contains a specific answer to the question. Why are you doing everything you can to avoid doing that? It’s called “providing a citation”, and “read all my papers first” is not a citation.
You still have not responded to the question, Dr. Scafetta. I asked what your widget shows for the entire period. Your link doesn’t show that, it shows some other calculation with two different results. So where is what your widget shows for that time period? It’s not in the first figure in your post as you claim.
Dude, if you expect me to kiss your … ring and reform my attitude, forget it. That’s just your way to weasel out of answering my questions, because the questions are too tough for you, so you attack me instead.
Man up and answer the questions, Dr. Scafetta. That’s what scientists do. They don’t say things like oooh, I can’t answer your questions because you are not showing the proper respect for my eminence. They just answer the questions.
Truth be told, Dr. Scafetta, my respect for you has dropped greatly in this interchange. I’ll let your sycophants show you the “proper respect”. Me, I respect scientists who answer questions about their work instead of attacking the attitude of those asking the questions.
Now let me quote you what I said before:
So if you want to wimp out of answering my very simple questions, no skin off my back, you are welcome to do it … but it just shows that you are running scared.
I do note that you have not disagreed with the following statements:
So I’ll assume those are true …
w.
Bart says: March 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Bart, what Willis is try to do is just slandering tactics. Some people just think that is the way of acting.
It is evident that what Willis really needs to do is to apologize for having criticized my work without spending any time in reading it. He did not even read the blogs on this web-site.
Unfortunately, some people are simply interested in slandering, and Willis is apparently one of them.
Willis, please, contradict me if I am wrong!
Are you slandering or it is just a misunderstanding?
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm
“Except there is no 60-yr cycle in the solar, auroral, and geomagnetic data.”
I have seen for myself there is none significant in the sunspot data. How long have the others been sampled? How reliable are proxies, and what precisely are they measuring?
Aurorae go back 1500+ years. Geomagnetic data, 170 years. The latter is very reliable and both measure the impact of the solar wind on the Earth which depends on the sun’s magnetic field, i.e. solar activity. The relationship is well understood in quantitative detail. See: http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
Who determined there were no such cycles in the data, and what tools did they use?
See: http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA089iA05p03023.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1990SoPh127-Feynman.pdf
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Oh, please, Dr. Scafetta, do your homework. See GISP2 Oxygen Isotope Data (1 year averages):
You see the part about “1 year intervals”? Your claim, as is often the case, turns out to be fact-free.
Do I think a 60 year cycle is different from a 61 year cycle? Sure, that’s why we call one a “60 year cycle” and the other a “61 year cycle”.
I see that you say your “best estimated cycles” is “59-63” years … which just shows you are not using astronomical data. You’ve merely picked a cycle.
w.
PS—Stop saying “read my papers”, it just makes you sound desperate. If you have a citation to a paper and a page, I’m more than happy to read it.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Sorry, you need to read my papers and reason a little bit.
If this your statement
“I see that the GISP2 power spectrum has a cycle that is either 62 years (fixed time analysis) or 61 years (fixed depth analysis). There is NO evidence of any 60 year cycle used by Scafetta.”
was said in good faith, I cannot but conclude that you do not understant time series analysis of natural data.
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm
“Except there is no 60-yr cycle in the solar, auroral, and geomagnetic data.”
I have seen for myself there is none significant in the sunspot data. How long have the others been sampled? How reliable are proxies, and what precisely are they measuring?
This is also a good reference:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 85, NO. A6, PP. 2991-2997, 1980
doi:10.1029/JA085iA06p02991
Auroral Changes During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries and Their Implications for the Solar Wind and the Long-Term Variation of Sunspot Activity
J. Feynman
S. M. Silverman [the greatest living expert on historical auroral observations]
“Both auroral and geomagnetic activity provide information from which the behavior of the magnetosphere and the solar wind can be inferred. Swedish auroral sightings during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries show a remarkable pattern of changes in the latitudes at which the auroras were observed. Auroral reports from New England confirm that these variations were hemisphere-wide. The pattern of changes took place over an 106-year period and is easily distinguished from the much smaller changes that are related to single sunspot number cycles. We infer that the pattern reflects corresponding changes in the solar wind and the resultant magnetospheric configuration and that these changes were much greater than those observed since in situ measurements began. Our results show that a minimum solar wind occurred at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It has been argued elsewhere that minimum solar winds also occurred around the beginnings of the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. Since all these periods are also the reported minimums of the ‘80- to 100’-year variation in sunspot activity, we conclude that both the changes in the solar wind and in the strength of the cycle in sunspot number reflect underlying fundamental long-term changes in the sun itself.”
So, there are long-term variations of solar conditions with a quasi-period of 80-100 years. No 60-yr cycles.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 1:35 pm
I’m just trying to get you to answer a few simple questions and provide a few simple citations. Why is that so hard for you?
w.
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm
What I think of that is that you haven’t understood what I am saying.
Scafetta’s claim is that he is using “astronomical cycles” that show up in the records. I asked him where the cycles come from. He has declined to answer.
Someone else claimed they came from the GISP2 data. But there is no 60 year cycle there, just a 61 or a 62 year cycle. So that can’t be the source of his 60 year cycles.
But this is all just filling time until Dr. Scafetta answers the question.
What Dr. Scafetta has done is not take astronomical cycles, what he has done is curve fitting. He seems to be impressed by the fact that we can get a decent correlation if we use four freely chosen curves for the fitting.
But since he is adjusting the phase, frequency, and amplitude of the curves, that gives him no less than 12 free parameters … and as a result, the fit is meaningless. Do I have to repeat the story about “Johnny” von Neumann and fitting an elephant with 5 parameters … and Scafetta is using no less than 12 free parameters (phase, frequency, and amplitude of four curves).
w.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm
This is also a good reference:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 85, NO. A6, PP. 2991-2997, 1980
“Our results show that a minimum solar wind occurred at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It has been argued elsewhere that minimum solar winds also occurred around the beginnings of the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. Since all these periods are also the reported minimums of the ‘80- to 100’-year variation in sunspot activity…”
And as we now know also at the beginning of the twenty-first century, so no 60-yr cycle, more like 100 yrs.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm (Edit)
Who cares what I know? How is my knowledge relevant in any way to your claims?
The real issue is, why won’t you answer my question? To remind you, my question was:
w.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm (Edit)
WHICH papers? WHAT references? This is just more handwaving.
w.
Willie, read my papers
the astronomical cycle varies between 59 and 63 years.
Don’t you know that the orbits of the planets are not circular?
Moreover about the GISP2 record, we were talking about the Holocene data in Davis, J.C. and Bohling, which are the one we were discussing, Your data do not cover the Holocene.
Moreover, these data are full of error and noise.
Those data present a near 60 year cycle, confirming my result. Secular and millennial cycles are bigger than the 60-year cycle, of course.
If you want to see the 20 year cycle well in the Greenland data during the last millennia you need to read my paper and look at my references, for example
Chylek, P., Folland, C.K., Dijkstra, H.A., Lesins, G., Dubey, M.K., 2011. Ice-core data
evidence for a prominent near 20 year time-scale of the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters 38, L13704.
So, you need to read my papers.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm
read my papers, the references are there. For example,
Ogurtsov, M.G., Nagovitsyn, Y.A., Kocharov, G.E., Jungner, H., 2002. Long-period
cycles of the Sun’s activity recorded in direct solar data and proxies. Solar
Physics 211, 371–394.
and others
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 13, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Your two references do show a ~60 year harmonic in their PSDs. It isn’t as big as the 88 year one, but it is readily observable.
Interesting that I had no inkling of an 88 year cycle when, if you recall, I presented this PSD of the Loehle temperature data to you. As it is not readily apparent in the recent temperature data, that suggests to me that it might have been a transient phenomenon.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm
‘Do I think a 60 year cycle is different from a 61 year cycle? Sure, that’s why we call one a “60 year cycle” and the other a “61 year cycle”.’
Willis… stop digging.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm
I see that the GISP2 power spectrum has a cycle that is either 62 years
Some time ago for my own use I did spectrum for GISP2 1660-1993 spectrum. It doesn’t have 62 years period.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GISP2-CET.htm
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Willis, you are not behaving honestly, you are just slandering instead of reading my papers.
“But since he is adjusting the phase, frequency, and amplitude of the curves, that gives him no less than 12 free parameters … and as a result, the fit is meaningless. ”
The phases and frequencies are not adjusted arbitrarily. Read my papers, Willis.
You are just defaming and slandering, which proves that you are a dishonest person.
You have not read my papers.
Nicola Scafetta – “…just look at my papers and references…”
To be quite frank, this repeated demand of yours is about as useful an assertion as “It’s clearly available on the Web.”. If you have data, tables, figures, appendices, computations, or other aspects of your work that answer particular questions – list them. With name, publication date, page or figure reference. Demonstrate that you have actually addressed the issue raised. Quite frankly that is the _standard_ for scientific discourse – showing your work.
Otherwise this is both an unfair demand upon the other person (who does not have encyclopedic knowledge of the full content of your publications), and in addition an assertion without evidence. To quote Christopher Hitchens:
“‘That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'”
Accusing others of slander and defamation – when you have not held up your end of the discussion – is extremely poor practice. I feel you owe Willis and many others apologies.
Further to the discussion of the 1-year GISP2 data, I just calculated and graphed the Fourier analysis of that dataset, viz:
I leave it to the reader to determine if there are strong cycles at e.g. 60 or 9.1 years …
Now, out of this host of cycles, could I pick some subset of the cycles and then fit the cycle lengths, phases, and amplitudes to give a decent match the current temperatures?
Sure, why not? … but that’s just fitting an elephant with 5 parameters, or actually more than 5. Between picking the cycles to start with (9.8 years? 9.1 years? 8.7 years?) and then adjusting a bunch of parameters to fit the resultant curve to the temperature data, this is a TRIVIAL CURVE FITTING EXERCISE.
Now if you folks want to get into a bunch of heavy breathing about a trivial curve fitting exercise, be my guest. I’ll pass and wait for some real science to come along.
w.
Dr Scafetta,
I believe you have misconstrued Willis. His manner is abrasive and tactless at times, but you are confusing your rather bitter and pointless exchange with Leif with fairly genuine questions from Willis. This is how these blogs work and inform us interested lay people. Someone like Willis turns up and asks pointed questions and you can respond by showing your work or where to find the detail to answer those questions.
Unfortunately Leif and KR have set you into defensive mindset and frankly I really don’t think their shit-stiring should have been dignified with further responses.
If I could respectfully ask you to respond in a detailed way much like you did at the start of the thread I think I and many others would learn a lot, and that would be very much appreciated.
@Willis,
I think what you are running into here is something of a culture clash. Your manner and tone may not raise many eyebrows where you are from but in Europe it would be the end of any friendship. Believe me – I am Australian living in Europe and I have encountered just this very clash pretty often.
I would very much like to hear a considered response from Dr Scafetta on your questions.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 2:25 pm (Edit)
Nicola, thanks for the answer. However, once again I must ask you to learn how to cite a claim. It’s not hard. You simply say something like “for the way the phases and frequencies are adjusted, see page 6 of my paper called “How I Really Did It””
But waving your hands and saying “read my papers”? That’s the most pathetic attempt at a citation I’ve heard all week. CITE YOUR CLAIMS or people will just continue to point and laugh.
w.
PS—I am neither defaming nor slandering you, Nicola. I’ve said several times that you are FITTING the curves to the data. You keep agreeing that you are fitting the curves … but to date, you have flat-out refused to provide a citation to your method.
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Your two references do show a ~60 year harmonic in their PSDs. It isn’t as big as the 88 year one, but it is readily observable.
So are many other small peaks of no significance. There is no ‘cycle’ as such.
Interesting that I had no inkling of an 88 year cycle when, if you recall, I presented this PSD of the Loehle temperature data to you. As it is not readily apparent in the recent temperature data, that suggests to me that it might have been a transient phenomenon.
There is no 88-yr cycle in the temperature data. In the solar data it is stable and persistent over a thousand years.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm
I told you many times to read my papers and the references they contain.
In your power spectrum figure you found 19.2-20.5-year cycle and a 9.8-10.9-year cycle, those are compatible with my ~20 and 10-11 cycles. You find also a 8.7-9.1 cycle, those are the solar/lunar tidal cycles, which vary from 8.8-9.3 -year.
60-year cycles are present in numerous other data, read my references.
If you have read my papers, you would have known all this. So, you are confirming my analysis.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm
“I’ve said several times that you are FITTING the curves to the data. ”
Read my papers to understand what I am saying.
You are not reading my papers! That is the first thing that you need to do!
It is highly unethical to criticize the work of somebody without reading it first.
The fitting is to determine the temperature amplitudes during specific time periods.
Agnostic says: March 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Willis is not asking questions, he is questioning my findings without reading my papers first to inform himself about what I have written.
Signal components with a period differing from astronomical cycles could result from modulation processes, one variable modulating another one, resulting in sum and difference frequencies in the modulated signal. (Ring modulator; multiplication, AM, beat frequencies)
Just sayin’. Can’t say whether Dr. Scafetta has some overfitting here, but even if he has, maybe one could find out the origin of such combined frequencies by adding/subtracting frequencies of known cycles.
There are a lot of possible beats in a planetary system with 9 planets.
Please stop fighting about which cycle to use and control your egos. The basic idea is that there are many natural cycles (as could indeed be detected from a Power Spectrum calculated with a standard FFT algorithm).
Selecting the most significant ones and combining them as a “not so bad” short term predicting tool is fine, as it seems rather accurate so far, and mainly ONE DOES NOT NEED TO PUT EMPHASIS ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF ANTHROPOGENIC CO2. This is the real message because all the low carbon policies are based on the paramount importance of this last contribution and induce significant impact on the electricity bill and consequently on the welfare of families and on the competitivity of industries. This is the real “dragon” to fight. As said earlier in this discussion, and also recalled by Dr. Scafetta, the climate system is.chaotic, which means that the frequencies are fluctuating a bit (what is clearly shown when looking at t he Power Spectrum which is actually all except a juxtaposition of well defined spikes); but this means also that, in any case, the system is JUST NOT PREDICTABLE because it is hypersensitive to the intial conditions (understand: the recorded time series from the past, afflicted by considerable experimental and data averaging errors and thus not known exactly). The chaotic signature of the temperature time series is easy to identify and can be discussed as another post, if interrested..
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 2:53 pm
“Further to the discussion of the 1-year GISP2 data, I just calculated and graphed the Fourier analysis of that dataset, viz:”
I really wish amateurs would not try power spectrum estimation. Whole books have been written on this subject. Papers galore abound spanning decades. And yet, people think all they have to do is pump the data into an FFT.
KR says:
March 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm
‘To be quite frank, this repeated demand of yours is about as useful an assertion as “It’s clearly available on the Web.”’
Hardly. Willis is asking trivial questions which could be answered with a little reading. Nicola’s arguments have weak points (as do just about everyone’s). Willis isn’t anywhere close to them. And, that is wasting Nicola’s time.
I’m not attacking the weak points because Nicola is aware of them. I am trying to be constructive to see where the trail might lead, because it is not a completely foregone conclusion.
Bart says:March 13, 2012 at 11:51 am
Volker Doormann says: March 13, 2012 at 11:34 am
“Not what one is thinking what is not, is an argument; an argument that refutes the given correlation between Earth temperature/sea level and a solar tide function from planets is welcome.”
There are two ways in which gravitational influences of the outer planets can affect the Earth: They slightly alter the orbit of the Earth about the Sun, and they induce tidal forces.
I do not talk on gravitational influences; I talk about the correlation between the global sea level oscillations and the heliocentric tide function of Mercury/Earth, which are mostly phase coherent over a time span 18 years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/Sea_level_vs_solar_tides1.htm
Because far distant objects in the solar system also showing geometries which are mirrored in terrestrial functions, it is clear, that the old fashion gravitation law is not able to explain the significant correlation of terrestrial climate functions over more than 4000 years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_vs_comnispa_5k.jpg
The point is that you have no valid argument that either explains the phase coherence of real sea level oscillations and real (geometrical) solar tide functions, nor refutes the given geometric correlation. Your unsaid argument is that ‘because Sir Newton’s law is out of question a relation between solar tide functions and terrestrial climate functions can not exist’.
This unsaid argument reminds me to the argument of the Royal Academy of Science which were convinced by Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars was a physical impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland, which it would be impossible to wave.
For sure there is physical mechanism for this phenomenon, but the logic is to find a physical mechanism that is matching with the real geometry functions of the oscillating bodies; to block new phenomena from the discussion because of save traditional ideas in physics, is no science.
V.
Dr. Scafetta
60 year cycle appears as result of the inability of many Fourier based analysers to resolve shorter data sets; ~ 55 and ~ 65+ components are averaged at ~ 60 years.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 13, 2012 at 3:04 pm
“There is no 88-yr cycle in the temperature data. In the solar data it is stable and persistent over a thousand years.”
In the Loehle data, there is. Perhaps your eyesight is failing. Or, perhaps you are asserting that the Loehle data does not represent temperature?
Speaking of amateurs and the PSD…
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Thanks, Bart. I assume that by “resonance phenomena” you mean a system which has a natural resonant frequency, so that it is sensitive to being driven by an external forcing that matches that frequency.
If such phenomena are as common in the world’s climate as you are claiming, perhaps you could give us say three examples so we know what you are referring to …
w.
Volker Doormann says:
March 13, 2012 at 3:32 pm
“Because far distant objects in the solar system also showing geometries which are mirrored in terrestrial functions, it is clear, that the old fashion gravitation law is not able to explain the significant correlation of terrestrial climate functions over more than 4000 years.”
If proving this concept requires overturning Einstein and even Newton, then I must tell you, you are not going to prove the concept.
I have thrown you guys a lifeline. You need to incorporate amplification due to resonance. Without some kind of amplification, as they say in the Southern US, this dog won’t hunt.
Agnostic says:
March 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm
I started off polite as could be. It was only when he blew me off with his handwaving “read my papers”, and then started saying things like
that I became more pointed in my comments.
But I don’t care in the slightest if my “manner and tone” don’t fit your fancy. I couldn’t care less if it is the “end of a friendship” with Dr. Scafetta, he’s never treated me like a friend in his life, he’s always abused me while avoiding my questions. You guys seem to think this is some kind of California deal where I’m supposed to rub Dr. Scafetta’s tummy and osculate his fundamental orifice to get an answer to a simple question.
IT’S NOT ABOUT ME, and it’s not about whether I asked the questions in the Agnostic-approved manner. Either Dr. Scafetta has the cojones to answer questions or he doesn’t. I’m not the bad guy here, I’m not the subject here, I’m not of interest in the slightest.
