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.
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