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.
Gail Combs says:
March 12, 2012 at 5:44 am
“The freezes in Florida destroying the citrus fruit crops is a case in point.”
What the quote she gives doesn’t make clear is the the “freeze of ’95” was 1895. My great grandfather was growing oranges in north Florida at that time. My father always told me that the freeze permanently moved the orange growing area over 100 miles south.
@ur momisugly Scafetta – what “patterns”? Are you talking about your climastrological cycles which have no bearing on the long-term temperature trend?
Dikran Marsupial has also demonstrated why a 1-sigma band is insufficient with a very simple analogy. Nicely done.
Scottish Sceptic says:
March 12, 2012 at 1:32 am
“The whole nature of 1/f noise is that it appears to have cycles.”
Not so regularly. And, while 1/f style “noise” is widespread, cyclic phenomena are even more so. In nature, pink noise is generally what you have left when you have removed all of the regular and repeatable sources of variation, i.e., it tends to be second order.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2012 at 8:54 am
“Since his ‘forecast’ agrees with that based on my old shoe, I’ll tend to submit to confirmation bias and not bet the farm on IPCC.”
But, your old shoe has no widely observed manifestation in every scientific and engineering discipline known to humankind. Your old shoe model is absurd. The likely existence of cyclic or quasi-cyclic behavior in data quantifying a natural phenomenon is most decidedly not.
I do agree, however, that appealing to astronomical phenomena for the driving influence is, at the very least, premature, and not very likely IMO.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 9:34 am
” I am using temperature cycles deduced from the global surface temperature and I am using frequencies and phases mostly taken from astronomical considerations.”
The frequencies and phases should simply be deduced from least squares or other fitting of the data.
Wayne2 says:
March 12, 2012 at 10:00 am
“This is incorrect and is very basic, so it calls into question everything you say.”
It is a convention – there is a very fuzzy line between right and wrong. But, if your error in general lies entirely outside a 1-sigma band, you’ve got problems with your model that no amount of handwaving or appeal to convention can gloss over.
Dikran Marsupial says:
March 12, 2012 at 10:18 am
“…which shows the IPCC model runs project that temperatures both warmer and colder than observed during the past decade.”
Which shows that the IPCC models have little, if any, predictive value, and there is no basis for upending the world economy based on their projections.
Dikran Marsupial says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:04 am
“… it wouldn’t be very surprising to see an observation outside a 1-sigma error bar, even if the model was right.”
You are getting tied up in word games, a.k.a., flailing. It is very suprising when the error is consistently outside the 1-sigma error bar.
Dikran Marsupial says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:04 am
“It is very suprising when the error is consistently outside the 1-sigma error bar.”
Continuing…
And, all the more so when the supposed driving factor of CO2 concentration continues its relentless rise. You’ve got real problems here, Dikran, and you are stuck in a state of DENIAL.
Seems people are interested in prophets and math mantras more than in science work.
Update:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/scafetta_vs_doormann_1.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/scafetta_vs_doormann_2.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/scafetta_vs_doormann_3.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/scafetta_vs_doormann_4.gif
Since satellites are used to measure global observables, for the global sea level this is documented since 1993, was it possible to the solar scientists to compare solar tide functions with the measured global sea level oscillations. Despite the synthetic linear increase, taken from the obvious increase of the whole last century, they would have found, the main solar tide function from Mercury/Earth is mirrored in the sea level oscillations with the same frequency and mostly phase coherent in time.
See here
V.
Dikran Marsupial says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:04 am
Dikan,
I am no statistican expert, but I believe that your analogy is somewhat flawed in this case.
If 68.2% of the datapoints were covered with a one sigma range, that would mean that 68.2% of the datapoints would be within the range that was predicted with a one-sigma range prediction.
That would probably mean that the mean, would be within the one sigma range, since in this instance there would be datapoints above and below the mean, causing the mean to be within the one-sigma range, and the forecast to be right.