So you are just providing cover for Dr. Scafetta not answering questions, by saying the problem is I didn’t say “Mother may I” and properly genuflect …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 3:42 pm
“If such phenomena are as common in the world’s climate as you are claiming, perhaps you could give us say three examples so we know what you are referring to”
A bell.
A jump rope.
A bucket of sloshing water.
That rattle in your car when the engine hits a certain RPM.
A child swinging on a swing.
A trumpet, trombone, clarinet, flute, violin, guitar, drum… just about any musical instrument.
A body in orbit.
The ocean in a local basin.
Rossby waves.
The atmosphere.
The oceans.
Really, now, is that so hard?
Joachim Seifert says:
March 13, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Joachim, all I want is a few simple answers. Dr. Scafetta declines to provide them. You ask me to wait … why should I wait? Either he has the answers or not.
w.
To Willis:
One should not forget, (1) we are sitting in the same boat…..(2) there is no guy with
the megaphone to order the paddeling…. (3) it does not have to be unisono,
but who gets tired should let the others do the paddeling….lets agree on that…..
No point that Nick does it all……let him fit all his curves he wishes, someone has to
do it….. the 60/61/62 year (as you like) cycle and cycle mechanism exist and does
NOT have to be explained by him…..
Why should you wait a while?
Simply, the ASTRONOMICAL side is just difficult to
fancy.— various times I had the planets spinning in my head…..further:
applying statistics for comparison while holding various conditions constant……is
no good, as example the Vukcevic graph about the 60 year cycle…..
….because in reality, the 60-62 year cycle ist superimposed on the 790 year
cycle present today and has a bottom (17 Cty) and a top (21 Cty) whereas
longterm conditions are different along the long term cycle positions…..
To open laptop statistics and feeding numbers in without an previous heuristic
understanding that the 60-62 year cycle only modifies the long 790 year cycle….
not good enough…..
…. Global warming/cooling is the combined sum of both cycles, which, depending
on the 60-62 short cycle position either at the bottom, on the rise or on top of the long
cycle……either sum up together, or discount in their forcing…….
For this very reason, temps 2010-2020 will fall by 0.1’C, because the long term
cycle does not contribute anything more in warming (we are on the top position),
whereas the short 60-62 year cycle discounts 0.1 C per decade (to 2040) and
then adds the subtracted 0.4’C over the 22 years over 2040-2062……
Such the climate forecast. values will be BELOW the Scafetta yellow HARMONIC line
and I do NOT yammer that his numbers comprize (blue field) partly CO2-Warmist
BS….Hugh, the cycles have spoken….
The dilemma is the following: If I explain the 60-62 cycle in itself without previously
explaining in detail the long 790 year cycle, then Warmists will say, as you Willis:
“Where do you get the numbers from…..? No science only but …..curve fitting…..
…… Everything I finished clear on paper, but I need the English text and graphs
and all takes time, a tedious job to explain astronomy to non- astronomers…..
plus “specialist: star and Sun-gazers” as Leif, instead of exercising self-critisism
and being helpful, always strikes his paddle into the opposite direction, which
is really bad…..
JS
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Perhaps you could point out what I did wrong, then, instead of pulling a Scafetta on me by just abusing me without any details …
Well, gosh, I wouldn’t want to waste Nicola’s precious time with scientific questions, so since you think my questions are “trivial”, how about you answer them?
w.
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Volker Doormann says: March 13, 2012 at 3:32 pm
“Because far distant objects in the solar system also showing geometries which are mirrored in terrestrial functions, it is clear, that the old fashion gravitation law is not able to explain the significant correlation of terrestrial climate functions over more than 4000 years.”
If proving this concept requires overturning Einstein and even Newton, then I must tell you, you are not going to prove the concept.
I’m a guest here in A.W. room. Alike N. Scafetta has made his update, I made one too.
Thanks and EOD.
V.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm
“Perhaps you could point out what I did wrong, then …”
You would really need an entire semester of coursework. The books I learned with are all out of print. This one seems to cover most subjects.
“…since you think my questions are “trivial”, how about you answer them?
Nicola has provided links to his papers. Read them.
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 3:54 pm
I ask for examples of resonant climate phenomena and you give me musical instruments and childs swings? I know there are resonant phenomena, my friend, I’m a musician … but I had asked for climate phenomena. You go on to list:
Tidal sloshing … what does that have to do with climate?
I looked at all three references. The oceans reference is all about tidal sloshing. Unless you are claiming that the tides are part of the climate, that’s out. So what’s left?
It turns out that Rossby waves do sometimes have a resonant frequency that affects their propagation.
So we have one very obscure resonant phenomenon … and that’s supposed to support the claim that the temperature of the planet will swing widely because of resonance? That’s really your evidence for planet-wide temperature changes being resonantly driven?
It’s rarely hard when you just toss off random stuff that doesn’t support your claim.
Look, Bart, your claim is that “resonance” is able to somehow affect the global temperature. So far, the one example you provided don’t show anything like that, it’s a very minor local effect.
Not only that, but some of the putative cycles are integral multiples, at 10, 20, and 60 years, so why would the resonance only affect one and not the others? A cyclical push at any one of those frequencies will affect them all, if such resonances actually exist.
So no, you’re right, that wasn’t so hard, handwaving rarely is …
w.
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 4:11 pm
In other words, you can’t point out a single thing wrong with what I did, so you tell me to read some book … you taking lessons from Scafetta? You claim something is wrong with my work, so point it out or go home. Your “read a book” BS won’t fly.
Dang, you are taking lessons from Scafetta. Neither of you want to answer questions, so you tell me to read a few hundred pages of his papers because the answer is in there somewhere, honest it is …
Look, if you’re so damn sure the answer to my question is in there, then how about you save us all some time and TELL ME WHERE.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 4:24 pm
read my papers, Willis. The answers to your naive questions are there.
Bart is right. Your behavior is nothing but harassment.
Why are you asking questions if you are not interested in reading my papers nor interested in understanding what I did?
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 3:24 pm
To remind you, Dr. Scafetta, my questions were clear and plain, and remain unanswered.
and
When you falsely claim that I am not asking questions, I fear you do harm to your reputation for honesty. As I said before,
However, you are not free to claim that I am not asking questions. That is patently and obviously false
w.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 4:37 pm
read my papers! The responses are there.
DirkH says:
March 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm
That’s the problem, Dirk. What Dr. Scafetta has done is noted that there are a host of astronomical cycles, and a host of cycles in the temperature data. Some of these are similar.
So far, so good.
Now, you can’t just pick the cycles that a Fourier or other cyclical analysis shows in the temperature data. That’s just curve fitting.
So he says he’s using astronomical data.
But when I ask what astronomical data gives the relative phases and amplitudes and frequencies of the cycles … he doesn’t say.
That’s where the conversation stands.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm
“So we have one very obscure resonant phenomenon … and that’s supposed to support the claim that the temperature of the planet will swing widely because of resonance? That’s really your evidence for planet-wide temperature changes being resonantly driven?”
Hello? The lights are on, but nobody appears to be home.
Good grief, Willis. Resonances abound in every (selfsnip) natural niche. Rossby waves ARE A (selfsnip) RESONANCE PHENOMENON! There were dozens of links at the searches I pointed out relating to the oceans and atmosphere WHICH SPECIFICALLY SAY RESONANCE in the (selfsnip) title!!!
I NEVER SAID IT WAS PROOF OF ANYTHING!!! I SAID YOU WOULD NEED TO GO THAT WAY IN ORDER TO GET THE AMPLIFICATION NEEDED. I am trying to be helpful and constructive to Nicola. You are trying to plug your ears and go “Nah, Nah, Nah”.
“In other words, you can’t point out a single thing wrong with what I did…”
Quite the contrary, I CAN’T POINT TO A SINGLE THING YOU DID RIGHT!!!
This is like arguing with a child. I’m just not going to do it anymore. Say whatever you like, Willis. I’ll just take the opportunity to post a blanket “I most likely disagree with whatever Willis just said.”
I could be wrong here, but I think I see where the problem lies between Willis Eschenbach and Nicola Scafetta. The answer that Willis is looking for involves a word that Nicola cannot mention on WUWT. That word starts with a b. Is there any truth to this?
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 4:50 pm
“But when I ask what astronomical data gives the relative phases and amplitudes and frequencies of the cycles … he doesn’t say.”
Because you are not interested in reading my papers where things are clearly written nor in understanding them, there is no need to discuss the issue with you.
Moreover, it is true that there are numerous astronomical cycles, but not all of them are equally significant in the same way. The proper arguments are in the papers.
“Look, if you’re so damn sure the answer to my question is in there, then how about you save us all some time and TELL ME WHERE. ”
Where? In my papers.
[snip]
Should I tell you the page and line number because you are lazy?
Do your homework first!
[1] Nicola Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005
[2] Adriano Mazzarella and Nicola Scafetta, “Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change.” Theor. Appl. Climatol. (2011). DOI: 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4
[3] Craig Loehle and Nicola Scafetta, “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data.” The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5, 74-86 (2011). DOI: 10.2174/1874282301105010074
[4] Nicola Scafetta, “A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 74, 145-163 (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013
[5] Nicola 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
Let me see if I can clarify my position. You guys know I’m kinda obsessive about this stuff. I first got introduced to all of this through my correspondence with the “he whose name must not be spoken” but whose initials are Ted Landschiedt. He wrote of the barycentric swing of the sun, which like all local masses orbits the center of mass of the solar system … I was entranced by the shape of the sun’s orbit:
Figure S2. The orbit of the sun around the center of gravity of the solar system (the barycenter). The barycenter is at the intersection of the axes.
As I understood it then, Ted’s underlying 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 internal circulation of that magic solar generator of light, heat, radiation, solar wind, coronal mass ejections, and magnetism.
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.
Y’all know I’m a bit obsessive … so when I couldn’t find the data for the barycentric cycles online (this was a decade ago) I found the formula for the location of the barycenter. Only problem was, it required the location of all of the planets. So I got the equations and wrote an excel spreadsheet that gives planetary positions, and used that to do the calculations. So when I say I understand something about these cycles, I am speaking about lots and lots of hours spent studying them.
Ted’s hypothesis, which I stress is reasonable to me, was that the critical measurement was the change in the sun’s momentum. He said that for example when the sun is passing through the barycenter of the solar system, it has no angular momentum. When it swings out wide, it has huge angular momentum. This must be reflected in changes in the fluid circulation of the sun. Seems like you could even model it physically, albeit crudely, by moving a water filled globe around the path shown in Figure S2.
Now, if you want to establish that hypothesis, if you think that is true, how does showing that the historical temperature trend can be roughly matched by a couple of sine waves plus a trend show anything at all?
If you want to establish that there actually is a relationship between global temperature and barycentric cycles, you have to use the actual barycentric cycles, complete with their actual phase and frequency and amplitude. In the barycentric data the 60-year cycle is a tenth the size of 20-year cycle. Then there’s the crucial question of the phase. You can’t just pick phases to fit the temperature data. The barycentric cycles are fixed. Immutable. My funky spreadsheet can calculate them for several hundred years into the future or the past.
You can’t just say “twenty years”. Here’s the actual data for the length of the cycles in barycentric velocity:
Figure S3. Distance between successive peaks in the sun’s barycentric velocity.
So you don’t get to just grab frequencies and fit them. You have to take the whole package.
Let me re-post something from another discussion with Dr. Scafetta:
Does either of those fits mean anything about the climate? Of course not, don’t be silly. I’ve just fitted curves to the data.
That’s the problem I have with Dr. Scafetta’s work. It is absurdly simple to pick some numbers off of a Fourier analysis and fit the data.
But if you claim it has an astronomical cause, you have to show your figures regarding the phase, frequency, and amplitude of the cycles.
That’s what I’ve asked Dr. Scafetta for, and to date, I haven’t gotten. It would seem a simple request. Where is the phase, amplitude, and frequency of the underlying cycles he is using coming from?
I think it’s just a meaningless curve fit, but as a friend of the late Ted Landscheidt, I’d be overjoyed to be proven wrong.
I trust this clarifies matters.
Best regards to all,
w.
Willis:
(1) The solar barycenter (inertial) motion is to be taken not by itself…… but in cooperation
with 3-body gravity of planets in the solar system…..The SIM is very important on very long
time scales: For example how this effects our climate: Before a new interglacial arises
by reaching the opposite BCenter focus, the motion does produce first an absolute bottom
cold period (graphs show lot of dust as well) of 3-4,000 years with constant temp levels
without cycle swings where you can see this action…..thus not only (Milankovitch) the
eccentricity produces interglacials at the focus point but some years before an upside
down max cooling phase.AS WELL (ist part of end return as a racing returns in Formula 1….).
This SIM effect always happens before each interglacial sets in.—- return curve first
too cold than too warm….and continuing with the regular temp level halfway between
absolut max und absolut min. temp…..
Have a look…no such thing, that the Sun MOTION produces nothing for the climate…..
(2) The 60-62 year cycle mechanism consists of motions of the 3 bodies, not only
of the Sun …. I could describe the mechanics in detail and the numbers…..
important is not to see features ISOLATED, but in a heuristic system first and number
crunching only may clarify specific details AFTERWARDS…..
Any climate effect can be estimated with a good, sharp pencil and paper…..if it is sharp
enough, one can even do without models……Einstein had nothing more than pencil
and paper in his dusty patent office…..
Cheers JS
Bart says: March 13, 2012 at 4:52 pm
“RESONANCE in the (selfsnip) title!!! I NEVER SAID IT WAS PROOF OF ANYTHING!!! I SAID YOU WOULD NEED TO GO THAT WAY IN ORDER TO GET THE AMPLIFICATION NEEDED
”
Bart, please note the Appendix A.Collective synchronization of coupled oscillators in
Nicola 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
Where I discuss how the amplification may occur through collective synchronization. Resonances phenomena are driven by collective synchronization, in my opinion.
About the other large amplification mechanism related to cloud, you need to read the section
7. Cloud cover oscillation as a possible mechanism for climate cycles
in
Nicola Scafetta, “A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 74, 145-163 (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 5:32 pm
read my papers first
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 5:32 pm
“Where is the phase, amplitude, and frequency of the underlying cycles he is using coming from?”
read my papers.
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 4:52 pm
In other words, you still won’t point out a single thing wrong with what I did. OK, I’ll take another tack. I pointed to the data, unlike Scafetta I cite my work. So go get it and come back and post a proper Fourier analysis. I may be totally wrong as you say, Bart. I’ve been wrong before, I don’t like it when it happens, but that’s one way I learn. But claiming I’m wrong without explaining where and why I’m wrong? Sorry, that won’t fly.
Regarding resonances, certainly, they exist lots of places. The difficulty is that in the barycentric data, the big cycle is the twenty year cycle. It’s about ten times the size of the 60 year cycle.
In the Scafetta model, that’s reversed. The sixty year cycle is ten times the size of the twenty year cycle.
Your response to this is “resonance”. But what is resonating where? Without something behind it, it’s just a magical word, “resonance”, that names but does not explain.
All the best,
w.
Interesting that most of the protractors are not understanding the two cycles separately that control solar output and climate.
1. There is a clear 60 year cycle in the temperature and auroral records that is basically the PDO. This cycle correlates with the Jupiter/Saturn synodic cycle.
2. There is a clear 172 (approx) cycle solar grand minima that is controlled by the extra angular momentum from Neptune and Uranus that works separately from the ocean cycle. One cycle controls the Sun, the other the oceans. The N/U cycle also influences overall solar modulation outside of grand minima. This powerwave is often described as the Gleisberg cycle.
Both cycles have predictive power which are right on track at present. Hindcasting has also been shown to be just as accurate.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 5:47 pm
read my papers.
I am not using just the the barycentric data, where the big cycle is the twenty year cycle. It’s about ten times the size of the 60 year cycle.
There are astronomical records where the 60-year cycle is big and the 20 is small.
In any case, that is irrelevant, because you are not undestanding that the issue is also how the climate respond to the cycles as Bard says, and usually the thermal inertia smooth out the faster cycles relative to the slow ones.
try this one, for example
Nicola Scafetta, “A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 74, 145-163 (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013
Willis, Dr. Scaffeta has an established history of behavior one does not normally tolerate in adult discussion.
See his comments here at CA.
jeez says: March 13, 2012 at 6:06 pm
exactly Jeez. You are fully right.
In adult discussion, one does not tollerate when people think that it is ok to criticize somebody without even spending any time reading what somebody has written hundred times and clearly written in his papers everywhere since in the abstracts of its papers.
For example, Willis is continuously asking
“Where is the phase, amplitude, and frequency of the underlying cycles he is using coming from?”
Geoff above responded
“There is a clear 60 year cycle in the temperature and auroral records that is basically the PDO. This cycle correlates with the Jupiter/Saturn synodic cycle.”
How could Geoff know it? I never told him anything nor he never asked!
Let me guess, Geoff read my papers, Willis did not but he criticizes, criticizes, criticizes…..
And never reads my papers where the answer is evident at the first sight.
Bart is right when he said: “I am trying to be helpful and constructive to Nicola. You are trying to plug your ears and go “Nah, Nah, Nah”.
From:
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm
“The four giant planets, which regulate the sun’s motion, carry more than 99 percent of the angular momentum in the solar system, while the sun is confined to less than 1 percent. So there is enough angular momentum that can be transferred from the outer planets to the revolving sun and eventually to the spinning sun.
I have shown that cycles derived from the sun’s motion about the center of mass make it possible to predict different facets of solar activity, including solar eruptions, and climate phenomena like temperature anomalies, droughts, and El Niños.”
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Dear Dr. Scafetta:
I must say, I do love a scientist, complete with PhD, who is unwilling to cite chapter and verse of his own work in order to prove me wrong. It warms my heart to see a man unwilling to blow his own horn, unwilling to pull out his big guns and blast me to smithereens.
I mean, just about every single scientist I know is more than happy to promote their own prior art in that manner. Me, I’m always happy to be able to say something on the order of “see Figure 2 on page 4 of my peer-reviewed paper called “Why I’m Right”, read’em and weep, sucka”, except of course in more polite terms. Well, usually more polite terms. And most scientists are quite glad to do that. Citing their scientific opponent’s work might be hard for some, but most scientists are overjoyed to cite the exact page and paragraph of their deathless prose that will blow my skinny ass out of the water and end my nagging repetition of the same question once and for all.
So when someone like you refuses to do that, I gotta stand in awe at the sense of humanity and humility that prevents you from pointing out where you are getting your cycles. I gotta figure you’re doing it as a gesture of friendship, to spare me the embarrassment of being wrong in public or something.
I mean, it simply reaffirms my belief in the scientific method. It’s a funny method because it’s a public method. Someone makes a scientific claim, and backs it up with whatever they have in the way of logic and data and observations and computer code and the like.
Then everyone tries to falsify the scientific claim, by investigating the ideas, and asking the originator of the claim questions about the results and the logic and the data and such.
