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
fabron says:
March 12, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I consider Vuckevic theory ‘closer to reality’ on account of stronger looking correlation
Vuk does not have a theory, only an undocumented claim. As long as there are no published details he has no theory or even hypothesis.
KR says:
March 12, 2012 at 1:57 pm
“This means that your curve-fits will have little to no predictive value as climate forcings change.”
IF the forcings change significantly. As of right now, there is no indication at all that the climate is responding to any external anthropogenic forcing to which it has not responded in typical fashion in the past. The run up in the global average temperature metric (GATM) in the 30 year interval 1970-2000 is almost precisely what it was in the interval 1910-1940.
“But it’s curve-fitting, not physics. Descriptive, not predictive. It tells us exactly nothing outside the fit period.”
Given the ubiquity of cyclical behavior in all branches of physics and engineering, its predictive value is strong. But, if it indeed told us nothing outside the fit period, that would still be better than the IPCC projections, which are wrong even within the fit period, and there is no evidence that they will get better as time goes on. Indeed, there is an awful lot of catching up to do for the GATM to get anywhere close. I.e., the race is near the finish line, and your horse isn’t even in the lead pack.
If a layman is permitted to attempt an answer to KR’s points, here goes:
KR1: “The IPCC models are indeed baselined to the 1980-1999 period. Shifting the baseline as [Dr. Scafetta does], giving the illusion of a worse agreement with the data is, to quote: “just an illusion trick” on [Dr. Scafetta’s] part.”
M of B: If KR will refer to Fig. 10.26 of IPCC (2007), he will see that all of the IPCC’s principal temperature and related predictions, of which the one at Fig. SPM.5 is explicitly cited by Dr. Scafetta in his excellent posting here, are baselined on the entire 20th century.
KR2: “Climate models are not intended to reproduce decadal variations, but rather long term changes in climate – hence multiple runs to bracket short term variations. Demanding that they reproduce short term variation (as you do) is a strawman argument.”
M of B: Refer to Fig. 10.26 of IPCC (2007) again. It will be evident that the models relied upon by the IPCC are generating curves that display anomalies at the sub-decadal as well as the supra-decadal scale. Dr. Scafetta reasonably points out in his numerous peer-reviewed papers, and in his head-posting here, that attempts to rely solely upon CO2 as the tuning-knob of the climate will gang agley unless one also makes allowance for the well-established (and, indeed, supra-decadal) 60-year periodicity in the global surface temperature anomaly record), to say nothing of the shorter periodicities caused by Sun/Moon interactions and by the 10.6-year (though variable) sunspot cycle. If the models do not even reproduce the 60-year periodicity that is evident not only in the temperature record but also in the phases of the great ocean oscillations (see e.g. Tsonis et al., 2006), then they will fail. Indeed, they have failed. Dr. Scafetta’s forecast made in 2000 is on target: the IPCC’s forecast has overshot badly, and that, frankly, is the elephant in the room.
KR3: “[Dr. Scafetta’s] widget is still showing monthly temperatures (high variability) against yearly (lower uncertainty) 1-sigma ranges for the IPCC models – “just an illusion trick”?”
M of B: With respect, this is a silly point. Dr. Scafetta, in demonstrating whether his long-run (lower-uncertainty) projection based on the known periodicities in the climate, has overlain upon it the actual monthly (higher-variability) anomalies as determined by observation. Naturally, the observations show more fluctuation than the projections (which, to answer another silly point, this time by Dr. Svalgaard, is why from time to time the observed record passes furth of the one-sigma cyan band in Dr. Scafetta’s projection). But it is simple enough to determine a least-squares linear-regression trend on the observed data since 2000 (hint: there has been no statistically-significant temperature change over the period, in line with Dr. Scafetta’s projection but very substantially below that of the IPCC, whose one-sigma zone is shown in green on the chart).