However, Dr. Scafetta CLEARLY demonstrates that the mean has fallen OUT of the IPCC forecast range.
This means that 68.2% of the datapoints are NOT within the IPCC one-sigma forecast, and therefore, the IPCC’s forecasts are wrong.
dana1981 says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:38 am
“Dikran Marsupial has also demonstrated why a 1-sigma band is insufficient with a very simple analogy. Nicely done.”
His “demonstration” is for a “system” with completely random outcomes. If the outcome of the models is completely random, why are we having this discussion? They are useless.
If he got his data for the distribution of dice rolls from a model assuming independent, uniformly distributed outcomes, and then taking a real set of dice, found that he consistently rolled sixes, it would then be reasonable to conclude that his model did not fit the real dice, and the real dice are loaded.
To Dana: dana1981 says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:38 am
your quote:
“”””@ur momisugly Scafetta – what “patterns……..
Are you talking about your climastrological cycles which
have no bearing on the long-term”????
Answer to Dana : Too bad when 5th graders joint the discussion with: “””I know
nothing about cycles and CO2….therefore there are no cycles and no CO2…””
Try to google “Climastrological Cycles” and no wonder that none would come
up that you tell the world from your rooftop in Micronesia: “There are None…
them cycles did not show up no more…..”
JS.
Bart says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:43 am
But, your old shoe has no widely observed manifestation in every scientific and engineering discipline known to humankind. Your old shoe model is absurd. The likely existence of cyclic or quasi-cyclic behavior in data quantifying a natural phenomenon is most decidedly not.
The key point in Scafetta’s ‘model’ is the astronomical cycles. Other than that it is just curve fitting which may or may not have predictive value for the near future [but probably not in the long run]. His ‘error-band’ is so wide that it encompasses the ‘prediction’ of no change at all. To postulate that if IPCC turns out to be wrong that implies that Scafetta’s astronomical cycles must be correct is as absurd as my old shoe model. That there are quasi-cycles in many geophysical phenomena is not in doubt and need not be debated. That these cycles are forced by astronomical cycles is the basis and premise of Scafetta’s claims. If he drops that claim and simply points out that the climate has had approximately 60-year variations since the 1850s and that if said variations continue then he ‘forecasts’ what he does. So, now it is up to him to do just that.
To Leif:
Are you prepared as scientist to take your uncyclic Warmist position back when
substantial cycle evidence is right on the table? Answer yes/no or avoiding the
answer with empty talk?? I am sure not , so as a person named Lack, admitting
on his homepage…..obstinate to the roots of his hair…..
The cycles are THERE, one first hint: The CYCLE DIAGRAM of Davis, J.C und Bohling,G.C.
graphic GISP2 Holocene Power Spectrum (Fixed Time Intervals) …given
in the recent WUWT Post “Why William D. Nordhaus is wrong….”.etc, further
down in the text…..we have 60/ 61 year CYCLE of 16 times per millenium over the
COMPLETE HOLOZAEN for 10,000 years…..of course, no CO2-Warmist cycles
around to see, because cycles are not produced by CO2-changes, or…?
If CO2 does NOT produce cycles, then the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles (Rahmstorf 2002:
“A precise clock…..etc” are not/or yes produced by CO2…. or is ASTRONOMICAL?
Really…..? How?
…. Just besides, I completed the 60/61 year cycle dynamics calculations last week….
and we can let Nick do HIS studies, and we leave the cycles to others who are more
into this subject…..also take back your stack of accusations……
JS
Allan MacRae says: February 11, 2012 at 8:05 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/#more-56210
Allan MacRae says: February 9, 2012 at 12:36 am
In this complex case, I suggest that the best test of one’s scientific credibility is the degree to which one can accurately predict future global temperatures.
How many of you are prepared to go on record with your best estimate?
___________________________________________
This is a good start (regarding Nicola’s 10Feb2012 post).