Of course, this all depends on and is a slave to transparency. When someone has a question about the data, they need to be able to access the data to understand what the originator is talking about. When someone needs to understand the inner workings of what was done on the computer, they need the code. If someone has a question about the logic, they need to be able to have the originator explain what might not be as clearly expressed as the originator thought when it was written. In short, the originator of the scientific claim needs to facilitate the investigation of the idea.
Sometimes, as with you, Dr. S, the excuse is made that the questioning or the questioner is hostile. But the best thing to do with your brilliant new scientific idea is to give it to your worst enemy. If that joker can’t find fault with it, that’s the best news possible.
One of the beauties of the web is that this process can be made much faster and more public. I’ve been doing a scientific analysis and investigation of the Argo ocean temperature dataset. My work has been greatly aided and influenced by the comments I’ve received. And yes, in the past (and likely in the future) some of my brilliant ideas get totally blown out of the water … just think of how much time that has saved me from going down a wrong path, perhaps for years.
Sadly, Dr. S., I see that you are no fan of the scientific method. Which is ok, but precludes me from playing your game. Real scientists ask the tough questions, and real scientists answer those tough questions. Your refusal to answer them speaks volumes.
So I’m not going to ask any more, doc, where you got your frequencies and amplitudes and phases. As far as I’m concerned, your refusal to cite chapter and verse of your own work reveals that what you have done is nothing more than trivial curve fitting. I’m just going to put you in the category of “scientists” who say things like “Why should I give you the data when you’ll just try to find fault with it”, and leave you alone to talk to the folks who ask easy questions.
It’s sad for me, because as I said, I think that the barycentric motion of the sun could well have an effect on the climate. And it’s sad because I hate to see your kind of unscientific attitude here on WUWT.
But my best to you anyhow, I do wish you well,
w.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 6:48 pm
“Real scientists ask the tough questions, and real scientists answer those tough questions. ”
You are not asking tough questions. You are being lazy in educating yourself before asking questions. And thinking that you can criticize a work without reading it.
You are behaving like those students that go to a professor “pretending” a help for the homework without coming to the lesson and without even having tried to studying the topic first at home, and looking just that the professor solves the exercise for them.
And the professor gets irritated when he immediately realizes that the student not only never opened the book before coming at the office, but he behaves also arrogantly and pretends direct answers to solve his homework and nothing else: of the type: “Professor, this problem asks we to calculate the kinetic energy of a moving particle, tell me the page and the equation number that I need to use and where should I put the numbers”!
When I said that you need to read my paper first, it is because I realized that it was not possible to answer your questions in a way that you could have properly understood it because you did not appear to have the philosophical background approach right, which needs the harder work to read my papers first.
You need first to understand the philosophy of my work. That cannot be done by simply pointing you a line number and a page number. You need to start reading the papers from the beginning, that is, the Introduction of the paper. Then you need to become familiar with the data and the equations that I use and why I am using them. And go on. The philosophy comes first, the data and the analysis comes later.
And you need to understand better how to interpret geophysical signals where, for example, a detected cycle of 60 years is not truly different from a cycle of 61 year, because the data contain a lot of errors and biases and other limitations. And this in particular true when I continuously refer to a “quasi-60 year cycle”, and not to a “rigorous 60-year cycle”.
Every geophysicist would laugh at you if you claim that their work is wrong just because there exists a fundamental difference between 60 and 61 year cycles. You are reasoning from a purely and naively mathematical point of view without understanding the limitations implicit in both the data and the technique of analysis, which are also discussed in the papers.
I gave you a list of papers, you may start with this one and go on
Nicola 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
good reading.
Agnostic says: (March 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm) “@Willis, I think what you are running into here is something of a culture clash.”
Very perceptive and worthy of contemplation by all concerned.
Well said (fellow) Aussie.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 13, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Umm … the “synodic cycle”, as far as I know, is calculated as abs((per1*per2)/(per1-per2)) where per1 and per2 are the orbital periods of the two planets. For Jupiter (11.86 years) and Saturn (29.42 years), this works out to 19.87 years. Here’s the calculation:
abs((11.86y) * (29.42y)) / ((11.86y) – (29.42y)) = 19.87 …
Ooops.
Then Dr. Scafetta picks up the wrong end of the stick …
Double oops. Maybe both of you should have asked.
Since both of you are wrong about the length of the Jupiter/Saturn synodic cycle, you might want to wait until dawn before you start crowing about “how could Geoff know it” …
w.
PS—Geoff, you say:
Cite?
Nicola
There will be no underlying anthropogenic effect at all for the reasons explained in my new paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I accept that, technically, “points” are dimensionless and I used the term colloquially in the Abstract for the paper, but I would also say that what I am talking about can be physically a very small volume of matter. I suggest, some such volume with only perhaps a million molecules would be quite sufficient for the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be applicable.
Wikipedia puts it this way: In classical thermodynamics, the second law is a basic postulate applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer …
It is all based on probabilities, of course, but we just need radiation with the full range of frequencies indicated by the Planck curve in order for temperature information to be conveyed. In reality, molecules react to frequencies and it is all to do with frequency distributions, not any characteristic of an individual photon or molecule.
At the outset, let me be honest and say that I too do not necessarily agree with everything that every author in Slaying the Sky Dragon has written. There are some subtle contradictions in fact between authors. I do however, agree with Prof Claes Johnson’s general concept that radiation from a cooler blackbody merely resonates with molecules in a warmer blackbody, without any of its energy being converted to thermal energy. And Claes also read my paper prior to publication and commented that I was one of only a few who understood his Computational Blackbody Radiation and that he fully endorsed my paper. (I understand that Claes is not a member of the Slayers.) But I chose Principia Scientific International because they have a growing number of scientists joining their ranks who participate in “open review” of the papers they publish on their site – six in total now. PSI comprises many more scientists than the few authors of the book.
May I ask that people do in fact read the paper before commenting. You will find, for example, that I explain why lasers, microwave ovens and microbolometers do not disprove the hypothesis. Whilst I don’t mention it, I anticipate that there will be experiments published later this year using spectrometers to demonstrate that warm gases do not absorb emission from cooler sources.
It is not appropriate to assume, for example, that I am discussing thermal energy accumulating in the atmosphere somehow warming the whole Earth system. That concept, I understand, has been dismissed by the IPCC who now argue that it is all about “backradiation” slowing the rate of cooling of the surface. Thermal energy is not transferred from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface (nor to warmer layers of the lower atmosphere where we live) by any physical process. Thus the slowing of the cooling process is not due to the addition of thermal energy to the surface. Rather, it is due to resonance of the radiation itself, which does not involve absorption in the usual sense involving conversion of radiated energy to thermal energy.
Radiation from a cooler source merely undergoes what I call “resonant scattering” when it strikes a warmer target. As I have said, there is no conversion of its radiated energy into thermal energy, which is quite a different thing. If the radiation from the cooler (macro) source is (close to) that of a blackbody it will have frequencies across the appropriate Planck curve. Most radiation from the atmosphere will not have all these frequencies, but it will (to some extent) oppose equivalent radiation from the warmer surface while it experiences resonant scattering by the surface.
When it is scattered by the surface, it becomes a part of the emission of the surface, but, because it already has its own energy, it does not need energy from the surface itself. Thus it slows the rate of cooling of the surface because it “uses up” some of the potential radiation frequencies which the surface would otherwise have used to dispose of its own energy.
However, carbon dioxide does not radiate like a blackbody, so its few spectral lines are relatively ineffective compared with even water vapour radiation, let alone a blackbody.
So water vapour is the major contributor, having probably at least 100 times the effect of carbon dioxide when you take into account its greater presence and greater effectiveness per molecule.
Even so, only the radiative cooling process is affected by radiation from the atmosphere, not all of which is actually “backradiation” as such, because it may have originated from energy carried up by convection.
Now, there are other processes, mostly evaporative cooling and diffusion (sometimes called conduction) which involves molecular collision between surface and atmospheric molecules.
These other processes are not affected by radiation from the atmosphere. Yet they probably account for more than half the thermal energy transfer between surface and atmosphere, and they will tend to compensate by increasing their rate if the radiation rate decreases.
There are reasons for this explained in the Appendix.
Now, some don’t realise just how much of the incident solar radiation is actually in the near infra-red. Some of this is absorbed by water vapour and, to a small extent, also by carbon dioxide. This SW-IR radiation has much more energy per photon than does the LW-IR radiation from the surface. Some will be absorbed and this helps explain why the thermosphere gets very hot, often well above 400 degrees K in fact. By sending backradiation to space a cooling effect results, which is almost certainly greater than any warming effect due to carbon dioxide.
Temperatures on the Moon (without an atmosphere) vary from about -153°C at night to +107°C during the lunar day. Over 40% of solar insolation is either reflected or absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere, so our atmosphere keeps the surface cooler than the Moon’s in daylight hours, by reducing incident solar radiation. Then, both day and night, the atmosphere slows the rate at which solar radiation (which was absorbed by the surface) then exits back to into the atmosphere and to space.
What does not happen is any transfer of thermal energy from cooler regions of the atmosphere to warmer regions on the surface, for any such heat transfer would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For example, radiation from the atmosphere does not penetrate even 1cm below the surface of warmer water and add thermal energy to that sub-surface water. If it did, such warmer water could then rise to the surface by convection and its thermal energy could then get back into the atmosphere by evaporative cooling. Hence we would have had a stand-alone process transferring thermal energy from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer sub-surface layer of the water and warming it even more. Such a process would violate the Second Law.
Over the course of 4 billion years an approximate equilibrium point has been reached at any particular location on the Earth’s surface. Even though the atmosphere is roughly similar at the South Pole, the equilibrium temperature is very different from that at the Equator, due to different mean solar radiative flux over the course of each year. This clearly indicates that the temperature is mostly determined by the Sun’s radiation, not so much the properties of the atmosphere.
In regard to experiments, some are being arranged. My own “backyard” experiments with sand and soil in wide necked vacuum flasks indicated no difference in cooling rates between the contents of the flask which was shielded from backradiation at night, and that which was not. Try it yourself using a digital meat thermometer and a sheet of plate glass with an additional shield on top of it, all about 20cm above one flask and at a 10 degree angle to the horizontal to allow convection.
I suggest the onus should have been upon the IPCC to produce evidence to the contrary with a similar obvious experiment. I suspect it has been tried and failed, thus never being published. Correct me if I’m wrong anyone, and link me to any experiment showing backradiation warms anything.
I am the first to agree that it can slow that component of the surface cooling which is by radiation. However, in the context of anthropogenic effects, the role of carbon dioxide is minuscule because of its limited radiation frequencies and the fact that it is only one molecule in over 2,500 other molecules. Because it also has a cooling effect radiating energy to space, it is highly improbable that it causes any net warming at all.
It would be appreciated if people would actually read the paper and this comment in full.
Even though many clearly believe what has been the “usual” explanation involving heat transfer in both directions, it should be apparent that Prof Claes Johnson and myself disagree with this and are putting forward a hypothesis that there is another mechanism that explains what actually happens and yet still gives the same quantitative result as does application of SBL.
I really do not need to hear again the “standard” explanation of photons supposedly transferring thermal energy to everything they collide with – and “not knowing” the temperature of the source. You will find all these matters are addressed in the paper.
But, as I politely asked above, either please read the paper and all of this comment before commenting, or otherwise consider refraining from joining the discussion herein. I believe the paper itself, (perhaps with the additional explanation in this comment which may help some to understand) covers all the objections anyone has thus far raised, both here and on other forums as well.
My paper will now be subjected to “open peer review” by dozens of members of Principia Scientific International (PSI) who will shortly receive an email from the organisation.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
@ Doug Cotton:
Your points signify that Scafettas blue area forecast of some cut-in half
AGW is NOT what we can expect in the future……too high,much too high…
Only the yellow line is what counts……and I even think, this line is ABOVE
the real future values, because temps will lose 0.1’C GMT per decade, as my
now actualized calculations demonstrate…..
JS
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:50 pm
You really are out of your field here Willis and perhaps you are making a fool of yourself. You obviously have not read Dr. Scafetta’s or my paper judging by the incorrect assumptions you are making. You did this last time and wasted much time and effort.
Anyone in the astronomical world would recognize the 60 year Jupiter/Saturn period which is clearly laid out in Nicola’s papers. There is also a 60 year period in the Jupiter/Sun distance which is a product of the same cycle. There is no question of this being incorrect.
The 172 year cycle (approx) not the 142 year as you stated has been shown to you before. I suggest you spend a few days on my website and bring yourself up to speed. Once you have read all the relevant data I will be happy to answer any questions, but not before.
Doctor Scafetta, thank you for the citation to your paper. It is indeed the one of your papers that answers my questions. This way, we can start from the start without me having to read everything you’ve ever written. Much appreciated.
On a quick read, i have two issues.
First, I am confused by your Fig. 5(b). The text says:
The synodic period of Saturn/Jupiter is 19.87 years … but what explains the 60 year cycle?
Here’s the figure:
ORIGINAL CAPTION: Fig. 5. (A) Distance and (B) speed of the Sun relative to the CMSS. Note the 20 and 60 year oscillations (smooth dash curves), which are due to the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.
Here’s the part I don’t understand. The velocity of the sun around the center of mass of the solar system (CMSS) is shown by the large curve with the frequency that varies between about 15 and 20 years. As you’d expect (or at least as I’d expect) my own barycentric spreadsheet shows exactly the same curve with the same amplitude and phase, identical.
But what my spreadsheet doesn’t show is the 60 year oscillations. The big curve, with what you call the “20 year oscillations”, is indeed the velocity of the sun around the CMSS … but what is the “60 year oscillations” curve.
So that’s the first question. Where did you gat the “60 year oscillations”? I can’t find any information other than what I quoted above. It’s not a 60 year average, I tried that. What am I missing?
My second issue is the claim that the 9.1 year cycle is lunar in nature. You say:
When I ran a shipyard in the Solomon Islands, I needed tide tables. But there were none, so I had to make my own. It’s a strange location, with one tide per day for part of the year, and two tides per day for the other part of the year. So I learned a bit about the tides in the process. One of the things I learned is that there are really a lot of moon/sun/earth periods with a variety of cycle lengths. These are called “tidal constituents”. In no particular order these include:
M2 – Principal lunar semidiurnal
S2 – Principal solar semidiurnal
N2 – Larger lunar elliptic semidiurnal
K1 – Lunar diurnal
M4 – Shallow water overtides of principal lunar
O1 – Lunar diurnal
M6 – Shallow water overtides of principal lunar
MK3 – Shallow water terdiurnal
S4 – Shallow water overtides of principal solar
MN4 – Shallow water quarter diurnal
NU2 – Larger lunar evectional
S6 – Shallow water overtides of principal solar
MU2 – Variational
2N2 – Lunar elliptical semidiurnal second-order
OO1 – Lunar diurnal
LAM2 – Smaller lunar evectional
S1 – Solar diurnal
M1 – Smaller lunar elliptic diurnal
J1 – Smaller lunar elliptic diurnal
MM – Lunar monthly
SSA – Solar semiannual
SA – Solar annual
MSF – Lunisolar synodic fortnightly
MF – Lunisolar fortnightly
RHO – Larger lunar evectional diurnal
Q1 – Larger lunar elliptic diurnal
T2 – Larger solar elliptic
R2 – Smaller solar elliptic
2Q1 – Larger elliptic diurnal
P1 – Solar diurnal
2SM2 – Shallow water semidiurnal
M3 – Lunar terdiurnal
L2 – Smaller lunar elliptic semidiurnal
2MK3 – Shallow water terdiurnal
K2 – Lunisolar semidiurnal
M8 – Shallow water eighth diurnal
MS4 – Shallow water quarter diurnal
So I fear that I don’t find your argument at all compelling, that the 9.1 year cycle is the result of the equation
9.1 ≈ (2X + Y) / 4
where X is one lunar constituent, and Y is another lunar constituent. That seems like a very curious claim. I’m not saying that somewhere in the earth-moon-sun-planets sytem there isn’t a 9.1 year cycle. I’m saying that your explanation, that it is (2X + Y) / 4, seems very unlikely.
This is a recurring problem. There some 37 cycles above that are tidal constituents, most of which involve some combination of the earth/moon/sun. In addition you have the synodic combinations of those constituents. So when you begin without clear ex-ante criteria for what constitutes a valid cycle, you essentially have unlimited choice of cycles with which to simulate a very short (N = 160 years) temperature dataset.
In any case, that’s what I see on a quick look.
1. I don’t understand where you got the 60 year cycle. Everything else on that chart is the barycentric distance or the barycentric speed … but what is the 60 year data?
2. The justification for the 9.1 years seems labored. Given the choices for cycles, fitting the temperature seems like a trivial task.
Finally, I didn’t find the explanation of the “10-11 year cycle” in the paper either. Since the average sunspot cycle is ~ 11.5 years, it doesn’t seem to be that. Is it explained in the paper?
Again, don’t get me wrong. I’d love for this all to be true, I’m not disagreeing on political grounds. It’s just that with literally hundreds of cycles, stitching a chosen few together to simulate the temperature is a trivial task which doesn’t prove or even support anything.
All the best, thank you for finally specifying the paper that contained the answers to the questions I asked.
w.
One other issue, Dr. Scafetta. I am totally unable to replicate your Figure 10b. This is the detrended HadCRUT3 data lagged by 61.5 years. Here is your Figure 10b and my attempt to replicate it.
Not sure where the problem is. I’ve double-checked my figures, and that’s what I get. In all cases I was using an 8-year trailing average of the actual data.
Despite appearances, the r^2 during the overlap is bad, very bad. This is why we have mathematical tests, because data can look related but not be related. For the raw data (monthly) the r^2 is only 0.02, and the p-value is 0.22. After doing the 8-year trailing average, the r^2 goes up a bit to 0.17, but the p-value is still 0.13. In other words, the relationship between detrended HadCRUT3 and the same data lagged 61.5 years is not statistically significant.
Part of the problem is the smoothing by the 8-year average. Because it greatly increases the autocorrelation, although the r^2 has gone up, there is still no statistically significant relationship.
w.
[UPDATE: Ahhh, I see what you have done. My bad. I noticed it on my first read, but I couldn’t believe it. You have not “detrended” the data in the normal sense of the word. You have fit a quadratic model with
That has no less than four free parameters in it (2.8e-5, 1850, 2, and 0.41) … so of course you can make it all fit. We’re back to trivial curve fitting again.]
Dr. Scafetta
Willis Eschenbach has a point: But if you claim it has an astronomical cause, you have to show your figures regarding the phase, frequency, and amplitude of the cycles.