KR4: “Worst of all – You have no physical relationship between your cycles and the climate. As far as I can see you have just hand-picked frequencies that roughly fit the variations of the climate (a hand-generated Fourier decomposition), curve-fitting to the data, which is a reasonable description of data within that period – without being in any way a model of the processes occurring. This means that your curve-fits will have little to no predictive value as climate forcings change.”
M of B: KR should really read Dr. Scafetta’s papers, and indeed his head posting here, before making such an absurd assertion. Dr. Scafetta has written numerous papers on the influence of solar variability on climate, for instance. And the 60-year periodicity in the global temperature data needs no Fourier decomposition to identify it: one can see it with the naked eye. It also tracks closely the various ocean oscillations (see Tsonis et al., 2006, for an excellent discussion and for further references); and, as Dr. Pinker pointed out in her 2005 paper, one observed physical mechanism is the startling reduction in cloud cover from 1983 to late in 2001, causing some 6 W/m2 of forcing (the entire gross anthropogenic forcing from greenhouse gases since 1750 is little more than half that). It is not necessary for Dr. Scafetta to be able to explain every mechanism that influences the oscillations that he describes. The 11-year sunspot variability, for instance, cannot yet be fully explained: but the sunspot record demonstrates that it exists in reality.
KR’s posting does seem to fall short of the high standards of intellectual honesty that were once customary in the sciences. It has become noticeable that whenever any scientist mounts a serious challenge to the IPCC/RealClimate storyline there are numerous attempts, such as that of KR, to put something – anything – on the record somewhere by way of an attack on that challenge, so that others can later say that the scientist’s work has been “discredited” or “debunked”. Attempts to behave in this fashion by those whose faith in the IPCC is strong are becoming too numerous and too baseless to be any longer credible. Anyone looking in on this debate with a clear and unprejudiced eye can determine who is trying to tell the truth and who is not: and this is one of the chief reasons why the climate scare is no longer believed anything like as widely as once it was. Magna est veritas, et praevalet!
You are right….you said it…just Amen…..
Myself, I am looking forward to 2014, when the
[coined by foreign exchange trader ] (1) “psychological important threshold” of 400 ppmv
CO2 will be crossed and (2) the temps are further down….thus more to laugh about Warmism
and their forecasts……(see Warmist Judith Lean: 0.14 ‘C GMT up 2010-2014)
Greetings
JS
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Which arrogant list of points! You need to read my papers first and understand them. Then, come back.
“Climate models are not intended to reproduce decadal variations, but rather long term changes in climate”? The fail the long term changes as well, do not worry. To have any physical importance a model needs to reconstruct at least something, don’t you agree? In any case, people are not interested in what will happen next century, they want to know what will happen in the next 10-30 years. If the models fail this time span they are useless.
fabron says: March 12, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Please read my paper. The 60-year cycle has a long history. I show very long sequences that contain that cycle, explicitly and in the references.
Bart says: March 12, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Bart, be patient.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Leif, open your closed mind!
If we were living in 1600 would you have said that the moon was causing the tides on the Earth? (everybody was beliving so, but you would have opposed it, don’y you?)
Or if we were in 1880 would you have agreed that sunspot activity was connected to the geomagnetic fluctuations? (surely not, by considering your way of thinking).
Sam Kean [The Disappearing Spoon] has this very fitting description of Pathological Science [which goes for both IPCC and Scafetta, IMHO]: “Pathological Science is not fraud, since the adherents believe they’re right – if only everybody else could see it. It is not pseudoscience, like Freudianism and Marxism [and Vuk’s], fields that poach on the imprimatur of science yet shuns the rigors of the scientific method. It is not politicized science, like Lysenkoism, where people swear allegiance to a false science because of threats or a skewed ideology [some may disagree]. Finally, it’s not general clinical madness or merely deranged belief. It’s a particular madness, a meticulous and scientific informed delusion. Pathological scientists pick out a marginal and unlikely phenomenon that appeals to them for whatever reason and bring all their scientific acumen to proving its existence. But the game is rigged from the start: their science serves only the deeper emotional need to believe in something. […] And actually, pathological science doesn’t always spring from fringe fields. It also thrives in legitimate but speculative fields, where data and evidence are scarce and hard to interpret. […] Pathological science takes advantage of that caution [not to extrapolate too far]. Basically, its believers use the ambiguity about evidence as evidence – claiming that [other] scientists don’t know everything and therefore there’s room for my pet theory, too”
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Is that your final argument? Do not have anything better?