…
I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections) ? 0% probability of occurrence
2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
Hope I am wrong.
____________________
Two possible weaknesses of Nicola’s approach:
1. Use of Hadcrut3.ST with its apparent warming bias of about 0.07C per decade. Should also be plotted with UAH LT as a check of Hadcrut3..
2. Assumption of a humanmade warming component that will keep global temperatures ~constant – I wish. I will bet on the cooling yellow line or similar , not the level black line.
Leif,
don’t you realize that having numerous natural cycles that coincide with astronomical cycles by simply “coincidence” would be even more surprising?
I remain with my idea that these cycles are astronomically based.
You are free to think what you want.
Leif Svalgaard [March 12 @ur momisugly 11:16]
Your allusion to the “Description of Questionable Cause” fallacy as “A and B are associated on a regular basis. Therefore A is the cause for B” , is very interesting indeed.
It describes to a T one of the core reasons for [healthy] climate scepticism. For more than 25 years now, anyone who has wanted to listen -and even those who didn’t- has been told “ad nauseam” by the IPCC and its followers that CO2 [A] and temperature [B] are associated on a regular basis, and that therefore [an increase in ] CO2 causes [an increase in] temperatures.
An appropriate “Description of a Questionable Cause” fallacy, when there clearly are a number of other plausible variables at play.
tetris says:
March 12, 2012 at 12:54 pm
the IPCC and its followers that CO2 [A] and temperature [B] are associated on a regular basis, and that therefore [an increase in ] CO2 causes [an increase in] temperatures.
On the surface it might seem that they commit the same fallacy. On the other hand, they believe they have a physical theory explaining the association. In science, such claims are validated or not by how well their prediction holds. So, we shall see. So far it doesn’t look to good for them, although they can [for a while at least] say that ‘natural’ and ‘statistical’ variability stand in the way. After a while, that begins to look a bit hollow.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 12:48 pm
don’t you realize that having numerous natural cycles that coincide with astronomical cycles by simply “coincidence” would be even more surprising?
As we have discussed at length, some of those coincidences are based on flawed data [northern lights, remember those?] and thus look more like wishful thinking.
Leif and northern lights.
Yes, Leif, I remember well that your argument was that the data are wrong!
Believe what you want, Leif!
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2012 at 12:29 pm
“To postulate that if IPCC turns out to be wrong that implies that Scafetta’s astronomical cycles must be correct is as absurd as my old shoe model.”
As far as I can tell, we are in basic agreement.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 12:48 pm
“…having numerous natural cycles that coincide with astronomical cycles by simply “coincidence” would be even more surprising?”
There is a distinction needing to be made here between random coincidence, and correlated coincidence. And, another entirely to say that one process is driving another.
Random coincidence may seem unlikely, but many purely random coincidences seem uncanny as well. There are a number of them between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations, for example. In my first probability class, the first thing we did was go around the room and find out everyone’s birthday, and were amazed that three people shared the same one. Then, the prof calculated the probability of having two or more people in the class having the same birthday as greater than 2 in 3.
Many problems in probability are anti-intuitive. My favorite is the Monte Hall dilemma.
Intuition can be effective in leading to new paths, but it can also often be misleading. The Warmist faction intuited that the seemingly large amounts of CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere in the last 100 years had to have a significant effect. It is becoming clearer each day that they were wrong. There’s no reason to commit to a particular theory of how the cycles come about before we have established that they do.
@Snowlover123 “However, Dr. Scafetta CLEARLY demonstrates that the mean has fallen OUT of the IPCC forecast range.”
No, Dr Scafetta have shown that the MONTHLY observations, not “the mean” have fallen out of the 1 sigma error bars for ANNUAL data. Monthly averaged data have a higher variance than annually averaged data, so the true 1-sigma error bars for monthly data would be wider than those shown.