Event that is controlled (modulated, synchronised or both) by planetary cycles has to be repeatable and calculable as is the case with tides. Astronomy deals with precise numbers: 62 will not do for a 60 year cycle. Here is another example where numbers with 3 decimal points are required :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
12 will not do instead of 11.862 ! For time being, considering the sun is a ‘messy place’(L.S. quote) is holding the line, but time will tell if it is just a coincidence. No mechanism available (I suspect is electro-magnetic with possibly a bit of gravitation thrown in) but if correlation is good then….. may be.
Do I fervently believe that I am correct?
No. In practical and applied science one has to question if the laws of physics are understood and importantly applied correctly in any particular case you may be dealing with.
I think you could personally benefit if you occasionally consider that you may be wrong, or to put it bluntly, ask yourself is this a case of ‘flogging a dead horse’.
@Willis
started off polite as could be. It was only when he blew me off with his handwaving “read my papers”, and then started saying things like
You were relatively polite, but he was in a defensive mindset from his exchange between some of the resident clowns. It’s nothing to do with what I think you should or shouldn’t do – IMO your tone was perfectly acceptable, but having had experience with Europeans from a perspective such as yours I have learnt that their expectations of politeness are far far higher in general discourse. Speaking in European languages is akin to using Shakespeare like formalism.
@Dr Scafetta:
It seems Willis has modified his tone for you and I think questions are interesting and valid. I am very very interested to hear what you have to say about them. I do appreciate to understand where you are coming from you need to read your papers and understand them, but for the purposes of a science blog, it is usually sufficient to give a bottom line answer and refer the questioner to a specific place in a paper for a detailed explanation. What happens is some people will do that, gain some of your insights and respond with their own thoughts with no more time wasted by you.
I genuinely believe Willis was asking his questions in good faith, he was not attacking your work in the manner some of the other commentators were. An exchange with Willis on this is just what is needed at this point. I am very interested in what you have to say.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm
“Resonances phenomena are driven by collective synchronization, in my opinion.”
Nicola – resonance phenomena are manifestations of energy storage. When energy accumulates and alternates between kinetic and potential forms with a low rate of dissipation, that is what creates a resonance. This way, a small input can excite a large output, because the energy keeps on accumulating until the rate at which it is dissipated equilibrates with the rate at which it is input.
There are many energy storage mechanisms in the Earth climate system, particularly in oceanic and atmospheric waves and currents. With ready mechanisms for alternating between potential and kinetic forms, there are myriad resonant modes available. Each resonant mode has an associated natural frequency at which it will tend to store sympathetically alternating input energy. And, it will tend not to accept and store energy input at any other frequency.
Consider a swing set. A child makes the swing go by alternatingly extending his legs at the downswing, and curling them back at the upswing. If he extends or curls his legs at other times, the swing will not generally increase its height above the ground. He has to input his motion in sympathy with the oscillation of the swing. Starting at the ground with a little push back, the child can swing higher and higher with the same leg motion – the energy he adds to the swinging motion is accumulating, and it will continue to do so until friction with the air and with the pivot from which the swing is hanging carries away energy at a rate equal to what he is putting in.
So, similarly, if a small astronomical forcing creates climate variation at a frequency which is sympathetic to a natural mode of the Earth, then the energy associated with that forcing will accumulate, and could create a large oscillation given enough time. That has been my point, and that is the only way I can see that, what must be very small input forcing, can create a large climate effect.
I hope that may be helpful. I will read over your papers when I find the time. Thanks.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 13, 2012 at 10:53 pm
You made that claim about my Fourier analysis, but you have steadfastly refused to say what is wrong with it. Do you think I and others don’t notice that or will ignore it?
As to being “out of my field”, I’ve spent hundreds and hundreds of hours studying this very subject. I wrote a damn spreadsheet that calculates the barycentric orbits a decade ago. So you can stuff your “out of your field here Willis” BS into some dank and malodorous personal internal space. I may be wrong, as any man may be, but this is a field I know a goodly amount about.
Oh, wait … Geoff Sharp, I’ve heard that name before … weren’t you the brilliant fellow who was claiming upthread that the synodic cycle of Saturn/Jupiter was 60 years, when in fact it’s 19.87 years? … Yeah, that was you. And now you want to tell me I’M out of my field? I got schooled and instructed in this stuff by Ted Landscheidt himself, but I’m the one that’s out of my field …
Put your money where your mouth is or go home, Geoff. I’m tired this vague BS about being “out of my field.” If you think I’ve made a mistake, show me where, I’m happy to discuss it. Your nasty insinuations that amount to ‘you’re wrong, Willis, but I WON’T TELL YOU WHERE’ go nowhere without something to back them up.
w.
jeez says:
March 13, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Thanks, Jeez, I hadn’t seen that. You’re right, this is not the first time that Dr. Scafetta has tried the withholding stuff. His comments in that thread are priceless … and near as I can tell he never did release his code for his paper.
I am constantly surprised by the number of scientists, even young scientists, who have not grasped the nettle of full transparency demanded by 21st century science. We don’t have time for all that secrecy BS any more, the web is moving at lightspeed. I don’t have time to try to guess where Dr. S got his phases, or read 20 of his papers to find out. I don’t have time to try to figure out what some scientist has actually done with his code. He may not even know what his code is doing, bugs are a fact of life. Modern science requires and demands transparency, full and complete transparency, and when someone doesn’t practice that, we all suffer.
So it’s frustrating when someone like Dr. Scapetta tries to play his little games. I’m not asking much. Just point me at the answers. I’m not asking him to read me the damn thing, just lift a finger and point to where the answer can be found.
Why is that so hard for him? I truly don’t know … but he seems like a smart guy, so I do wish he’d come to the party.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 14, 2012 at 1:53 am
Oh, wait … Geoff Sharp, I’ve heard that name before … weren’t you the brilliant fellow who was claiming upthread that the synodic cycle of Saturn/Jupiter was 60 years, when in fact it’s 19.87 years? … Yeah, that was you. And now you want to tell me I’M out of my field? I got schooled and instructed in this stuff by Ted Landscheidt himself, but I’m the one that’s out of my field
Your style belittles you. I am surprised Anthony still puts up with you after your recent fiasco. You have absolutely no understanding of planetary theory and you have learned nothing from Theodor, you failed last time when not able to recognize 2nd order harmonics. Instead of shooting your mouth off, try educating yourself.
MAVukcevic says:
March 14, 2012 at 1:15 am
Dr. Scafetta
Willis Eschenbach has a point: But if you claim it has an astronomical cause, you have to show your figures regarding the phase, frequency, and amplitude of the cycles.
Event that is controlled (modulated, synchronised or both) by planetary cycles has to be repeatable and calculable as is the case with tides. Astronomy deals with precise numbers: 62 will not do for a 60 year cycle.
I am surprised to hear this from you Vuk. You of all people should know that nothing in the solar system complies to rigid mathematical constraints. The shape of the Holocene isotope record is testimate to that, along with the fallacy of the Jose 178.8 year cycle.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/226
Agnostic says:
March 14, 2012 at 1:18 am
Quite possible, Agnostic. However, as I said above, objecting to the tone of the questions or the motives of the questioner simply won’t do. That’s just a way to avoid answering the questions. This is not some California feel-good deal, it’s a discussion of the science, man up. Science is the issue, not me or whether I’m polite enough.
I’m not saying that I don’t make an effort to be polite and generous and kind and the like. I do. And when I get the same, I’m a happy man.
But I’ve had it up to my eyeballs with obstructionist scientists. I made the very first, lonely FOIA request to Phil Jones of the CRU because he was pulling the kind of BS that Dr. Scafetta is pulling. So I’ve been there, done that, and as a result I don’t accept that kind of evasion at all these days. Those times are over, when Dr. Jones could just hide away his data and Mann could just hide away his code. I have no patience for that at all.
w.
Greenland temperature data (GISP2) is often mentioned in various papers with spectral response not either clear or even accurate. Here is an alternative version to the graph that Willis Eschenbach has kindly provided, but it is a bit easier to read.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GISP2spec.htm
Graph is produced by a program specifically developed for analysing electronic signals, it is slow, made of several separate units, but it produces good results.
If anyone likes to use the graph you are welcome, or if Anthony thinks that it may be suitable to stick somewhere in the references even better.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 14, 2012 at 2:57 am
But I’ve had it up to my eyeballs with obstructionist scientists.
You are all talk, my website and paper has all the supporting data which is mainly JPL data, if there is something missing let me know and I will send you the spreadsheets. Leif has been unable to find any flaws in the data, let’s see how you go?
@Willis
I totally appreciate your position. I sincerely hope Dr Scafetta responds. He has an interesting theory and he has clearly put a lot of work into it. I think we could all learn a lot if he responds to you.
Hi Geoff
For long time I searched for 59.5 years signal in the temperature data, never found a significant one. As you can see the GISP spectrum
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GISP2spec.htm
has 57.6 and 61.5, which are symmetrical in respect of 59.5 (sidebands) , but they are pretty weak in comparison to the nearby ones, may be coincidence, the symmetricity argues against it, but even so there are about 10 or 11 stronger periods within 38-100 year range, so 61.5 can’t be that important.
Forced oscillation are not necessarily locked to but can be symmetrically displaced around the central frequency as in here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Vfspec.htm
analogous to above (57.6- 61.5 years case), but here the strength of the two sideband signals makes relationship highly likely, however the proof can’t ever be 100% verifiable.
One has to take a reality check and if something is not very convincing most likely isn’t terribly important.
I don’t agree with Willis that tides do not matter, multi-decadal tidal oscillations are an important factor.
Dr. Svalgaard is also wrong to say there is no 88 year signal in the temperature records, it is one of the strongest periods in both CET and GISP2.
I have mentioned elsewhere to Dr. Scafetta, a possible but strong 62 year negative feedback between the Arctic and Equator
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AEc.htm
more likely to be related to Bart’s idea of Rossby (or planetary) waves resonance .
In conclusion, I am not siding with anyone however clever they may (or may not) be, just observing and noting reality as I see it, and when necessary re-adjust .
MAVukcevic says:
March 14, 2012 at 4:26 am
Vuk, I think it is very obvious because of solar system variance that FFT analysis is fruitless in many cases.
I am repeating this post because it was held in the sin bin because the word Landshe…t was included, which normally places such posts late in the conversation and interrupts intelligent discussion. It is high time this blog recognized this part of science has some merit, especially since the science has moved on greatly since Theodor’s days. In fact the new theory is way beyond Theodor’s pioneering concepts.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 14, 2012 at 1:53 am
Oh, wait … Geoff Sharp, I’ve heard that name before … weren’t you the brilliant fellow who was claiming upthread that the synodic cycle of Saturn/Jupiter was 60 years, when in fact it’s 19.87 years? … Yeah, that was you. And now you want to tell me I’M out of my field? I got schooled and instructed in this stuff by Ted Landsch…t himself, but I’m the one that’s out of my field
Your style belittles you. I am surprised Anthony still puts up with you after your recent fiasco. You have absolutely no understanding of planetary theory and you have learned nothing from Theodor, you failed last time when not able to recognize 2nd order harmonics. Instead of shooting your mouth off, try educating yourself.
Willis,
as I have told you many times, before criticize a paper and the work of somebody you need to study it.
Yesterday I spent half day telling you this obvious fact that every smart and less smart person would be able to understand by himself without any necessary input from somebody else.
Finally, in late evening you finally downloaded a paper of mine. However, instead of studying it, you simply skimmed it in just a few minutes.
Essentially, you are spending more time in writing in this blog criticizing my work than in properly studying my papers first to educate yourself first.
About your question and insinuations of the type “I am totally unable to replicate your Figure 10b.”
That is because you did not read how I got that figure. Use the recepie written in the paper, and you will get it.
Your own update “[UPDATE: Ahhh, I see what you have done. My bad. I noticed it on my first read, but I couldn’t believe it.”
is nothing but the most clear evidence of how superficially and arrogantly you are acting: you open your mouth laud before properly studying the subject.
Contrary to your expectations, I have no duty to lecture you for free and waste my time.
Study carefully my papers, study the relevant literature and come back.
You may be interested in starting from very very far given your total ignorance on the topic and your need to deeply educate yourself first. For example, you may need to start from
“Abu Ma’Sar on Historical Astrology: The Book of Religions and Dynasties on Great Conjunctions (Islamic Philosophy, Theology, and Science) (Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava) ”
Which is a book from 886 AD
http://www.amazon.com/Abu-MaSar-Historical-Astrology-Conjunctions/dp/9004117334/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1331730766&sr=8-2
just to discount you from the Indian, Chinese, Egyptian and Babylonian studies on the topic.
Then pass through all medieval literature on the topic up to and including the works of Kepler.
And go on.
Then, of course you still need to read my papers well to understand what I have done.
Have a good reading, Take your time. It will take a while!
@ Agnostic says: March 14, 2012 at 3:22 am
Sorry, agnostic. If Willis wants me to interact with him:
1) He needs to acknowledge that he have criticized my works without reading them first (as everybody here has understood) and he needs to deeply apologize with me, with Anthony and with all readers of this blog.
2) He needs to promise to stop to behave like an arrogant fat-brained guy and carefully study my papers (as well as the papers of other people) before talking and wrinting.
3) He needs to withdraw this article here on this web-site
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/30/riding-a-pseudocycle/
where he have criticized my work with Loehle, without carefully reading it. Note in particular that I kindly showed him the strong limitations of his reasoning in my comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/30/riding-a-pseudocycle/#comment-709115
and Willis never felt the duty to respond my point, and was criticized by many other readers for that.
He again needs to apologize to me and Loehle, to Anthony and to all readers of the web-site.
In comparison you can read this comment on airvent on my same paper with Loehle
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/cycles-in-temperature-trends/
where Jeff clearly is surprise of the superficiality of Willis.
In conclusion, if Willis wants me to interact with him, he needs first to prove me that he is not a buffoon. I do not have time to loose with buffoons.
Bart says: March 14, 2012 at 1:46 am
thank you, but I know what I am doing. Just be patient to see the development of the theory.
Agnostic says: (March 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm) “@Willis, I think what you are running into here is something of a culture clash.”
I do not think so.
Also in American culture when somebody publicly criticizes somebody else’s work without first educating himself on what the latter has truly written it is considered highly unethical and slandering. In America, people can sue for much less than what Willis did.
Just for comparison, everybody knows that Peter Gleick has written on Amazon a strong criticism to the book of Donna Laframboise
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DB7LHRMJ14G5
But a lot of readers have immediately noted that he did not actually read the book. Everybody properly accused Gleick of lack of integrity.
You can also read the strong criticism against Gleick’s behavior by Curry here
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/
Willis, by criticizing my work without have spent any time reading the papers first, has acted exactly in the same way of Gleick.
The best that everybody here can do to help Willis, it to rebut him by properly accusing him to have lost his integrity by his behavior, and that to restore such intergrity he needs to apologize without if or but.
Personally I see a 71-72yr temperature signal since a peak at c.1868:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2gl/from:1860
Astronomical analysis of such a cycle would come to a very different conclusion, especially if all four Jovian bodies are considered.
MAVukcevic says:
March 14, 2012 at 1:15 am
“Astronomy deals with precise numbers: 62 will not do for a 60 year cycle.”
Finite data record length can cause apparent shifting of the peak in a spectral estimate, but that requires a longer explanation than I care to give here. The difference between these is 3%. Estimation of the central location of a peak is not likely to be that precise.
Also, if the signal is driving a resonance with a slightly different natural frequency, the resonant peak may be the main one.
“As you can see the GISP spectrum… has 57.6 and 61.5…”
Splitting of lines in spectral estimation is a well known occurrence. It can happen even when the actual underlying signal is unimodal. This is just one of the phantoms that can emerge if you do not do a proper spectral analysis. As I tried to explain to Willis, there are many subtleties to spectral estimation which would take several chapters, if not an entire book, to explain, but he wants it all condensed into a blog post.
I will explain line splitting a little. The stochastic nature of the data means that an apparent (but spurious) amplitude modulation can appear. As any student with basic knowledge of trigonometry should know, a sinusoid which is amplitude modulated by another sinusoid is equal to the sum of two sinusoids. If the first sinusoid has a frequency f, and the second is df, then there will be apparent harmonics at f+df, and f-df. But, they are not necessarily real. Example: cos(theta)*cos(dtheta) = 0.5*cos(theta-dtheta) + 0.5*cos(theta+dtheta).
There are also finite data window effects. You can find more info on spectral line splitting in power spectrum estimation by performing a search, e.g., like this.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 14, 2012 at 8:06 am
“Just be patient to see the development of the theory.”
I will wait and see what develops. And, I will spend the intervening time reading your publications so that I can comment and critique knowledgeably.
Bart says: March 14, 2012 at 10:57 am
Bart is right about the splitting of the spectral peaks. A modulated 60-year cycle will results is two spectral peaks symmetric to the 60 year cycle, because that is how power spectra would interpret the data. In fact, if we use vukceviv graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GISP2spec.htm
we find two large peaks at 54.4 and 67.2 years. If these two peaks represent a splitted cycle, the central cycle would be at
2/(1/54.4+1/67.2) = 60.13 years
which is the 60 year cycle, we are talking about.
Because the astronomical cycles are not rigorous single-harmonics and the climate system add its own chaotic response to the 60 year forcing, and GISP2 record is not a global surface temperature records but a very local one which also presents all internal local weather variability of the system and many other problems, by using this long record a spectral splitting may not be unreasonable.
In any case, the issues are discussed in my papers, in particular when I summarize the scientific litterature about the 60 year cycle during the Holocene and during the last 1000 years, that people like Vukcevic and Willis are invited to read.
@Nick: Looks to me now that your patience shattered the storm troopers….
The bottom construction of the 60 year cycle is sound as rock….for
building the upper construction, i.e. calculations on how cyclic forces pull/push
exactly at which day/year and how much [in miles/km] at the Earth’s orbit
to produce the noticable 0.4 C cyclic staircase shape in centennial
temp development….
All in the bag already…..as I wrote before…..well done…..
JS
Dr. Scafetta
& Bart
Amplitude modulation with sidebands (term I used in my previous post) not only that is well known, but it is part and parcel of the everyday radio transmission practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideband
You need to learn more about actual physical content of such processes and there is a whole science to it (sideband transmission engineering).
It was recognition of these cross-modulation patterns which enabled me to devise the SSN formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
within 2-3 days of the first ever seeing sunspot cycle train in my daughters school project.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 14, 2012 at 11:51 am
that people like Vukcevic and Willis are invited to read.
I do not need to read your work, for simple reason that is coming nowhere close to explaining how the sun and the Earth climate change are connected.
I worked it out nearly two years ago, and if you haven’t seen the graph for the North Atlantic Precursor than I suggest have a good look at:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTC.htm
Not much reading required, just study the graphs, it is all there.
MAVukcevic says: March 14, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Ok, Vukcevic. Do not read, that is OK. But do not criticize too. The two things go together.
About your graph, write a decent paper and try to publish it in a journal. It may be important.