Do not be so obtuse. Be at least open a little bit. After all, you are not the creator of the universe, don’t you? Things are not always as they appear: sometimes something new comes out.
Monckton of Brenchley says: March 12, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Thank you for the excellent response. I wish to be able to write so well.
It’s tiresome enough to point out Scafetta’s errors without Monckton compounding them. I will simply point out that the caption of the figure in question says:
“Figure SPM.5. Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–1999)…”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-5.html
Thus the appropriate baseline is undeniably (and I use the term ironically here) 1980-1999.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 2:33 pm
“Bart, be patient.”
With respect, Nicola, I believe it is you who have jumped the gun here. You do not need to posit an attribution at this stage. On a purely battlefield metaphorical level, it is not a little like Germany opening up the Eastern Front before it had the Western Front secured. You are now fighting on two fronts, and it is sapping your strength from the battle you can assuredly win.
I suppose you are already committed, but I would have advised you to fight one battle at a time and, when you had incontrovertible evidence of a linkage between the planetary orbits and the climate, then launch your attack on that redoubt.
Nicola Scafetta – “The(y) fail the long term changes as well, do not worry.”
Actually, they do not: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html
“In any case, people are not interested in what will happen next century, they want to know what will happen in the next 10-30 years. If the models fail this time span they are useless.”
10 years? There will likely be ~0.17 C anthropogenic warming per decade, with short term variability due to ENSO, solar cycles, and volcanic aerosols being larger in scale than the anthropogenic contribution. 30 year? The same, with ~0.17 C/decade warming clearly discernible against the other climate variations that have no long term trend.
If you want short term predictions of ENSO, go to the ENSO models (initial value predictions, akin to weather forecasts) – although they’re quite frankly not very good yet. Solar is more predictable, but for volcanic activity you’re better off flipping coins.
That’s the whole idea of discussing climate, as opposed to weather or variations – the long term outlook, the trends.
“Which arrogant list of points!” – I’ve seen far worse in peer review comments. And you have not actually addressed any of the points that I made.
To KR: All Warmists are afraid of recognizing natural cycles, because CO2 is
not capable of generating cycles…..tough luck, but its not the Skeptics fault….
Using arguments of Warmist S. Rahmstorf: His paper of natural cycles of 2002:
“”….a precise clock…..”
Try it out and see how he detects and descibes natural cycles in paleohistory…..
Keep in mind: These guys are the sneaky type (for example his : www. Klimalounge”:
offering a climate BET for temp increases in the 2010-2020 decade: As soon as
I accepted all his terms and he, realizing he was going to loose, because of stagnant
temps this decade, he refused to take the bet and immediately stopped his blog
deadright, not even a complaint to the blog organizer helped… Warmists immediately
stop responding if you take up their offer…..)
…… better watch out, with whom you deal with….
…. Another sneaky feature: Omittance of the 60/61 natural cycle for the 20/21 Cty
and instead hyping up “”ENSO, solar, volcanic and the linear trend -no cycles-“”
as you write.
Everybody knows, that temperature driving CAUSES are only short term on less
than decadal scales thus uninteresting for the climate, only for meteorology….
and knowing this, as well as we know,
makes Warmists arrogant, obstinante and unpleasant in dialogues….too bad….
JS
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Do not be so nervous. read my papers. The IPCC models do not reconstruct any of the detectable cycles, patterns observed since 1850. Yoou are not getting the issues. The IPCC has projected a warming of 2.3 C/century since 2000, by the way, not your 0.17 C per decade.