Consider a case where we know the ground truth. Say I use a climate model to predict what the future climate is going to be like under some particular scenario. I have computer time to burn and I want as good an indication of the uncertainty as I can, so I generate say 1000 model runs. I look at the distribution of temperatures for (say 2050) and find they have a roughly Gaussian distribution with mean 2 and standard deviation 1.2 (say). Now if I generate another model run for the same scenario and I get a projection for that model of 3.4, does that falsify the model?
No, of course not, because roughly 30% of all model runs (including those in the ensemble) will have predictions that are outside the 1-sigma error bars, EVEN THOUGH THE MODEL WAS KNOWN TO BE EXACTLY CORRECT BY CONSTRUCTION (i.e. it was predicting its own next projection).
So if the 1-sigma test will “invalidate” the model 30% of the time when we know the model is correct, why should we expect it to be useful when we don’t know that the model is correct.
This is an argument of the same form as the die thought experiment, the differences here are that the outcome is not entirely random, and that a Gaussian distribution is a reasonable choice. The IPCC have a publicly available archive of the model runs that were used in the WG1 report, so if you are in any doubt, then you can download the data and try it for yourself.
@Leif:
No, the shoe is on the other foot. He needs to show a physical reason why it is plausible.
No he doesn’t. You do not need a physical reason to show that gravity exists. You say that if you let go of an apple it will fall to the ground and demonstrate that it does exist even if you don’t fully understand the mechanism.
Dr Scafetta is making the observations that there appears to be a cyclic pattern to the climate (actually superimposed cycles) and that if the cycle continues in the way that it appears to in the way he has observed the climate should respond in a certain predictable way. He does not need to have a mechanism, but he has a suggested one that is plausible and testable, but it may well be wrong – like anything in science.
He is committing yet another fallacy:
Description of Questionable Cause
This fallacy has the following general form:
A and B are associated on a regular basis.
Therefore A is the cause of B.
No he is not. You are conflating “cause” with observation. To re-write your A/B analogy, “A and B are observed to be associated with each other on a regular basis according to a certain pattern. Therefore, if the pattern holds A should correspond with B in a predictable way.
I really do not see this as so hard. You could (and probably should) say: “I am skeptical about this for these reasons (and name legitimate ones). I would therefore not be too confident that the predictions will hold or if they do, for the stated reasons.”
Dr. Vukcevic asks me to comment on the various periodicities that seem evident in the evolution of global temperatures. In general, one should be wary of complicating the picture with too many periodicities, or one will end up re-creating the once-fashionable “biorhythms” nonsense, where the hucksters’ trick was to choose three mutually-prime numbers, assign each arbitrarily to some physical characteristic, and then plot the supposed well-being of the sucker who fell for it.
One has only to look at the global temperature record since 1850 to discern a single, influential periodicity just shy of 60 years in length. Broadly speaking, in the first 30 years of each period, natural reductions in cloud cover (see e.g. Pinker et al., 2005, for the most recent such period) cause a rapid warming; then, in the second 30 years, the cloud cover returns and there is a cooling. Professor Anastasios Tsonis, at last August’s seminar of the World Federation of Scientists on planetary emergencies at Erice, Sicily, gave a most interesting presentation on this 60-year periodicity, which he had detected not only in the AMO, mentioned by Dr. Vukcevic, but also in the PDO, whose influence seems to predominate.
It is necessary to bear in mind that correlation does not necessarily imply causation: but, that said, there is a respectable correlation between the 60-year cycles of the PDO and the 60-year cycles in the global temperature anomalies. Dr. Scafetta, after years of thought, has found a way to eliminate these 60-year cycles, so as to isolate and quantify the warming effect of CO2 and other anthropogenic influences, which he says amounts to 0.9 Celsius per century at present. Global temperature has been rising at 1.2 Celsius per century since 1950, so, if Dr. Scafetta’s estimate is correct, approximately three-quarters of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is anthropogenic. This is consistent with the IPCC’s estimate that more than half of the warming since 1950 is attributable to us; but, of course, it is inconsistent with the IPCC’s bizarrely overblown prediction that in the remaining 90 years of this century there will be warming at more than three times the previously-observed rate. It is this discrepancy between what we may infer was the anthropogenic component in past warming and the thrice-larger anthropogenic warming predicted by the IPCC for the rest of this century that I call the IPCC’s credibility gap. Take away this over-egging of the climate pudding and the imagined “climate crisis” is seen for what it is – imaginary.