MAVukcevic says: March 14, 2012 at 1:23 pm
In fact, if you do not read my papers first, you cannot know whether they addrees the issue of whether they come or not “close to explaining how the sun and the Earth climate change are connected.”
Of course I am also talking about those mechanisms (modulation of the cloud cover etc), but you do not get it because you do not read the papers. But talk, talk and talk….
Joachim Seifert says:
March 14, 2012 at 12:41 pm
“The bottom construction of the 60 year cycle is sound as rock..”
Hardly, a 60yr cycle will only run two or three steps before it fizzles out. Try going from 1690 (very cold) in 60yr steps forward, it has lost it by 1870. There is no logic to three consecutive synodic periods of Jupiter and Saturn producing a 60yr cycle. Draw a 60yr sign wave and plot the three ~20yr J/S conjuncts on it, and it becomes apparent that if every third conjunct is on the 60yr wave peak, then the other two will be below the zero line. Explain that, how does one conjunct every 60yrs makes it hot and the other two make it cooler ?
To Ulrich:
There are 2 distinct cycles: The minor cycle, due to the 3-body gravitation
and interaction of the body Sun, then Earth, then Jup/Sat as third; maximum
effect 0.4’C and recurring over 1,000’s of years….
Scroll up the comments: it is superimposed on the large cycle, completely
different in its origin.The other, the major cycle has the present lenght of 790
years, and amplifies into the future glacial with a value of 17.88 years per full
period……
The cycle is transparently calculated in lit: ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4 on the
GERMAN Amazon.de
Both cycles interact with partial/entire addition/subtraction…….and you will get
the correct values….. If you take just the minor and try to mathematically extend
it over centuries without a heuristic grasp…. futile…
In any case, it seems trhat Warmist nonsense did not stick with you…..
Therefore: Understanding both natural cycles in full is the key to climate
science…..
…. Warmists will have lost in a few years, when natural cycles [and of course
the continuing cooling of climate, as the cycles clearly prove] hit the public
interest… 3 more cold winters and people are much more open to natural
cycles as today…
Cheers
JS
modulation of the cloud cover etc
Cloud modulation and many of the other et ceteras are not causes but the consequences of the climate change. I doubt that anyone can understand temperature changes without deep and detailed understanding what is going on in the North Atlantic. To climb the climate change ladder good advice is to start from the ground level up. People like Lindzen & co stumbling through the cloud cover minutiae and the CO2 feedbacks quandary are just chasing their own tails.
MAVukcevic says: March 14, 2012 at 2:27 pm
“Cloud modulation and many of the other et ceteras are not causes but the consequences of the climate change.”
Ok Vukcevic, there exists a large scientific literature that claims otherwise, but you do not know it because you do not read; you just talk, talk and talk…..
The issue is currently debated.
I am among those who claim that there exists a relatively strong cloud feedback to astronomical forcing regulated by solar/astronomical oscillations, and I base my conviction on my studies and on my reading of the scientific litterature.
Of course the cloud system also responds to purely terrestrial phenomena as claimed by the IPCC models that however do not agree with the data nor reproduce the correct cycles.
So, there is a contribution of both phenomena.
Ulric Lyons says:
March 14, 2012 at 1:46 pm
There is no logic to three consecutive synodic periods of Jupiter and Saturn producing a 60yr cycle. Draw a 60yr sign wave and plot the three ~20yr J/S conjuncts on it, and it becomes apparent that if every third conjunct is on the 60yr wave peak, then the other two will be below the zero line. Explain that, how does one conjunct every 60yrs makes it hot and the other two make it cooler ?
At least you understand the origin of the 60 year cycle.
If people would read Nicola’s paper they would see he measures the distance between Earth and Jupiter/Saturn. There is a 60 year cycle in this distance brought about from the 3 synodic repeats. This is also seen clearly when looking at the Sun/Jupiter distance via JPL data comparing perihelion/aphelion distances, the same 60 year cycle is evident.
Nicola only speculates on the mechanism involved in the modulation of cloud cover/ocean cycles and leaves the topic for future research. More can be found in my article.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/233
Joachim Seifert says:
March 14, 2012 at 4:45 pm
“There are 2 distinct cycles: The minor cycle, due to the 3-body gravitation
and interaction of the body Sun, then Earth, then Jup/Sat as third; maximum
effect 0.4′C and recurring over 1,000′s of years….”
That is just waffle. You are not going to get a sign wave or saw tooth 60yr signal out of three Ju/Sa synodic periods with or without Earth. There is no 790yr cycle, 22 Sa/Ne synods is 789.125yrs but nothing else coincides with that period so there is no reason for it to stand out as a cycle.
With a competent understanding of planetary effects on solar activity, one can plot which months or even weeks will be colder in a given winter ahead: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/05/suns-magnetics-coming-alive-again/#comment-386968
One or two cycles is far too simplistic.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 14, 2012 at 5:53 pm
“At least you understand the origin of the 60 year cycle.”
No, I understand there is no reason for three 20yr sign waves to turn into a 60yr sine wave. Willis quite rightly has the same reservation too. I`m not even happy about a 60yr pattern in the temperature record, it looks more like 71/72yrs to me, which makes a lot more sense astronomically.
to Ulrich:
This post was enormously rich and produced really good insights….even Willis,
which is rarely the case, had to throw in the towel this time……
The post is almost at its end now and voila, here you come along, and instead
of having learned a lot about cosmic cycles with climate relevance….
no, nothing learned…… you just throw CO2-Warmist BS into the post….not
even worth a single letter of reply…..
Mind Warmism/Alarmism hide/hate cosmic cycles because those would
reduce/eliminate the GHG effect…. and you either just repeat Warmist
BS slogans [“NO CYCLES!] or are confused on cycles matter, applying
rudimentary “mathematics” of your gusto, explaining nothing and trying to
feel important…
This has no value…. sorry.
Cheers….
Ulric Lyons says:
March 14, 2012 at 6:58 pm
No, I understand there is no reason for three 20yr sign waves to turn into a 60yr sine wave. Willis quite rightly has the same reservation too.
I have clearly laid out the actual observed distance variations that occur in a 60 year cycle. This item is not up for discussion, it is fact proven via JPL. If yourself and Willis refuse to acknowledge the facts there is no point in further discussion.
MAVukcevic says:
March 14, 2012 at 1:05 pm
“It was recognition of these cross-modulation patterns which enabled me to devise the SSN formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
within 2-3 days of the first ever seeing sunspot cycle train in my daughters school project.”
The SSN data is proportional to the absolute value of a process which alternatingly emanates energy from the Northern and Southern solar hemispheres. The major modes can be modeled as shown here, being two resonant systems driven by random noise. The natural frequencies of these dominant modes have corresponding periods of about P1 = 20 and P2 = 23.6 years.
The SSN squared PSD therefore displays peaks at frequencies associated with periods of P2*P1/(P2+P1) = 10.8 years, P2*P1/(P2-P1) = 131 years, P1/2 = 10 years, and P2/2 = 11.8 years.
Simulated outputs of the model show behavior very similar to actual SSN data. In these plots, we see the same type of random amplitude and phase modulation as observed in the real world data. It is this type of variation which accounts for the descrepancies between your static model and the observations.
If I had time to complete this analysis, I would use the SSN squared values as observables for a Kalman Filter, run the data backwards and forwards through it to initialize the states properly, and then I could project the SSN forward in time with error bounds produced by the Kalman Filter formalism.
But, this is a genuine instance of a well defined, amplitude modulated signal with prominently separated frequency peaks in a bimodal distribution. Your spectrum here… it’s just lines, barely better than a list of numbers. There’s no insight into how you picked these values or what a well prepared spectrum would look like.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 14, 2012 at 7:08 pm
“I have clearly laid out the actual observed distance variations that occur in a 60 year cycle.”
So there is a little 60yr wobble on the 20yr sine wave: http://www.landscheidt.info/images/scafetta_60.png
it`s not a 60yr cycle in it`s own right, and Neptune and Uranus will only come into a similar position relative to the Ju/Sa conjuncts at the Jose cycle period.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 14, 2012 at 7:20 pm
No cigar…
cheers, Ulric.
Ulric Lyons says: March 14, 2012 at 6:58 pm
The 60-year cycle is quite simple to get in multiple ways because it is implicit in the geometry itself of the combined orbit of Jupiter and Saturn. So, every function containing the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn will also present a 60-year cycle. If you use some observable this 60-year cycle looks small, if you use some other observable it looks big.
In my papers the issues are explained in details with alternative physical observables. In my papers the logic is to identify the frequency of these cycles, and for this purpose any function of the orbit is good. The purpose was not to identifies the actual function that more directly relates to the climate oscillations.
Willis and all those who, like him, arrogantly and dishonestly think that it is ok to criticize my work (as well as the work of anybody else) without reading it first and without understanding its logic and philosophy, continuously make the same mistake.
Their superficial look, misled by their poor imagination and poor knowledge of physics, fall only on the relative amplitude of the cycles, while the purpose in the paper was to look at the frequencies and their phases. In fact, the relative amplitudes change from observable to observable, but the frequencies do not: they are the invariable measures. Think at two different instruments that play the same music. And that is what it is happening to the climate system, it is syncronized to the astromonical frequencies; showing this syncronization was the purpose of my past papers.
Some my figures are in Geoff web-site clarify some of the issue showing alternative observables constructed with the different physical functions
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/233
More details on the issue require you to wait the development of the theory: be patient.
Ulric Lyons says:
March 14, 2012 at 7:31 pm
So there is a little 60yr wobble on the 20yr sine wave: http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/scafetta_60.png
it`s not a 60yr cycle in it`s own right, and Neptune and Uranus will only come into a similar position relative to the Ju/Sa conjuncts at the Jose cycle period.
That little wobble you now observe translates to hundreds of thousands of kilometers, but there are two distinctly different 60 year cycles in Nicola’s graphs A & B.
A is the Earth to Jupiter/Saturn distance.
B is the variation in solar velocity which is directly related to solar angular momentum.
The solar velocity varies 100% between the inner and outer loop. The further the Sun is pushed from the SSB the faster it goes. It is fastest when all 4 outer planets are in conjunction every 172 years or so. Over the last several hundred years there has been extra excursions of AM outside of the 4 planet conjunction that are responsible for the 60 year modulation in velocity. This occurs on a J/S/U and J/S/N conjunctions, but the observed 60 year modulation would probably not hold up over thousands of years as there is no Jose 178.8 period, the position of the outer four planets is changing and only repeats every 4628 years.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/226
So there is no doubt about a quasi 60 year astronomical cycle. Cycle A is perpetual and cycle B would change over thousands of years.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 14, 2012 at 3:07 am
I am certainly glad that you seem to be as dedicated to transparency as I am. But you operate under a serious misapprehension.
If you will examine my words that you have quoted, you will not see your name anywhere in there, because I was not referring to you. In fact, your name is not mentioned in my entire comment. Truth is, sometimes it’s not only not all about you … it’s not about you at all.
If you have inferred that I was referring to you, I assure you I was not. I was referring to Leif’s long refusal to cite where his phase and frequency figures came from, before he finally cited the paper of his that contained the information I needed. I also discussed my interactions with Phil Jones and my FOI request.
But you? I hate to burst your bubble, but you weren’t even on my radar when I wrote that. As far as I know, I have neither asked for nor been refused any data by you. At the time I wrote my comment, I was totally unaware of your ideas about transparency. As I said above, I am glad to learn that your openness regarding your work is commendable.
All the best,
w.
MAVukcevic says:
March 14, 2012 at 4:26 am
Sorry for my lack of clairity. I agree totally, the longer lunar cycles may well be important. My objection is to Scafetta’s claim that the 9.1 year cycle is ≈ (2X + Y)/4 where X and Y are long-term lunar components. That seems like special pleading, just like his special “detrending” formula with four free parameters.
w.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 14, 2012 at 6:59 am
“No time to loose [sic] with buffoons” actually sums it up quite well. You are the man who claimed above that the explanation of the 60 year cycle was the synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn … when the synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn is actually 19.87 years … and you think I’m the buffoon?
Nicola, obviously you are unwilling to answer my questions about the cycles. To disguise and distract attention from the fact that you don’t want to answer the questions, you ask me to osculate various parts of your anatomy, to apologize to you for doubting you now and having doubted you in the past, plus apologize to Anthony, my co-author Craig Loehl, and every reader of this blog, before you will deign to answer my questions … like that’s gonna happen.
In other words, you’ve put up what you know are impossible conditions that I have to fulfill for you to answer a simple question … not wise.
I’m not sure if you understand what you are doing, Dr. Scafetta. You seem to misapprehend the public arena and the rules that obtain here in the world of public science. We’re not your students. You can’t give us grades. Here’s how it works. If you refuse to answer serious scientific questions, regardless of whether you think the person asking the questions is “arrogant” or “fat-brained”, you’ve lost the discussion. Everyone sees you not answering. You can bluster all you want about how I’m a terrible man, but so what? Everyone knew from the start that I’m a reformed cowboy who doesn’t mince words, my congenital jerkaciousness has been read into the official record. What does that have to do with a serious question about the 60 year cycle?
Because regardless of whether I’m naughty or nice, you are refusing to answer serious scientific questions about your work. If you continue to do that, you lose—it’s that simple.
So let me invite you to climb down off of your high horse, stop dodging the questions by demanding impossible apologies that you know full well I’m never, ever going to give you, and ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS. It’s either that or you lose the discussion, my friend.
Your choice.
Now, I asked about the origin of the 60 year cycle in your Figure 5b. I’ve looked everywhere in the paper and I can’t find the derivation, how you calculated it. I don’t find it anywhere in the barycentric data. That data has the 15-20 year cycle you also show in Figure 5b. But whence cometh the 60 year cycle you have plotted? Perhaps I’m stupid, maybe it’s right there and I’m not seeing it.
But if you refuse to point out how you calculated that 60 year cycle, you lose the debate. At that point it’s just some meaningless cycle on a page, with no provenance.
This is modern science as practiced here in the public arena, Dr. Scafetta. It’s not pretty. It’s a blood sport, because I’m trying to show your ideas are incorrect, and you are doing the same regarding my ideas. It’s rough and tumble, it’s a scientific street fight. So if you wish for any but your sycophants to believe you, I strongly encourage you to put on your big boy pants, grab your left nut for luck, come out swinging, and answer the freakin’ questions about the 60 year cycles … that’s how science advances.
Or not. It’s up to you, fall on your own sword or continue the discussion, I’m easy either way.
w.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 14, 2012 at 7:20 pm
My goodness, I don’t post for a day and you think I’ve thrown in the towel?
You might consider your rush to your harsh and incorrect judgement of my actions, and what that implies about your scientific neutrality …
w.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 14, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Can someone please translate this into English for me? What does it mean that “every function” that contains the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn will present a 60 year cycle.
Is that supposed to be three synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycles of 19.87 years? And if so, is there also a 40 and 80 and 120 and 160 year cycle in Jupiter/Saturn as well?
I still don’t get where the 60 year cycle is coming from. Dr. Scafetta seems to think it is in “every function”, in different sizes, so you just pick the one you need … can anyone here explain that? What am I missing?
w.
PS—Please don’t offer an alternate explanation for the 60 year cycle. I’m interested for the moment in trying to understand what Dr. Scafetta is saying.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 14, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Could you please not do that? Please don’t just wave your hands at “Nicola’s paper” as though it were clear which one you are referring to. I find nothing in Dr. Scafetta’s paper “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications” describing measuring the distance between Earth and Jupiter/Saturn … nor am I even clear what that means. That’s like measuring the distance between San Francisco and Miami/Chicago .. what does that mean?
I do find this unclear statement about the origin of the 60 year cycle
But that contradicts your claim that it is the variation in the distance between Earth and Jupiter/Saturn …
And then Scafetta contradicts himself by saying
So which is it? Distance Earth to Jupiter/Saturn, “combined orbits” of Jupiter and Saturn, or as found in the SCMSS records?
In any case, could you provide a citation to where Dr. Scafetta describes measuring the distance between Earth and Jupiter/Saturn? And (hopefully) an explanation of what that has to do with the barycentric cycles?
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:06 am
[snip . . this is an intemperate outburst unworthy of you , please restate your position without being abusive, thanks . . kbmod]
Willies,
“Can someone please translate this into English for me? What does it mean that “every function” that contains the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn will present a 60 year cycle”
I have responded you many times.
If you do not understand it is because of your poor knowledge of physics and mathematics, and your unwillingness to read to educate yourself.
When you will learn to not behave like a villain and a buffoon, I may respond some of your questions.
You need to apologize, there is nothing else that you can do now.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:34 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 15, 2012 at 3:06 am
[snip . . this is an intemperate outburst unworthy of you , please restate your position without being abusive, thanks . . kbmod]
Maybe so, but Willis’s attitude and statements are untenable and not worthy of his position here. He is skimming data and then going off half cocked. All the data he requires is upthread. Trying to criticize a learned scientist without availing himself with the required knowledge is poor form and he should apologize for his behavior.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 14, 2012 at 8:33 pm
“A is the Earth to Jupiter/Saturn distance.”
That is of no consequence.
“The solar velocity varies 100% between the inner and outer loop. The further the Sun is pushed from the SSB the faster it goes. It is fastest when all 4 outer planets are in conjunction every 172 years or so.”
You must be imagining things, as all 4 Jovian bodies do not conjunct every 172yrs (or so) ever.
“Over the last several hundred years there has been extra excursions of AM outside of the 4 planet conjunction that are responsible for the 60 year modulation in velocity. This occurs on a J/S/U and J/S/N conjunctions..”
OK if that`s your measure, that occurred in 1702, 1762, nothing at 1822, 1881, 1941. and nothing in 2000, it`s far too irregular.
“..as there is no Jose 178.8 period, the position of the outer four planets is changing and only repeats every 4628 years.”
They return pretty well at 2224 and 2403 years too (i.e. 179yrs apart). From a given configuration of all four bodies, a single 179yr step backwards or forwards will return them to roughly the same relative positions.
Ulric Lyons says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:51 am
Geoff Sharp says:
March 14, 2012 at 8:33 pm
“A is the Earth to Jupiter/Saturn distance.”
————————
That is of no consequence.
Maybe not to you, but I recall you subscribe to Ceres having a climate impact.
“The solar velocity varies 100% between the inner and outer loop. The further the Sun is pushed from the SSB the faster it goes. It is fastest when all 4 outer planets are in conjunction every 172 years or so.”
——————————
You must be imagining things, as all 4 Jovian bodies do not conjunct every 172yrs (or so) ever.
Such a ludicrous statement, the alignments don’t have to be perfect. This is simple school boy stuff that eludes you. N/U conjunct every 171.4 years, J/S are in that same position within 10 years either side of that conjunction. Think about the solar AM instead of drawing a straight line thru the planets.