About your points: Lord Monckton has already responded your points very well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/11/scafetta-prediction-widget-update/#comment-920966
Moreover is your name “KR” or you are called in a different way?
My thanks to Lord Monckton of Brenchley for the time and effort allocated to evaluate and comment on my post.
May I add, I am not in possession of PhD degree, hence just an ordinary practical engineer, with some experience of analysing periodic signals, natural, resonant and forced oscillations.
I am much obliged to your lordship.
Dr. Scafetta:
Harmonic cycles and such are a bit above my paygrade, and since I recently retired, I say I am on a “fixed income.” (Indeed, I was intructed to say this loudly and often in a recent course I took, “Our most vulnerable group, Seniors.”) But I have studied and was much impressed by the paper you wrote with Dr. Willson on the ACRIM Gap controversy. Looking at several critical papers, other commentary (such as your reponse (linked to above) at Pielke Sr.’s blog to Benestad and Schmidt (2009), I think you and Willson clearly got the better of the overall argument. Are you still confident in your analysis in that paper, and in particular, do you remain confident in your estimates of the ramp up of TSI and its likely contribution to the increase in global surface temperature prior to the end of the Grand Solar Maximum in 2000-2001?
If “yes” or “pretty much yes” is your answer, I would note that even on skeptical blogs, most people of a skeptical bent regarding “global warming” seem automatically to accept that that TSI decreased over the latter part of the 20th century (as per the PMOD reconstruction), and then begin to look for evidence of other Solar effects (e,g,, solar wind electro-scavaging, cosmic ray-cloud modulation, larger than expected UV increases, etc.) to find a positive Solar contribution to temperature increases. I have no problem with the latter endeavors and there is plenty of evidence to support looking very carefully into each of them. Just thought that while you are here I would ask about would ask about the TSI recon issue. I know you will give me an honest answer.
Monckton of Brenchley – “M of B: If KR will refer to Fig. 10.26 of IPCC (2007), he will see that all of the IPCC’s principal temperature and related predictions, of which the one at Fig. SPM.5 is explicitly cited by Dr. Scafetta in his excellent posting here, are baselined on the entire 20th century.” (emphasis added)
That would be quite incorrect. The data Dr. Scafetta drew from, in Fig. SPM.5 (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-5.html) states explicitly: “Figure SPM.5. Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–1999) for the scenarios…” (emphasis added)
I do not think the error could be any more clear.
“…evident that the models relied upon by the IPCC are generating curves that display anomalies at the sub-decadal as well as the supra-decadal scale…”
That is quite right. Individual model runs are showing decadal and somewhat longer variations, as is to be quite expected if they are accurately representing the physics involved. The particular evolution of a single model run, however, is more an initial value issue, and hence running multiple models with multiple initializations allows mapping out the range expected of the physics of the climate.
No individual run is expected to reproduce the exact evolution of the climate – but an assembly of runs can show an expected range. Your argument is a strawman.
If Dr. Scafetta were to show the 1-sigma range of monthly model results, rather than against the rather smaller yearly results, that would not be a problem. But monthly against yearly is an apples/oranges misrepresentation.
Finally, correlation without causation isn’t physics. What Dr. Scafetta has done is descriptive signal decomposition, not establishment of cause/effect relationships. That’s fine within the period of signal decomposition as a description, but until he provides solid mechanisms (preferably testable ones) that are better supported by the evidence than the basic spectroscopy and energy conservation supporting the greenhouse gas effect and anthropogenic contributions, it’s still just correlation without causation.
And hence it won’t provide strong predictive capabilities outside the curve-fit period, such as backprojections of his cycles that clearly diverge.
Nicola Scafetta – Regarding 0.23C/decade and 0.17C/decade, I am using the numbers from Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022), wherein they perform an attribution analysis against ENSO, solar, volcanic, and a linear trend, which will include include greenhouse gases, aerosols (not separated in that work), and other influences generating that trend. Not just the CO2 contribution.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 2:33 pm
If we were living in 1600 would you have said that the moon was causing the tides on the Earth? (everybody was beliving so, but you would have opposed it, don’y you?)
