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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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