“Over the last several hundred years there has been extra excursions of AM outside of the 4 planet conjunction that are responsible for the 60 year modulation in velocity. This occurs on a J/S/U and J/S/N conjunctions..”
—————————————–
OK if that`s your measure, that occurred in 1702, 1762, nothing at 1822, 1881, 1941. and nothing in 2000, it`s far too irregular.
Once again the alignments dont have to be perfect, the combined angular momentum at the Sun is what is important. You seem to argue for arguments sake. It would be good if you could offer something constructive to the conversation.
“..as there is no Jose 178.8 period, the position of the outer four planets is changing and only repeats every 4628 years.”
————————————————-
They return pretty well at 2224 and 2403 years too (i.e. 179yrs apart). From a given configuration of all four bodies, a single 179yr step backwards or forwards will return them to roughly the same relative positions.
Rubbish, you obviously did not read the link I provided (this seems to be common problem with you and Willis). I have provided solid data that refutes your position and once again you provide nonsensical statements, anyone looking at a solar system viewer as I showed would agree. Provide screen shots (as I have done) that shows the 4 outer planets in the same position at 2224 and 2403 years and then provide the same every 179 years.
You really need to get over the fact Carl offered me his blog over you.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 14, 2012 at 8:13 pm
“The 60-year cycle is quite simple to get in multiple ways because it is implicit in the geometry itself of the combined orbit of Jupiter and Saturn. So, every function containing the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn will also present a 60-year cycle. If you use some observable this 60-year cycle looks small, if you use some other observable it looks big.”
So at every third conjunct of Jupiter and Saturn, they have both completed close to a whole number of orbits, but to gain any physical traction or meaning out of this, you would have to show that there is something special about them conjoining in Aries rather than Leo or Sagittarius. And then there is the problem of the the conjuncts precessing over 854yrs which kind of messes that consideration up some what. I fear this has all come about by someone thinking that the 60yr Chinese natal astrology cycle has some kind of bearing on Earth`s climate ?
Geoff Sharp says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:32 am
“Such a ludicrous statement, the alignments don’t have to be perfect. This is simple school boy stuff that eludes you. N/U conjunct every 171.4 years, J/S are in that same position within 10 years either side of that conjunction. Think about the solar AM instead of drawing a straight line thru the planets.”
So if I start at 1306 when all 4 Jovian`s are in conjunct, then go 171.4 years ahead to 1477, the only way to get Ju and Sa back in the same position (roughly) is by going an extra 8yrs ahead, i.e. 171+8=179, problem solved, it was 179yrs all along !
“Provide screen shots (as I have done) that shows the 4 outer planets in the same position at 2224 and 2403 years and then provide the same every 179 years.”
Check here at 1306AD, + 2224 = 3530AD, +179 = 3709AD:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
No flies on me.
“You really need to get over the fact Carl offered me his blog over you.”
I`m sure Carl and Ted are both turning in their graves over your incompetence.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 15, 2012 at 7:32 am
“…then provide the same every 179 years.”
You should know that with more than one 179yr step, Uranus will fall out of position with the other 3 rapidly, that`s why I specified above a single 179yr step backwards or forwards.
Ulric Lyons says: March 15, 2012 at 7:40 am
In my papers I am talking about a geometrical constructions of the correlations.
If you want more you need to wait the development of the theory.
People like you have a very wrong understanding of science. They think that science starts with the “mechanism”; it does not. That is metaphysics, not physics.
Natural science starts with the observation and remains in the realm of phenomenological experience.
For millennia people have observed a correlation between lunar phases and tides and have reasonably concluded that the moon was causing the tides in some mysterious way and they have built models to describe the phenomenon. Today we call this mysterious entity “gravity” and we can quantify it with Newton’s equations of mechanics (but when people want to predict tides for practical purpose, they do not use Newton, they use Kelvin’s development of the ancient astrological theories based on harmonics as my model is) . Nevertheless, despite Newton, what the “mechanism” of gravity is, is still a mystery. The observations, however, remain as facts.
When people ask for a “mechanism” what they are really doing is a quite different thing than what their metaphysical way of thinking let them to believe.
What they are doing is simply asking to “relate”, or better “reduce” the proposed novel theory to other older and already established theories usually already reported in textbooks. This “unification” work and the reduction of all theories to a unique super theory is usually quite complex and needs its own long time, and nowhere in science this process is already completed.
So, if you want to know how this planetary theory may agree with other theories of microscopic physics you need to wait the full development of the theory. Up to that point, the macroscopic theory is fully sustained by the observations.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 15, 2012 at 3:06 am
Nicola Scafetta says: March 14, 2012 at 8:13 pm
“The 60-year cycle is quite simple to get in multiple ways because it is implicit in the geometry itself of the combined orbit of Jupiter and Saturn. So, every function containing the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn will also present a 60-year cycle. If you use some observable this 60-year cycle looks small, if you use some other observable it looks big.”
I still don’t get where the 60 year cycle is coming from. Dr. Scafetta seems to think it is in “every function”, in different sizes, so you just pick the one you need … can anyone here explain that? What am I missing?
Please don’t offer an alternate explanation for the 60 year cycle. I’m interested for the moment in trying to understand what Dr. Scafetta is saying.”
Well, don’t kill me. I possibly have an explanation for the cycle N.S. have argued: “ … detected natural harmonics (period of approximately: 9.1, 10-11, 20 and 60 years) which are based on astronomical cycles … “.
If one is analysing (after Fourier) the hadcrut3 temperature spectra beginning with 1850 AD, then there is a result which show all his ‘cycles’ in question inclusive a ~60 year peak.
But as argued several times, it is necessary for known reasons to backing these results with other temperature reconstructions. This can be done for example with the reconstruction from Anders Moberg, and this is an important point, because his spectum includes an time interval form the year 1 AD to present.
A comparison shows that the spectrum from A. Moberg shows many frequencies but not clear the cycles in question. This leads to idea that because of the short time range of 150 years for the hadcrut3 data it is doubtful to take an analysed ~60 year cycle serious.
It is possible that his ‘harmonic’ claim is based on an idea of ‘higher harmonics of fundamental frequency, but I don’t know.
If there is a (maybe correct) ’feeling’ by N.S. that the reasons for the terrestrial climate are based on astronomical cycles, but then it is necessary to find the relevant periods in the solar system as they available for all, and to show the periods by name. Since that is not done, it is senseless to ride a phantom.
There is a bonus. Fitting some 6 relevant solar tide functions in magnitude, a spectrum can be generated between 1 AD to 2000 AD. A FFT analysis of this spectrum can be compared per example with the spectra of A. Moberg et al. It seems that as well in the Moberg spectra but also in the solar tide spectra are similarities, but not ~60 year cycle.
The work It is similar to that, what N. Scafetta has worked out, but there is a fundamental difference in the method: The 6 (up to 11) relevant solar tide functions are taken from real synodic data from real known objects, each one who likes to verify the calculation is free to do that. There are no secrets in the method and no phantom cycles.
Here is the graph.
V.
I haven’t read Nicola’s papers thoroughly yet, so I might be opening myself to that criticism, but I want to point out a couple of things. In one of Willis’ comments, he stated:
The Sun is in free fall. It feels no effects from the planets except for tidal forces generated by the gravity gradients induced by the planets. These gradients are terrifically small due to the large distances involved, and the inverse cube dependence of the gradients.
Now, I’ve tried to keep an open mind with the thought that, perhaps the very small effects could be amplified by a resonance in the Earth’s climate system. My inchoate thought was that perhaps the small input could excite the resonant mode at ~60 years, resulting in an amplification of the effect over many eons. But, I think that this resonance would be more excited by random forcing. I guessed that perhaps the small input could entrain the random response, sort of in the way a phase locked loop entrains a voltage controlled oscillator output to discriminate phase variations. But, this would take some very special nonlinear dynamics, and I was skeptical before I thought it out.
Having thought it out, and run some simple simulations, I do not think this is the case. I think there is simply a resonant mode in the Earth’s climate system which is excited by random inputs, and the output drifts in phase such that it is certain, at times, to match up in phase with any steady ~60 year oscillation. I.E., the correlation between the ~60 year Jupiter/Saturn excitation and the climate oscillation is likely purely happenstance.
Let me show some plots to illustrate.Here, I show the system I simulated. It is a resonant system driven by a sympathetic 60 year cyclic input, and the same system with the same initial conditions driven in the same way but with and added overwhelming random forcing. The outputs are shown here. The random input to the second system dominates. The phase drifts randomly. Sometimes, it is in phase with the deterministic input, and sometimes, it is not. It’s just the luck of the draw.
Right now (and yes, Nicola, I will read your papers when I have the chance), I just do not see planetary phenomena being large enough to be significant. I think it is a resonance in the climate system which is simply being driven randomly. At times, such a randomly driven oscillation is certain to match up with the phase of an arbitrary sinusoid with (roughly) the same frequency as the natural frequency of the resonance. We just happen to be in an era when the phases match.
Actually, I uploaded the wrong second plot. I had wanted to show the result in steady state. Here is the plot I wanted to show. This is after 100,000 years of simulation time. Note how the phase is synchronous near the beginning, but drifts away over the 10,000 year time interval shown.
Bart says: March 14, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Hi Bart
Re:SSN
Some 3-4 years ago Dr.S and one or two other people (not to mention my considerable efforts) have tried to get a better result, there notable improvement but at the expense of the current simplicity. Finally I decided to keep it simple.
Re: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GISP2spec.htm
The program is specifically developed for investigating spectrums of short bursts of sampled signals. Although isn’t based on the Fourier, its main limitation is that input should have no more than 1024 data points else starts behaving as the Fourier type analyser. If you point a link at data set, I can run it for you and then you can compare with whatever else you may have access to. Dr. S was a bit sceptical to start, I run 4-5 data sets for him, finally he only objected to the 1024 input limit.
Ulric Lyons says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:36 am
You should know that with more than one 179yr step, Uranus will fall out of position with the other 3 rapidly, that`s why I specified above a single 179yr step backwards or forwards.
That is exactly what I displayed in the link provided.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/226
You previously fell for the same trap as Jose by not progressing by enough cycles, the same applies to your 2224 and 2403 cycles with one cycle not being enough, multiply by 3 and see how you go. The solar system probably never goes back to the same position but 4628 years is the closest I have found. But you now see multiples of 179 years do not work which means, less flies on you. This gives some insight to why the Holocene varies so much.
Your comment re Carl and Ted is below the belt, but expected considering your position. Let us know when you actually bring something new to the table, so far it has only been snake oil weather predictions involving Ceres.
Ulric Lyons says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:36 am
You should know that with more than one 179yr step, Uranus will fall out of position with the other 3 rapidly, that`s why I specified above a single 179yr step backwards or forwards.
That is exactly what I displayed in the link provided.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/226
You previously fell for the same trap as Jose by not progressing by enough cycles, the same applies to your 2224 and 2403 cycles with one cycle not being enough, multiply by 3 and see how you go. The solar system probably never goes back to the same position but 4628 years is the closest I have found. But you now see multiples of 179 years do not work which means, less flies on you. This gives some insight to why the Holocene varies so much.
Your comment re Carl and Ted is below the belt, but expected considering your position. Let us know when you actually bring something new to the table, so far it has only been snake oil weather predictions involving Ceres.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 15, 2012 at 2:28 pm
“But you now see multiples of 179 years do not work which means,”
No I`ve known that for many years.
I never mentioned repeating the 2403 or 2224 periods, they add together to make the full 4627yr cycle.
There are 16 solar activity cycles in a Jose cycle. The first five take exactly 10 years each, so with the sixth cycle we have the first S cycle (60 year cycle) of the Jose cycle. This first S cycle in the Jose cycle is what got us out of the Maunder Minimum. This leaves 120 years remaining, enough to complete two S cycles and 12 solar activity cycles. The problem is that after the first S cycle there are only 10 cycles remaining in the Jose cycle. Therefore, solar activity is guaranteed to get out-of-phase with barycentric motion at some point in the remaining 120 years of the Jose cycle, producing a Grand Minimum.
LETS SUM UP THE PRESENT STATE TO THIS HOUR:
—-Amazing is that Warmists and 60-year-Cycle Deniers have joined…but .to no avail
….because
—-Astronomic cycles are PERPETUAL:
(1) 60 year cycles exist in the GISP2 Holocene Power Spectrum for over 10,000
years (see Davis & Bolling), are
(2) accounted for by Nick Scafetta with observations since 1850. and
(3) MUST EXIST therefore before 1850….
IN SUMMA: Denial is nothing less than obstinance, not wanting to learn…..
….. clear is that cycles are NEW KNOWLEDGE NOW quantifying their profound
effects onto climate….
All DENIERS are just old HORSES, which, as the saying goes, can’t be taught
new knowledge……
……Lets therefore spread the joyous message: Almost every month, a new O-18
study from different parts of the world covering the past 2,000 years
appears on the market……. and 60 year cycles have to be visible within
those new studies…. and must contain climate forcing 60-year cycles of Davis
and Bolling…..
Therefore, all CYCLE DENIERS will have to throw in the towel and hide
themselves soon…
…We just have the better cards, Warmists and fellow Cycle-Deniers are
without doubt the dinosaurs of science….and will soon die out, the clock is
on Count-down….
Joyous Cheers….
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:31 pm
LETS SUM UP THE PRESENT STATE TO THIS HOUR:
—-Amazing is that Warmists and 60-year-Cycle Deniers have joined…but .to no avail
….because
—-Astronomic cycles are PERPETUAL:
I’ve only seen a couple of feeble attempts to deny the ~60 year climate cycle in this thread. Any intelligent viewer can see the ~60 year climate cycle by inspection. One has to not want to see it to miss it.
But, where the cycle comes from, that is another thing altogether. As I have made clear, it can easily be the result of a resonance intrinsic to the Earth’s physical environment driven by random forcing, and such a phenomenon will occasionally be in phase with just about any process with a similar frequency. No appeal to weakly coupled astronomical phenomena is required to establish consistency of this hypothesis with all the observations. Consistency is not proof, and neither is Occam’s Razor. But, I personally think this resonance hypothesis has more solid theoretical basis and is more likely to be correct.
To Bart:
We are talking here not about an esoterical, climate irrelevant 60 year cycle, but
of an significant astronomical cycle with an large effect of up to 0.4 ‘C as the
staircase shape of 19/20 Cty GMT measurements show……the steps
(CYCLE EFFECTS) are present in SST, AMO, and more you name it graphs……
The Warmists, until now, were given billions $ and 30 years to prove that the
CO2-Cause or other atmospheric CAUSES produce STEPWISE (cycle)
EFFECTS…. and utterly failed….
Let me repeat: You find 60 year cyclic EFFECTS (so-called “quasi-proof”) within
the atmosphere but they are not CAUSED by atmospheric action, there was enough
money and time spent on this idea….rubbish as the English would say…..
This strong 60-year astronomic cycle is the real new knowledge and we should be
grateful to real climate pioneers as NicK Scafetta….and better listen……
He is way above all Warmists, Cycle Deniers and (if you like): Cycle Minimizers…..
……and he/we are ahead of our times…..
we will see in our lifetime, I am 110% sure, that Warmists/Deniers/Minimizers will die
out in foreseeable future………
Be happy…. Cheers mate….
JS
“…more solid theoretical basis…”
By that, I mean the gravity gradients are just too small to have much of an impact, and what other way can we expect the planets to affect solar dynamics or the Earth’s climate directly?
Bart says:
March 15, 2012 at 9:47 am
Well, that’s odd. Now, I’m seeing the same plot in both places. Just thought I’d mention it in case anyone gets confused. These plots are adequate to show what I wanted to show, so I’m just going to leave it.
Bart says: March 15, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Joachim Seifert says: March 15, 2012 at 5:31 pm
“I’ve only seen a couple of feeble attempts to deny the ~60 year climate cycle in this thread. Any intelligent viewer can see the ~60 year climate cycle by inspection. One has to not want to see it to miss it.”
It looks evident to me too 🙂
An its importance is great.
I believe that my papers are quite important. A research done with great sacrifices from my side, I can ensure you.
Despite what a charlatan and a vulgar buffoon have said above without being able to disprove anything, the facts are the one that count at the end. I simply hope that everybody will understand the importance of this research for the good of humanity. And the facts speak loud.
thank you, for the interest, but unless something will truly require my comments, I will stop here.
About the charlatan and the vulgar buffoon of above, I would like to precise that I have no bad feeling against them, I just wish that they change their inappropriate behavior.
Joachim Seifert says: March 15, 2012 at 5:31 pm
(1) 60 year cycles exist in the GISP2 Holocene Power Spectrum for over 10,000 years (see Davis & Bolling), are (2) accounted for by Nick Scafetta with observations since 1850. and (3) MUST EXIST therefore before 1850….
No. A cycle has no existence in general, an existence can have a physical process were a geometry is involved.
Denial is nothing less than obstinance, not wanting to learn…..
Not in general. If there are stronger counter arguments as the given arguments it is practic science.
….. clear is that cycles are NEW KNOWLEDGE NOW quantifying their profound effects onto climate….
No. Correct is that a possible mechanism must not be shown if there is a strong correlation in geometry of real nature. Wegener has shown the continental drift without a mechanism because of the geometry from South America and Africa, and he was right.
What can be concluded is that every cycle with a prominent label in the science community has no existence in sciences, because no one ever has shown a geometry from real nature. Time [s,year] has no physical existence, because it is not an observable in physics; it is social term oft the society.
N. Scafetta has neither shown a geometry in the solar system nor a mechanism that processes the geometric cycles in the solar system.
V.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:44 am
“People like you have a very wrong understanding of science. They think that science starts with the “mechanism”; it does not. That is metaphysics, not physics.”
You have the wrong idea about me, I have spent years doing observational correlations in this very field. The problem here is not the “mechanisms” on how the physical forces impart their climatic impact over the said c.60yr cycle, but of the validity of the correlation itself, i.e. the question of: how does 5 orbits of Jupiter, and 2 orbits of Saturn, actually constitute a 60yr cycle with its positive peaks at the synods in 1940 and 2000 ? i.e. what makes those particular synods stand out against the other two at 1960 and 1980 ?
FWIW, it is all academic to me as I am definitely seeing a signal in the temperature data that is at least 70yrs.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 15, 2012 at 2:50 pm
There is a cycle that can be repeated many times, the King-Hele cycle. It comprises of 16 Ju/Sa synods, 7 Ur/Sa synods and 23 Ju/Ur synods. (317.722yrs)
7 K-H cycles is the 2224yr near Jovian return.
14 K-H plus an extra 179yrs is the 4627yrs Jovian cycle.
Ulric Lyons says: March 16, 2012 at 8:34 am
“60yr cycle with its positive peaks at the synods in 1940 and 2000 ? i.e. what makes those particular synods stand out against the other two at 1960 and 1980 ?”