Lemme see… Galileo didn’t believe so.
Or if we were in 1880 would you have agreed that sunspot activity was connected to the geomagnetic fluctuations? (surely not, by considering your way of thinking).
what do you know about what I would believe? I would have agreed that in 1858: http://www.leif.org/research/H02-FRI-O1430-0550.pdf
KR says:
……Finally, correlation without causation isn’t physics. What Dr. Scafetta has done is descriptive signal decomposition, not establishment of cause/effect relationships. That’s fine within the period of signal decomposition as a description, but until he provides solid mechanisms (preferably testable ones) that are better supported by the evidence than the basic spectroscopy and energy conservation supporting the greenhouse gas effect and anthropogenic contributions, it’s still just correlation without causation.
And hence it won’t provide strong predictive capabilities outside the curve-fit period, such as backprojections of his cycles that clearly diverge…..
…………………………………
Correlation without causation may not be physics but it IS a start and a heck of a lot better than completely ignoring very obvious cycles. Our ancestors did not have to know astrophysics to be able to predict eclipses, tides and predict the correct time to plant seed, so please spare me the “hence it won’t provide strong predictive capabilities outside the curve-fit period” crap. Mankind has been using the study of cycles for eons without knowing the underlying physics so that part of your argument doesn’t hold water.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2012 at 2:42 pm
“Pathological Science is not fraud, since the adherents believe they’re right – if only everybody else could see it. It is not pseudoscience, like Freudianism and Marxism [and Vuk’s], fields that poach on the imprimatur of science yet shuns the rigors of the scientific method.”
hence it’s a fraud – he thinks (mav remark).
Hi Doc
I suggest have a quick look at : http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTC.htm
Your excursion into psychoanalysis is interesting.
I should be flattered to belong to same groping as Karl Marks, whose works I have ( had to ) study for about 3 years. I wander have you red any of Das Kapital.
Freud and Marks believed what they wrote, and many millions did and do too. Belief is a ‘quasi-knowledge’ without questioning i.e. kind of a religion.
Science is ‘knowledge with questioning’ and as such subject to change, modification, evolution or even total rejection.
If you allow me to return the ‘favour’ I would assume that you would put yourself into the second rather than first grouping.
What I write and post here and elsewhere, I would consider ‘science lite’ rather then pseudoscience, since I do it as a hobby and for personal pleasure and amusement.
Do I believe in it?
Definitely NOT.
Do I question it?
Occasionally, if I see something might be outrageously wrong.
Is it science?
Only the bits that may be correct, according to the current understanding.
Is it pseudoscience?
Definitely NOT, pseudoscience is meant to deceive, but since it contains parts which can’t be proven correct or wrong, it might lead the ‘fearful’ (as a mean of defence) to classify it and its author as such (pseudo-science).
Thank you “dana1981”, “Dikran Marsupial” and “KR” for attempting to critique Nicola Scafetta’s widget. You are being treated with more courtesy than you deserve while nothing you say is being censored.
Contrast that with the way SkepticalScience operates. That alone shows your cause is lost.
“dana1981” – Your sneering comment about Climatastrology may come back to bite you. Imagine a mechanism linking the solar wind to the motion of the larger planets. Ridiculous you say?
Monckton of Brenchley says:
March 12, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Dr. Scafetta, after years of thought, has found a way to eliminate these 60-year cycles
Scafetta believes that ~70% of climate is driven by the planets [or the moon], that is, by astronomical cycles. Since you are so enamored by Scafetta’s pathological science, perhaps it is appropriate to inquire if you also believe that the planets control our climate on a time scale of centuries and decades.
KR—why don’t you start your analysis from say 1850? You will see a steady recovery from the LIA which is lower.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/guest-post-the-continuing-recovery-from-the-little-ice-age-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/
dana1981 says: March 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm
I have already responded to you. The IPCC models are supposed to reconstruct the 20-century temperature, thus the natural baseline is 1900-2000 as I used. Try to think a little bit instead of acting as a cult believer. The IPCC models are already very bad in reproducing the 1900-1970 periods, if you put your base line even lower than the 1900-2000 base line the discrepancy with the temperature before 1970 would be even larger.