To Lord Monckton, and also to “Fabron” and the tedious “Leif”:
I agree with LITTLE cycles, a few years or months long, we can do away with
the peanuts but we have to stick to the “big stuff”, which is one of the 2 preponderant
cycles: the 60/61 year cycle, which is powerful….and the other longer cycle…..
Literature: WUWT post on “Why William D. Nordhaus is wrong about global…..”
and in this text, in the middle, find the graphic:
“GISP2 Holocene Power Spectrum (Fixed Time Intervals), by Davis, J.C and
Bohling, G.C.
it is shown that for 10,000 years, there exists a strong 60/61 year re-occuring
cycle in the frequency of 16 times per 1,000 years (try the pocket calculator)…..
do you want to dispute this away……??
CLEARLY: This 60/61 year permanently recurring cycle is NOT caused by
CO2—- unless a Warmist can prove otherwise, I am willing to learn…..—-
……it is wrong to let natural cycles, as this important astronomical cycle, to
disappear under the table…. this is what the Warmismus wants, that only CO2
remains in the race…..
….. further, clear is that Earthly cloud cover, AMDs, PDOs and so forth
do NOT have an ASTRONOMICAL effect….. but it is vice versa…..thus:
60 year ocean and atmospheric cycles are a quasi-PROVE for natural cycles,
which are there and will cyclicly continue to influence the
climate….and the years to come: We are on the flat temp plateau since 2000
and temps will slightly decrease by 0.1’C to the end of this decade BECAUSE
of this 60/61 years cycle and you will see that all of the CO2 [[reaching 400 ppmv
soon, we can celebrate – no heating near and far]] is not capable to lift GMT
somewhat, because CO2 has a next to nothing/nil effect….but rather natural
cycles have the great power…..and we should recognize this in full…..
JS
Dr. Scafetta – A few notes.
* The IPCC models are indeed baselined to the 1980-1999 period. Shifting the baseline as you do, giving the illusion of a worse agreement with the data is, to quote: “just an illusion trick” on your part.
* Climate models are not intended to reproduce decadal variations, but rather long term changes in climate – hence multiple runs to bracket short term variations. Demanding that they reproduce short term variation (as you do) is a strawman argument.
* Your widget is still showing monthly temperatures (high variability) against yearly (lower uncertainty) 1-sigma ranges for the IPCC models – “just an illusion trick”?
* Worst of all – You have no physical relationship between your cycles and the climate. As far as I can see you have just hand-picked frequencies that roughly fit the variations of the climate (a hand-generated Fourier decomposition), curve-fitting to the data, which is a reasonable description of data within that period – without being in any way a model of the processes occurring. This means that your curve-fits will have little to no predictive value as climate forcings change.
It makes a pretty picture, and I can see how it appeals. But it’s curve-fitting, not physics. Descriptive, not predictive. It tells us exactly nothing outside the fit period.
I hate this comment: (1) see all other works of Nick Scafetta, he is dealing extensively
about your missing facts…. he can’t just in every new paper rehearse the full background
for you, science has to advance and before you make a “Ultra-smart comment comprizing
your amazing statistical knowledge, please consult first Scafetta’s pre-modelling papers….
(2) coming along and moaning about missing background and that (3) his curves do fit
observations….
……I bet that non of your own curves ever fitted any observations, unless you quote your
works …..
better just do the reading to learn and do less opining….your reply simply has lowest/if any quality…..prove your own curves…..