As explained in the paper, in 1940 and 2000 the planets were closer to the sun than during the other two conjuctions. This implies stronger gravitational forcing on the sun, which responded with an increased activity which drived higher temperatures.
To Nick:
This quote: “”As explained in the paper….ff. “” is your great fundamental insight on
the cause/base of the 60 year cyclic climate change….and your grand contribution
to climate science …..well done…..
What is now left to do/ it has been done in the past weeks is/was
to define clear base numbers/explanations for the part following “”…the Sun, which
responded with…..”
I sent you some draft numbers some weeks ago and these are the ones for the
cyclic increasing/decreasing activities…..all clear by now, you will recognize it once
you will get the English text for this…..2012 will be the pivotal climate science year……
……the beginning of the end of AGW, coming in much faster than foreseen, just wait….
Saludos de JS
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 16, 2012 at 3:08 pm
“As explained in the paper, in 1940 and 2000 the planets were closer to the sun than during the other two conjuctions.”
So what went wrong when they were even closer in 1643 and 1702 ?
To Ulrich
Quote: “What went wrong in 1643 and 1702?
Thanks for these valuable dates. The 59 year cycles would then be:
1643-1702-1761-1820-1879-1938-1997-2056…. and then, according
to their shape, each divided into the first into “FLAT 40 years”, followed by
“STEP INCREASE 19 years” …
great….
Concerning the LIA: Nothing went wrong….ship is steaming on course, the
explanation is that “navigation conditions” are different between “bottoming
out centuries”(17 Cty), regular navigation conditions 18-20 Cty, and “top
wave plateau” conditions of the 21 Cty….
You cannot throw everything into one&only 60-year-cycle bucket…..because
there is one more major cause to it, for which you need my mentioned booklet….
because, the same you can see in Nick Scafetta’s comments, one cannot derive
a complex theme purely on blog sites, the background needs literature support…
Thanks anyway…great hint…..
JS
Ulric Lyons says: March 16, 2012 at 3:42 pm
“So what went wrong when they were even closer in 1643 and 1702 ?”
I know what appened in that period, but because the published papers do not deal with that specific issue, I do not think to be appropriate to comment the issue here. Please, wait that future research is published. Just be patient a little bit.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 16, 2012 at 5:03 pm
“You cannot throw everything into one&only 60-year-cycle bucket….”
Especially if no such bucket exists, try fit it here for example:
http://members.multimania.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/ceurvsjghcnupd.gif
Ulrich:
It is important to match observations to 60 year cycles…..how to do it….
….. this is the question…..we have plenty of time, every month there are new
Delta-O-18 studies out from different parts of the world, there exists not only
those meteorological data of yours quoted… we have CETs, BESTs, from almost
every European capital for 300 up to 400 year measurements…
……. The European values have to be substantially discounted…the way they are, they
appear to be too horizontal (the approach of Luedecke, Link and others doubting
temp increases…..and insisting on measuring “mistakes”….)
but we KNOW that 1. Northern Hemispheric values are exceeding the GMT, because
of the land MASS producing higher temps….. 2. The Southern hem. has lower temp
values, due to solar energy entering the huge water mass and good bye, until by
means of ocean flow they might/might not surface, see Jim HANSEN NASA GISS: The
LIA solar energy HIDES on the ocean bottom.)…
therefore: To compensate this NH/Land bias,
HadCRUT DEMONSTRATES a MIX for GMT NECESSARY to indicate proper
60 year temp cycles…….
3. in the LIA: temps had top summer time highs due to dry “meteorological high
pressure conditions with weeks without clouds, such as the recent Moscow summer
heat. (see burning of London…..).
…. winters were severe…but exceeding summer temps always prop average temp
level upward…..
I believe you know this about biased LIA temps already….
….. the question stands up why do you suggest 1 – 3 distorted data to me…..?
What is the point in it?
The only answer making sense to me is that you still go tainted with
Warmist BS, sorry to say so….otherwise, on the astronomical side, you
did some good contributions for the advance of science and deserve
recognition for what has to be recognized….
Free yourself from Warmism, join those who are ahead of their time and let
Hansen’s dinosaurs suffer their natural destination ….Its never too late….
Thanks anyway……
JS
Nicola, You haven’t shown enough of Hadcrut4. It looks like its turning cooling into warming http://www.real-science.com/hadcrut4-policy-based-evidence-making
Dr Scafetta, please can you clarify exactly how you obtained the +/- 0.1 C uncertainty range for the IPCC projections, did you estimate it from the SPM figure, or did you calculate it from the CMIP3 ensemble for SRES A1B itself (which IIRC you analyse in the supplementary material of your paper). I have downloaded these model runs, and they give a standard deviation closer to 1.7, so I would be keen to find the source of the discrepancy (I don’t consider estimating from a rather cluttered graph a very accurate method).
Joachim Seifert says:
March 16, 2012 at 6:34 pm
“The only answer making sense to me is that you still go tainted with
Warmist BS, sorry to say so….”
No it is going to cool again. It is just that my astronomical analogues indicate a return to a generally warmer period from 2025 to 2038 which is where the 60yr club says it will bottom out.
To Ulrich:
It seems that you have some calculations at hand, instead of only
adivinations…
Well, give some hints, any contributions to real science should always
be welcome…..
JS
dikranmarsupial says: March 17, 2012 at 9:01 am
“how you obtained the +/- 0.1 C uncertainty range for the IPCC projections, did you estimate it from the SPM figure?……I have downloaded these model runs, and they give a standard deviation closer to 1.7, so I would be keen to find the source of the discrepancy”
You should ask to the IPCC. Their figure for sure does not show a SD close to 1.7 C, which is 17 (seventeen) times larger than what they have depicted in their figures. I limited myself to use what the IPCC says.
But yo are right, if you use the absolute temperature values of the computer runs, that is what you may get.
Dr Scafetta, sorry that should have been 0.17C, rather than 1.7C, the variability in the models is high, but not that high! ;o)
I would however greatly appreciate a direct answer to my question, did you arrive at an estimate of 0.1C by measuring the graph in the SPM, or did you calculate it from the model runs (which you did download) or did you get it from some other source.
As far as I am aware, the IPCC do not “say” that the standard deviation is 0.1C, that is *your* estimate of the standard deviation based on a figure from the SPM, which is too rather cluttered in my opinion to be a reliable source for accurate estimation. The enlarged portion of the figure you provide above suggests that 0.1 is a significant under-estimate as there is clearly some grey area outside the lower of the two red horizontal lines. As the IPCC have made the model runs publicly available, it would seem more reasonable to take that as the definitive source of information on what the model projections do or do not say that is not explicitly stated in the report.
dikranmarsupial says: March 18, 2012 at 4:54 am
As I clearly said, my about +/- 0.1 C estimate is based on what the IPCC has claimed and depicted in his figures. You should ask the IPCC for your question about the discrepancy between your way to do the calculations and theirs. Probably they used a statistical method more advanced than yours. In fact, you may need to use a formula that takes into account many things such as that the sd of an average needs to be divided by the square root of the number of used samples and this should be weighted among the models.
In any case, the +/- 0.1 C is also compatible with the minimum RMS value that I calculated for each GCM model, as calculated in my table 2. So, this minimum among the RMS values is the true estimate for the minimum error of the GCM evaluation comparison because it is the best that they could guarantee. Your 0.17 value appears to be compatible to the average of all calculated RMS values which vary between 0.1 and 0.25, as I reported in Table 2.
Finally, the entire question is truly irrelevant. As I explained above it is not by making the error bigger that you can make the IPCC model more accurate. Bigger errors mean less accuracy, not larger accuracy. A error of +/- 0.17 would mean that the model error is far larger that the largest pattern observed in the data (the 60-year cycle) which implies the models cannot be validated and cannot be used to predict or project anything on a time scale of at least 50 years. In fact with a 1-sd error of +/-0.17C a model would not be able to tell you if during the next 15-30 years there will be a significant warming or a significant cooling, so the utility of the model would be zero.
For example, if a weatherman tells you that according his weather model tomorrow will be between a strong rainy day or a strong sunny day, do you think that the weather model is very accurate because it predicts everything, or is it useless because its error bar is too large?
Moreover, as I said above if you like big errors, you may use the absolute temperature values of the computer runs (not their anomaly), the 1-sd error window will be far larger and of the order of about 2.0 C. (it is not an error, I intend 2.0 (two) C), with your method. So, if you like an even larger error, you may use the larger one.
dikranmarsupial says:
March 18, 2012 at 4:54 am
This is a ridiculous argument. If the error bars are large enough to encompass any eventuality, then the estimates are USELESS. You are running from the evidence, and your flight is doomed.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
-Richard P. Feynman
Dr Scafetta wrote “As I clearly said, my about +/- 0.1 C estimate is based on what the IPCC has claimed and depicted in his figures.”. The IPCC as far as I know has not made a specific claim here other than this figure. It is a pity that you can’t give a direct answer to a direct question, when politely posed. Did you estimate the 0.1C directly from that figure in the SPM or not? A yes or no answer would be appreciated. If the answer is “no”, then please can you specify the other source.
Dr Scafetta also wrote: “the sd of an average needs to be divided by the square root of the number of used samples and this should be weighted among the models. ”
No, that is the standard ERROR of the mean, not the standard deviation of the model runs. Assuming that the observations should lie within a region defined by the standard error of the mean was the error made by the Douglass et al paper that you cited. To see the flaw in that reasoning you only need to consider the fact that the best model you could theoretically make (an infinite ensemble of models with perfect physics and infinite spatial and temporal resolution) would be essentially guaranteed to fail the Douglass test, even though it were perfect.
As to the size of the error bars, the point is not whether they are large or small, it is whether they are accurately represented by your widget. If they are the correct size, the observations do not lie outside the uncertainty of the projection, so there is no evidence (yet) that the model projection is inconsistent with the projection. If you want to criticise the models for having high uncertainty, then that is fine, but that is a different criticism from suggesting that the observations lie outside the range of projections. They don’t.
dikranmarsupial says: March 18, 2012 at 10:27 am
I think that I responded you quite clearly. If you think that the pictures used in the IPCC have only an artistic but not scientific value, what can I do? (I do agree that the IPCC is more art than science.)
My evaluations are based on what the IPCC has reported by presenting it as “scientific” and on my evaluation of the RMS values as discussed in the paper.
As Bart said, “If the error bars are large enough to encompass any eventuality, then the estimates are USELESS. You are running from the evidence, and your flight is doomed.”
You should read my paper with an open mind. The real test is what I did in the paper. I checked each single model run against the data, and none of those model runs agree with the data. Those model runs, appears to be random noise with an upward trend.
No.
The IPCC relies, not on error bars or standard deviations of experimental data that can be duplicated by other experiments, but on their CLAIMS of “increased assurance” that the model results. The CAGW dogmatists cannot present ANY experimental results, ANY statistical duplicative experimental results that can produce repeatable results that can yield something that could be called a “standard deviation” from anything.
And, without at least 3x experiments/33x experiments/333x experiments or 3333x experiments, how do you get a “standard deviation” and error bars?
What is the “standard deviation” of a calculator that sometimes says 1+1 = 3.0, sometimes 1+1 = 4.0 and sometimes 1+1 = 0.5 but most of the time 1+1 = 2.00002?
Instead, much was made of the “increased assurance” and greater confidence” that the IPCC wrote into their successive press releases for policymakers: “great confidence” (implying deliberately an accurate prediction within one standard deviation, became “greater confidence” (and a standard deviation within two!) of their conclusion, and then that became – by the miracle of self-written press releases (er, IPCC reports) greatest confidence and a somehow a model accurate to within 3 standard deviations.
And THAT implication of actual “scientific results” was not only allowed to stand, but was promoted by the CAGW dogma in the world’s political press.
But three standard deviations of what?
The BEST that they can claim is that some 23 different models, using different computers but the same assumptions and model logic and basic equations, come up with an “average” after many thousands runs of a prediction of increased temperature with increasing CO2 levels. But if every model is using different equations, how can anybody conclude any ONE equation and baseline assumption is correct?
Rather, over ONE single 25 year period from 1973 through 1998, most of the average of the model runs are backfitted to match temperature and volcanic data. Over the previous 25 years, the models are wrong: CO2 increased and temperatures fell. Over the 25 year period from 1916 though 1950, CO2 was essentially steady, but temperatures increased. Over another 15 year period, from 1995 to 2012, CO2 increased, but temperatures remained constant – even declining a bit.
NO model result has predicted that result over that long a period. NONE. Ever.
Therefore, the models are wrong. The assumption of CO2 have a dramatic, catastrophic influence on global temperature is dead wrong. And has been proven wrong by the world’s measured temperatures.
dikranmarsupial says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:27 am
” If they are the correct size, the observations do not lie outside the uncertainty of the projection, so there is no evidence (yet) that the model projection is inconsistent with the projection.”
The question is moot. If you are defending projections which have no predictive power, then you are defending nothing. The “projections” are self-damning, without any aid needed from Dr. Scafetta.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
-Richard P. Feynman
RACookPE1978 says: March 18, 2012 at 10:52 am:
“Rather, over ONE single 25 year period from 1973 through 1998, most of the average of the model runs are backfitted to match temperature and volcanic data. Over the previous 25 years, the models are wrong: CO2 increased and temperatures fell. Over the 25 year period from 1916 though 1950, CO2 was essentially steady, but temperatures increased. Over another 15 year period, from 1995 to 2012, CO2 increased, but temperatures remained constant – even declining a bit. NO model result has predicted that result over that long a period. NONE. Ever.
Therefore, the models are wrong. The assumption of CO2 have a dramatic, catastrophic influence on global temperature is dead wrong. And has been proven wrong by the world’s measured temperatures.
”
Well said, and it is what I found in my paper by testing all models used by the IPCC.
However, I need to tell you that what yor say would not be understood by any of the IPCC advocates. It is too “logic” for them.
dikranmarsupial says: March 18, 2012 at 10:27 am
” If they are the correct size, the observations do not lie outside the uncertainty of the projection, so there is no evidence (yet) that the model projection is inconsistent with the projection.”
Not really, look at the figure carefully. Right now the difference between the temperature and the IPCC projection mean is larger than 0.3 C (annual average), which is almost 2 times your 0.17 error.
Dr Scafetta, I’m sorry, but you have not given an unambiguous answer to my question, in each case the wording of your answer admitted the possibility that the estimate of 0.1C was obtained in some other way, or that there was some other justification in the IPCC report for that figure. Just answering “yes” or “no” would have been easier for you have typed than the reply you have given. It wasn’t an unreasonable question and I don’t understand why you could not simply give a direct and completely unambiguous answer.
Dr Scafetta wrote: “You should read my paper with an open mind.” it is not a good idea to assume that someone who disagrees with you has anything other than an open mind. If I had a closed mind I wouldn’t take so much time clarifying exactly what was done, so that I could fully understand your position.
Further “Not really, look at the figure carefully. Right now the difference between the temperature and the IPCC projection mean is larger than 0.3 C (annual average), which is almost 2 times your 0.17 error.”
Well, as I think I explained above, twice the standard deviation is the appropriate test. Assuming the noise is Gaussian, there would only be a 5% chance of the observations lying outside a 2-sigma region (and hence it would suggest the observations are unlikely to be generated by the model), whereas there is a 30% probability of this happing with the 1-sigma region. The model runs themselves often lie outside the 1-sigma region, does that mean the model runs are inconsistent with the model that generated them? No, of course it doesn’t.
dikranmarsupial says:
March 18, 2012 at 1:47 pm
“Assuming the noise is Gaussian, there would only be a 5% chance of the observations lying outside a 2-sigma region (and hence it would suggest the observations are unlikely to be generated by the model), whereas there is a 30% probability of this happing with the 1-sigma region.”
This is very sloppy. First, you make the assumption that it is Gaussian when you could at least plot a simple histogram to see if it is anything like that – please do not bother making an appeal to the central limit theorem in defense, you have the data and can do an analysis.
More importantly, and assuredly falsely, you assume that the errors are uncorrelated. They are anything but. When your model is consistently off and diverging, you have got a serious problem. Your preference is to whistle past the graveyard. Fine, if you like. But, it is a most unimpressive display.
dikranmarsupial says: March 18, 2012 at 1:47 pm
I think that you do not truly understand how to validate a computer model from a statistical point of view.
You continue to say that the real test needs to use 2-sigma and that 1-sigma should be 0.17 C.
This would imply a 2-sigma of 0.34 C, which would imply a +/- 0.34 C range, which would have from up to down a range of 0.68 C.
Now, you need to realize that the upward warming trend of the temperature from 1850 to 2010 is about 0.8 C, and your wanted confidence model error window is about 0.68 C. You need to understand that a confidence model error window of about 0.68C is far too large compared to the temperature patterns that one would like to identify. For example, the temperature could have warmed by just 0.12 C from 1850 to 2010 and you would still conclude that the same models are consistent with the historical temperature!
That would be of course true because of the confidence model error window of about 0.68 C. But does that mean that the models are useful?
In fact, models that agree with almost any outcome are useless; one would like to have something more precise than that.
Perhaps, the reason why the IPCC did not depict the figures with your error bars was because everybody with a minimum of common sense would have laughed at them and never stopped!
Now you need to understand that the temperature signal is not a huge random noise (sd 0.17 C) around an upward trend as assumed by the IPCC models. The temperature signal is a complex dynamical signal with detectable patterns with amplitude of the order 0.1 C. This is the precision that you would like to have at maximum, that is what the IPCC has shown in its figures, and with that precision the model failed the prediction since 2000.
Dr Scafetta, It seems that you do not understand how to evaluate climate models.
I agree that that the 2-sigma range is broad (0.68C sounds about right). The thing that you do not appear to appreciate is that the IPCC probably would not claim that the models have great predictive skill on decadal projections. I understand there is discussion about including decadal projections in the next IPCC report due to progress made in modelling that allows them to predict chaotic events such as ENSO, which currently make decadal projections meaningless.
It is very well known that decadal scale trends are not informative, see e.g. the paper by Easterling and Wehner http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037810.shtml which show that the observations often include periods of little or no warming, even in the presence of a long term warming trend and this is also replicated in the models. The models however can only predict that they can happen, but not when they happen, which is why they cannot make useful decadal projections.
However, the inability to make decadal prdictions doesn’t mean they can’t make useful centenial scale projections, as features such as ENSO are quasi-cyclic and cancel out over such long periods.
So if you are arguing that the AR4 models don’t make useful decadal projections, then it is a straw man, I rather doubt anybody would claim they do.
Lying within the 2-sigma error bars is not an indication of skill, just that the models have not (yet) been falsified by the observations. The latter is no big deal, but it IS a big deal to claim that they are not consistent, as it suggests the models cannot even scale the smallest of hurdle.