Leigh B. Kelley says: March 12, 2012 at 3:48 pm
The issue between ACRIM and PMOD is still open. Unfortunately, there are only two ways to solve it: 1) go back in time and take again the TSI measurement during the ACRIM gap (1989-1992), which we cannot do; 2) understanding the solar dynamics which we may be able to do, and I am working on it.
My last paper on the topic is here
N. Scafetta, “Total Solar Irradiance Satellite Composites and their Phenomenological Effect on Climate,” chapter 12, pag 289-316.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-easterbrook.pdf
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 3:57 pm “Regarding 0.23C/decade and 0.17C/decade, I am using the numbers from Foster and Rahmstorf 2011”
Foster and Rahmstorf are doing the following thing “When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability)”
The major problem is that they do not detrend the 60-year cycle which is evident in PDO and AMO. They also use an hypothetical solar record (PMOD) with no trending which may be wrong. And they approximate the residual with a straight line.
The calculations need to be done with the 60 and 20 year cycles as in my papers and I arrived to a very different conclusion. You also need to understand that there is the need to look at the patterns in the data since 1850 as I do, not just since 1979 as done in Foster and Rahmstorf who then use linear fitting functions.
You find a critique to Foster and Rahmstorf here
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011-global-temperature-evolution-1979-2010/
KR says:March 12, 2012 at 3:57 pm
… it’s still just correlation without causation. And hence it won’t provide strong predictive capabilities outside the curve-fit period
That would be true only if the correlation is completely accidental. If it turns out to be predictive, what then? IMO, if you can use the correlation to predict then knowing the cause merely satisfies curiousity. Dismissing it simply because the mechanism is not understood is just wishful thinking.
Gail Combs says:
March 12, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Mankind has been using the study of cycles for eons without knowing the underlying physics so that part of your argument doesn’t hold water.
Gail, the difference is that Scafetta knows [at least he claims so] what cause the cycles: the influence of the planets.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 4:36 pm
“Lemme see… Galileo didn’t believe so.”
And nobody, not one, believed Galileo about his theory of tides. Galileo himself rejected the theory later, don’t you know?
Everybody believed Kepler, and thousands other astrologers, who were telling the right thing based on common sense: if we see a correlation between the lunar phases and the tides, the tides are caused by a “mysterious” lunar “influence” (which Newton called gravity later).
On the contrary, you would have been the only one in rejecting the theory of lunar-induced tides well known to every fisherman, on the basis that no physical mechanism was known.
Leif says: “what do you know about what I would believe? I would have agreed that in 1858: ”
No, you would not have believed it. No physical mechanism linking sunspot variation to geomagnetic activity was known at the time, there was only a correlation. You would have said that the sun is too far from the earth and the magnetic field from the sunspots would be too weakened by the long distance to effect the geomagnetic activity.
Dikran Marsupial March 12 @ur momisugly 2:02
You say that humans have a propensity to see correlations and patterns in data where none exist. How very true. We have been told for far too long to “see” a linear “correlation” and in fact a causal “pattern” between increased CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. Problem is of course that no such correlation or pattern exists demonstrably in the real world. Whether it is for the entire 20th century or for e.g. the post-1998 flatlining, no meaningful correlation exists nor does any demonstrable “pattern” of causality between increased CO2 concetrations and increases in global temperatures. That purported causality however, remains the null hypothesis, for which there is less and less credible evidence.
It might be interesting to you to try and obfuscate that reality by partaking in a witch hunt on Scafetta, but it does not make that reality any less true and visible to those interesting in taking a hard look. Unless you of course have access to verifiable data that provides incontrovertible proof for the null hypothesis, in which case it would most useful and kind of you if you would share that information with all of us.