JS
Nicola Scafetta wrote “don’t you realize that having numerous natural cycles that coincide with astronomical cycles by simply “coincidence” would be even more surprising?”
No, the human eye is extremely good at spotting correlations and patterns in data where none exists. There are many astronomical cycles to choose from, if you only have a relatively short period of observations (relative to the length of the cycle) then spurious correlations are likely to crop up. In statistics it is known as “over-fitting”.
That is why a plausible physical mechanism that can account for the existence of the correlation and the strength of the effect is required as this argues that the corellation is not merely a coincidence.
@ur momisugly Nicola Scafetta
1.I am not entirely convinced about ’60 year cycle’ since the BEST team found only 72 and 22-24 year periods (see Santa Fe presentation on the natural variability).
2.20 to 30 years of no trend looks totally un-natural considering the past record.
@ur momisuglyMAVukcevic says:
“readers may consider these six steps as contained in the available data and graphically illustrated here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTC.htm “
1. your charts are in fact very good, but there is an woeful lack of explanation, although I can see your train of thought.
2. I am not familiar with the atlantic precursor, which appear to be critical (on the chart looks plausible) link between sun and the oceans. What is NAP? Where one can find the data?
Vuckevic you should give more information for each of your steps to give some credibility to your theory.
@ur momisuglyLeif Svalgaard
I value your views, even when would disagree. I consider Vuckevic theory ‘closer to reality’ on account of stronger looking correlation, despite lack of any explanations.
another non-starter?
The BEST people mostly belong to the Warmism team or are half-baked Warmists…..
Therefore, they did make an effort to identify the dominant 60/61 year cycle…simply because
the CO2 does not produce any 60 year natural cycles and for this reason, BEST abstains
from mentioning natural cycles, it does not fit into the Warmist approach to climate….
……Better have a look into my literature quoted to Lord Monckton, you and the obstinate
leif just a few replies further up… and here you get your cycles proven for more than 10,000
years, I believe this should do it……
also compare this to: CO2-AGW operates with only 250 years
(see “www. radiative forcing 1750-2000”) time span, before no effect of CO2, no cycles all
left out on purpose……..
Cheers
JS
Dikran Marsupial says:
March 12, 2012 at 1:47 pm
‘No, Dr Scafetta have shown that the MONTHLY observations, not “the mean” have fallen out of the 1 sigma error bars for ANNUAL data.’
Yes, his argument was specious. But, so is yours. See my comments above.
To all: you are misreading Leif’s objection. He does not have a problem recognizing and remarking on cyclic influences. He has a problem ascribing it to motion of the outer planets. I find that notion far fetched, too. Not impossible, but not very likely. And, unnecessary at this stage.
Agnostic says:
March 12, 2012 at 1:47 pm
No, the shoe is on the other foot. He needs to show a physical reason why it is plausible.
No he doesn’t. You do not need a physical reason to show that gravity exists.
The point is not that there are quasi-cycles, but he is claiming that those are caused by astronomical cycles, and that he needs a mechanism for.
if the cycle continues in the way that it appears to in the way he has observed the climate should respond in a certain predictable way.
He is making a much stronger claim, namely that the cycles must continue because they are caused [70% ?] by astronomical cycles that do exist.
Monckton says “if Dr. Scafetta’s estimate is correct, approximately three-quarters of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is anthropogenic. This is consistent with the IPCC’s estimate that more than half of the warming since 1950 is attributable to us; but, of course, it is inconsistent with the IPCC’s bizarrely overblown prediction that in the remaining 90 years of this century there will be warming at more than three times the previously-observed rate.”
That is absolute nonsense. You acknowledge that the IPCC is correct about CO2-driven warming, and then follow by saying that the projected accelerating CO2 emissions won’t cause accelerating warming.
I’d prefer to focus on the many problems with Scafetta’s widget, but that was an entirely nonsensical comment.