“Perhaps, the reason why the IPCC did not depict the figures with your error bars was because everybody with a minimum of common sense would have laughed at them and never stopped! ”
Funny, climate modellers very often do, e.g. Gavin Schmidt. Do you think it is just possible that Gavin understand climate models rather better than you do, and that just perhaps there is something that you do not fully understand?
To Troll Dikran Marsupinal:
Please refrain from Warmist trolling: You are not even capable of reading simple IPCC
AR4 pages: AR4 EXPLICITELY states that the IPCC made world astonishing computer
modelling advances compared to the previous AR3, and that AR4 thus achieved the
highest precision…..with sky high predictive skills within almost non-existing error bands…..
…..whereas your quotes shatter and deningrade those great IPCC models, with your quote:
“THE IPCC WOULD PROBABLY NOT CLAIM THAT THEIR MODELS HAVE PREDICTIVE
SKILL” and that IPCC concedes any “INABILITY OF THEIR GREAT MODELS TO MAKE
DECADAL PREDICTIONS”…… your opinion is just trolling BS: Check as well on Warmist
blogs: They all claim incrediblel accuracy of IPCC forecasts….and NOT that IPCC models
“”probably would not claim nothing……??””
Don’t molest the great climate pioneer Scafetta doing his great work and stop trying to
steal his limited time with BS trolling….
JS
Incidentallly, if you look at SPM figure SPM.4, you will find that the 90% (5% to 95%) range for climate models. Those for global surface temperatures are a bit less than 0.5C, those for global land a bit over 0.6C according to my eyecrometer. This suggests that your reading of even just the SPM was insufficiently thorough, as the IPCC DO show figures with error bars very nearly as broad as mine (which cover roughly the 2.5% – 97.5% range, and they may not have been the same set of model runs, so it isn’t surprising they are slightly broader than mine). So your quote
“Perhaps, the reason why the IPCC did not depict the figures with your error bars was because everybody with a minimum of common sense would have laughed at them and never stopped! ”
Suggests that you are not very familiar with the findings of the IPCC.
dikranmarsupial says: March 19, 2012 at 3:05 am
“The thing that you do not appear to appreciate is that the IPCC probably would not claim that the models have great predictive skill on decadal projections.”
I am sorry, but I think that you are missing the point. The IPCC models need to be validated, you cannot trust models that cannot be validated. To do that they need to predict and/or hindcast the decadal-multidecadal scale properly. What I show in my paper is that they do not do it, so they cannot be validated. Moreover, I propose another model which has a far more accurate predicting skills, so why should we trust and or use the IPCC models if we have something better?
For example, in my papers I am saying that climate may be interpreted as the tides are interpreted and forecasted. The used method is the Kelvin’s one based on tidal harmonic constituents. In theory, the IPCC models should be able to predict tides, but nobody uses them to predict tides for any practical purpose. Why should they, gioven the fact that another method works far better because it has far higher predicting skills?
Dr Scafetta, yes, of course the models need to be tested and evaluated (see chapter 8 of the IPCC AR4 WG1 report). However that evaluation should be performed on tasks that the modellers claim their models can do, rather than things that they openly acknowledge they cannot. For instance, the uncertainty on decadal projections being large is an indication that they don’t make useful projections on such short timescales.
Now not being able to validate models based on decadal projections doesn’t mean they cannot be validated. Just that they cannot be validated in the way you suggests YET. Note that the observations currently lie pretty close to the lower error bar. Should the climate cool for the next few years, or perhaps remain constant for the next 5 years or so (according to my eyecrometer), then the models will have failed the test. But at the current time, they have not.
As I have already pointed out, the inability to predict decadal timescales does not mean that they cannot make useful centennial scale, because the chaotic “weather noise” tends to cancel out on a scale of 30 years or so.
At the end of the day, you need to compare the observations with the range of plausible outcomes according to the model ensemble. You have not done this. If you want to validate the models, you also need to validate them on some task where the modellers actually agree that their models have useful skill, not some task where they don’t.
Did you contact any climate modellers to check that your presentation of the IPCC models was reasonable? That is the sort of thing that most scientists do.
To Mr. Dikran Marsupial:
The AR4 accuracy claims can be easily quoted from AR4 texts…..
they contain nothing about your alleged IPCCs “INABILITY TO MAKE DECADAL
PREDICTIONS”,
where did you read this? Please quote AR4…..
In AR4, every word has been meticulously examined by reviewers…please quote your
IPCC self-admitted “were are INCAPABLE/UNABLE to make decadal predictions”….
by the way, they talk about “projections” which is IPCC- forecast terminology….
Quote pages and line from AR4 and then you will get an answer ….refrain from trolling
once again….
JS
As I mentioned, I studied the question of solar barycentric variations at some length, including corresponding with Ted Landsheidt on the question. I finally concluded I couldn’t make sense of it.
I got to thinking today about WHY I had decided I couldn’t make sense of it, and dug out some of my old work. I remembered that the rock that I’d run my ship on was the lack of any connection between barycentric velocity and sunspots. At the time, I’d realized that if I couldn’t figure out how the barycentric velocity is correlated with sunspots on the sun itself, what hope was there for correlating it with the climate on the earth?
Here’s the two variables:
Sunspot Cycle Source
Note that the barycentric velocity varies on a cycle somewhere around 20 years, which is kinda like the Hale sunspot cycle of 22 years (two ~ 11 year cycles with alternately reversed magnetic polarity). I have colored the sunspot cycles alternately red and green to indicate the polarity of the cycle.
The problem is that when we look at the actual data, we start out with the red polarity matching up with the peaks in the barycentric cycle in 1761. But by 1882, the green polarity matches up with the barycentric cycle … and by 2000, we’re back to the red cycle matching up.
I puzzled over that for a while, and could never make it work out … so my conclusion was if barycentric variations can’t explain sunspot cycles, they likely couldn’t explain the earth’s climate.
w.
dikranmarsupial says: March 19, 2012 at 7:25 am
I do not want to convince everybody. I do understand that the issue is difficul.
I may just suggest you to consider the new findings that are coming out (very soon).
The climate system, as my research suggests me, is mostly regulated by specific astronomical/solar cycles. In my above paper I have discussed some of them, but other cycles have been already identified, you just need to wait my new papers coming out.
The IPCC models do not know anything about these cycles, so they cannot be correct.
Just, wait a little bit and you may be surprised of how nice the big picture looks once the major solar cycles are included in the discussion. Let us wait and let us see, OK?
Willis Eschenbach says: March 19, 2012 at 9:51 am
Willis, sorry. You do not get the point.
My argument is that every function made of the planetary orbits presents the same frequencies. What is causing climate change is a misterious function X which is function of the planetary/solar cycles. Thus, you can use the speed of the sun to get at least some of the frequencies of the function X, without knowing it.
Let us see if my next paper convinces you better where at least a major component of the function X becomes more explicit.
You should try to read my papers before writing.
Dr Scafetta. I have explained how the error bars on your widget are incorrect and do not accurately represent the range of IPCC projections. The correct thing to do would be to ammend your widget so that it accurately and fairly represents what the CMPI3 model ensemble actually says. The easiest way to do so would be to merely plot the range of model runs from the CMP3 ensemble for SRES A1B. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. You have already downloaded this data, so changing the widget should be a trivial exercise.
Once you have done this, *then* I will be willing to discuss the cyclical model.
And here comes the greatest Scam of Dikranmarsupial::
Your quote””” Dr. Scafetta, once “YOU” have done this, then “I” might be
willing to discuss the cyclic model””……..
Either you are Newton and Einstein combined or just a little troll, who demands
that great works of others authors have to fulfil your demands ……and then
(maybe) you might desire a “discussion”…..
I am sure you do not boast and do understatements….What are your
achievements in climate science….just one hint, if there were any….
JS
dikranmarsupial says:
March 19, 2012 at 7:25 am
“Now not being able to validate models based on decadal projections doesn’t mean they cannot be validated. ”
Any model that does not properly include convection is not a model at all. What we have at present is a political gambit that predicts nothing.
dikranmarsupial says: March 19, 2012 at 10:52 am
Unfortunately I cannot change the widget because it is linked to a published paper.
It is good enougth to give the idea. As I tald you the range +/- 0.1 C is what shown in the IPCC figures. That is fine enougth with me.
In the future I may consider your proposal for another paper.
It is shown here that the GISP2 Fourier analysis (1200 years data) contains not a ‚~60’ year cycle.
But many peaks can be assigned to special frequencies, which are part of real astronomical (elliptical) functions. These sinusoid frequencies must not exist in real, but the frequencies in perihel or aphel position have a relation to the analyzed sinusoid frequencies. As ad nausem explained it makes no sense to argue nn year cycles in astronomy, because all moving objects have not simple sinusoid functions.
In a discussion whether there is a relation between the moving planets in the solar system and terrestrial climate and/or global temperature it is therefore necessary, as mentioned ad nauseam, to take the real astronomical data of the planets, but not “nn year cycles”. And because it is obvious that solar tide functions of synodic pattern have most magnitude it is easy to create a rough climate simulation in any time resolution down to month.
One can compare the FFT spectra of GISP2 (1200 years) and solar tide spectra (2400 years) and there are some similarities, especially in magnitudes of synodic tide functions, which frequencies are always twice the synodic frequency. But it seems that also single objects create magnitudes from its difference frequencies because of the ellipticity.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/gisp2_vs_solar_tide1.gif
That this work has a serious basis was shown by the phase coherence of the sea level oscillations and the solar tide function of the synodic couple of Mercury and Earth.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_solar_tides_c.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/Sea_level_vs_solar_tides1.htm
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_vs_hadcrut3_1980.gif
That the try to (sinusoid) cycles in years is naïve if one would like to make climate predictions becomes clear, if one knows that the most high magnitudes in the Holocene is related to a synodic tide function of trans-neptune objects:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/echo_g_vs_ghi.gif
I do not know, what the reason is, that science people, who are looking to the processes on the Sun because of climate relevant functions are practicing silence.
However, life goes on.
V.
Dr Scafetta, the link to the published paper is no reason not to change the representation of the IPCC models, as the main purpose of your paper is to present your model. Further promulgating incorrect material is damaging to public understanding of science and if you don’t wish to change the widget, you ought to withdraw it.
As to the 0.1C, I have already shown that (i) it under-represents the standard deviation shown in the figure from which it was estimated, as there is grey area clearly under the lower red line (ii) the standard deviation is not an indicator of the range of IPCC projections (iii) there is another figure in the IPCC SPM which does show the range of model projections and it is at least twice the size of the one in your widget.
I am greatly disturbed that you show so little concern over an error present not only on a blog article, but in one of your peer-reviewed publications.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 19, 2012 at 10:48 am
Dr. Scafetta, that is certainly a very roundabout way to say that you can’t link up sunspots with barycentric motions either …
And since despite all of your studies and all of your papers you can’t figure out how to use the solar barycentric data to understand the actions of the sun itself, the idea that you can use them to understand the actions of earth’s climate is … well, let me call it “unlikely” in lieu of a more earthy Anglo-Saxon word.
w.
To Willis:
The Solar barycenter motion SIM is important and influences the 3-body
GRAVITATION between SUN/EARTH/THIRD BODY PLANETS….. what we
have to talk about is how the motions/gravitation (PULLING FORCES)
effect/impact the TRUE TRAJECTORY of planetary orbits……
The 5 Keplerian elements are only PENCIL+PAPER diagrams, 2-dimensional….
too coarse, this is what JPL Horizons expresses…. The work NOW to do is to
obtain the daily diversions from the Kepler line in order to assess the pull/push
effects of the 60 year 3-body cycle….
The idea on how many spots someone has on its face by judging his movements
all over town…..lets forget this weird idea….
JS
Willis Eschenbach says: March 19, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Ok Willis, be happy with that.
dikranmarsupial says: March 19, 2012 at 12:27 pm
“am greatly disturbed that you show so little concern over an error present not only on a blog article, but in one of your peer-reviewed publications.”
see, it is not an “error”. It is what the IPCC has shown in their publications. I show the same, for comparison.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 19, 2012 at 1:25 pm
I’m not clear what your point is here, Joachim. It sounds like you are saying that the barycentric movement of the sun has no effect on the magnetism, or the sunspots, or any of the other observable variations of the sun itself, but the movement does affect the climate of the planets.
If that is your claim, then I wish you the happiness of your beliefs. Me, I’m more logical than that … if the movement is to affect anything, it will first affect the sun. And if we can’t understand the action on the sun …
w.
Willis, you got the message…..the Sun output is one case: with spots,
magnetism, auroras, winds and all the like…. if the combined output derived
from all these variables were high, significant enough to send us on Earth
additional energy, even in milleniums or centennial rhythms, then wonderful…
.all natural causes which would bite into the share of CO2 (if there were one)..
..fine with me…..
More important however are Solar System MECHANICS, gravitation (pulling/pushing
force releasing) between Sun, Outer planets and Earth, all in their orbits, which
do vary a little from each year to year. We therefore, have to measure the resulting
distance changes between planets, Earth and Sun (depending on its actual location
in the barycenter) and quantify them meticulously…..
……. Svalsgaard, for example, just points to JPL Horizons and cannot find any
cycles in ephemerides……
……but this is clear (but not to him) that DE 405 tables show a lot of
numbers but one cannot ask the system : “Show me the 60 year cycle…..”
expecting that km/miles-changes of 60 years gravitation cycles would pop up….
……
What we need is a (1) heuristic approach, with (2) calculations for it and
followed by (3) empirical data as comparison….
If SIM movements produce climate change effects, wonderful., fine…..
But concerning gravitation in the solar system: This is the historical success of Nick
Scafetta to have spotted it and having it described to beyond doubt in (preliminary
humble) steps…but , in the near future, those mechanics will be concretized and
quantified, the final blow to AGW….just wait and see, there is depth in this
approach….and I did my own humble share as well and have the numbers
already on paper. They all add up well and I suspect that you, by now, have
gotten a first feeling that we are on the brink of a historical breakthrough which
will end AGW in only a few more years….
Cheers
JS
JS
A hint for Willis as he seems incapable of reading the science.
Sunspots are correlated with Angular Momentum (AM). But first you must learn the different properties of AM. A guide for the basics can be found at:
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/218
Also Nicola is not using solar output or sunspots as a baseline for his 60 year cycle.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 19, 2012 at 9:51 am
As I mentioned, I studied the question of solar barycentric variations at some length, including corresponding with Ted Landsh… on the question. I finally concluded I couldn’t make sense of it.
Much has been learned since Theodor, he was a pioneer on the right track but missed the crucial component. Even so if you corresponded with him you should know what simple tool he used to predict solar grand minimum. Give us an elevator statement of your understanding of this tool.
[Moderator’s Note: Anthony has NOT indicated a willingness to have this topic discussed here. Please drop it. -REP]
Geoff Sharp says:
March 19, 2012 at 11:05 pm
[Moderator’s Note: Anthony has NOT indicated a willingness to have this topic discussed here. Please drop it. -REP]
I did not start the topic discussion but I am happy to educate Willis if he wishes to contact me via my website. He says he wants to understand the logic, I am happy to do so.
[REPLY: Geoff, thank you for your courtesy. I am sure Willis will be contacting you directly. At some point Anthony may want to revisit his decision about this topic, but I don’t think he wants his home on the internet to be the battleground. He has enough on his plate. You are, by the way, a valued contributor. -REP]
To Willis:
and Anthony, make sure, Willis gets to read it, importance of the
highest order:
Post from Michele Casati: “Acapulco earthquake…..”
Just came out now:
Here it is proven that the GRAVITY of the planets exercise strong effects
towards EARTH, not only (1) “grab” the atmosphere and (2) ocean tides, but
additional grabbing the (3) Earth crust, so the crust will split, wobble and break
up….PRODUCING Earth/sea quakes……
The good Willis puts his eggs more on the Landscheidt stuff, such as auroras,
magnetism, solar winds and what not, and still doubting that PLANETARY ORBIT
pecularities have the greatest atmospheric climate/crust movement/ocean tide
effects…..
The animated picture in this post helps to see how planetary constellations/
positions of Scafettas 60 year gravity cycle produces climate change….
Anthony, I hope you can convince him to exercise self-critizism. to some degree….
Cheers, and I am happy that this post came in/out in good timing…
A wink from higher up?
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
March 20, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Thanks for the heads-up, Joachim. Perhaps that impresses you. I’m more of a realist.
First, Casati did not give a specific day, he just said that this was a dangerous period. What does that mean? A magnitude 7 quake within ± 5 days? ± 10 days? ± 1 day? As it stands, his prediction is unfalsifiable, and thus it is not science.
Next, there were no less than 24 earthquakes greater than magnitude 7 in 2010, and 21 in 2011. If you do a monte carlo analysis, you’ll soon find out that if you had predicted an earthquake in 2010 purely at random, there is a 50/50 chance of a magnitude 7 earthquake within 5 days of that date, and a 25% chance that you’re prediction was within 2 days of a magnitude 7 quake. So that’s why I’m not impressed.
Next, I find it difficult to believe that this is his first prediction … and if it is not, what were the results of his other predictions?
Finally, if Casati actually has a working system, it would be a trivial exercise to test it out against the historical earthquake records and report back to us how amazingly well his clearly specified alignments correlate with actual earthquakes. Not only that, but he would immediately be world-famous.
He has not done so … which may mean he’s just really humble and doesn’t want the notoriety, but certainly raises my suspicions.
Get back to me when Casati specifies 1) the details of exactly what he calls a “dangerous alignment”, 2) the days in the past when a “dangerous alignment” has happened, 3) whether that list of dates correlates BETTER THAN CHANCE with historical earthquakes, and 4) a list of the future dates on which we can expect earthquakes.
It’s called “science”, Joachim. You make a hypothesis and then you test it. Then you make falsifiable predictions, not vague handwaving about a “dangerous period” of unspecified duration and centre. And finally, you don’t jump up and down and crow if you happen to hit one, even a blind hog will find an acorn once in a while.
So post again when Casati actually subjects his theory to the normal scientific process of verification. As I said, it’s a trivial task for him to list the alignment conditions and show that when applied to historical earthquakes, his system does significantly better than chance. The fact that he hasn’t done so should raise your suspicions to the limit.
w.
To Willis: Thank you having looked at the matter…….
You are not impressed….In any case, you looked deeper as others who just
want to find one hair in every soup…
As you say: If this planetary constellation method were valid, it must be reciprocable
and function again and again….
No problem: Lets wait until the stars are in favourable position again (sounds
somewhat like astrology) and lets give the author another try and see how he fares….
Volker Doormann pointed out that he (V.) is capable of finding such positions in
hindsight …..maybe he can……?
I remain still impressed because none of the Earthquake guys steps forward with
a short time forcast, they stay on the Warmist 100 year level: “We predict a major
earthquake in San Francisco over 100 years…..with accuracy such as the global
warming forecast…..
JS