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.
Dr. Scafetta:
Thank you for your reply! Downloaded, saved, perused… . Excelent! Much to analyze. Thank you.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 5:22 pm
On the contrary, you would have been the only one in rejecting the theory of lunar-induced tides well known to every fisherman, on the basis that no physical mechanism was known.
A physical theory is not needed if the correlation is REALLY good [works every time without fail] and is not based on faulty and fabricated data, and yours aren’t good and that is the difference. And BTW, a physical mechanism WAS ‘known’ [it was wrong though], as he said: “If the earth ceased to attract the waters of the sea, the seas would rise and flow into the moon…” which does not explain why there is a tidal bulge on the side of the Earth away from the Moon.
You would have said that the sun is too far from the earth and the magnetic field from the sunspots would be too weakened by the long distance to effect the geomagnetic activity.
Again you forget the issue of validated predictions. Rudolf Wolf who discovered the relationship between sunspots and the regular daily geomagnetic variation, every year when he computed the sunspot number for the year predicted what the amplitude should be and was always correct, year after year: http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf not just in the overall run of the curves but in small details as well. That would have been good enough for me. On the other hand, Wolf is also the originator of the planetary theory for sunspots and eventually abandoned that because it didn’t hold up: “this research (by myself and others) never produced any really satisfactory results”, and it still doesn’t.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 4:46 pm
“Monckton of Brenchley says: March 12, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Dr. Scafetta, after years of thought, has found a way to eliminate these 60-year cycles
Scafetta believes that ~70% of climate is driven by the planets [or the moon], that is, by astronomical cycles. Since you are so enamored by Scafetta’s pathological science, perhaps it is appropriate to inquire if you also believe that the planets control our climate on a time scale of centuries and decades.”
Leif, what kind of reasoning is this? Is Monckton of Brenchley the person who is doing this research? What he believes or does not believe is irrelevant to my results.
The research is still not concluded yet. There are only two possible outcomes: 1) my theory is correct; 2) my theory is wrong. Wait and see how the things develop, Lord Monckton will do the same. He will wait to see how the things develop.
You are not proving any of the two points. You are simply arguing that my theory “must” be wrong just because you do not understand the physical mechanism: so you are talking about your own scientific limitations only. This is not a valid scientific argument against my theory.
What is certain up to now is that climate presents a set of cycles that apparently well correlate to some astronomical cycles and that the climate models used by the IPCC are not able to produce these cycles.
Nicola Scafetta – WRT longer time frames than Foster and Rahmstorf analyze, I would recommend the attribution analysis done in Lean and Rind 2008 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf) using the records of aerosols, solar level, ENSO, and greenhouse gases. F&R 2011 discuss the last 30 years, quite relevant to the 10-30 year predictions you asked about.
In the L&R analysis there appear no significant ’60-year’ or ’20-year’ cycles remaining in the regression residuals. Nor such cycles in the forcing records – based upon the physics of these forcings, established and testable cause-effect relationships, etc. The PDO (http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/aboutpdo.shtml) and AMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg), to mention two major long term variations you discuss in your work, do not show consistent cycles either.
In terms of predictions from the physics (as opposed to frequency decomposition of the past), Lean and Rind 2009 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Lean_Rind.pdf) extend their work to 2030, based upon reasonable assumptions of the evolution of forcings, including regional predictions that stand apart in predictive detail from your global cycles.
I feel that Tamino has more then answered Tisdale in support of his work, and I will leave that to him.
—
I’ll summarize my objections, which have not been addressed.
You have (IMO) misrepresented the IPCC projections with baseline offsets (as noted above), monthly data plotted against yearly projection ranges, and a rather limited (1-sigma) range overall. You’ve repeatedly argued the strawman of decadal variations against multiple-run model averages that make 30-year predictions.
And while your frequency decomposition of past global temperatures can certainly fit past temperatures (given enough different frequencies any signal can be provably fit to arbitrary tolerances), they lack any physical/causal connection – and hence there is no support for predictions outside that range of training. The only way to extend outside that range is to introduce more and more longer frequencies (as you note, “millenarian cycles”), more curve-fitting, which I would consider the equivalent of Ptolemaic epicycles. Descriptive, yes. Predictive, no.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Leif, also my correlations are very good! Look better at my figures.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/scafetta_60-20.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/scafetta_2011_fig11.png
Moreover, my correlations are at least better than the IPCC models!
And they are for far longer periods than the correlations that Wolf had. Thus, you would have been in the group of people who were opposing Wolf, not supporting him. Do not tell lies.
Wolf, for example, supported Schwabe about the 11-year solar cycle: Schawabe had only 17 years of data. Don’t tell me that you would have sided with Wolf!
Wolf was not tinking like you, sorry Leif!
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 6:12 pm
“Nicola Scafetta – WRT longer time frames than Foster and Rahmstorf analyze, I would recommend the attribution analysis done in Lean and Rind 2008 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf) using the records ”
and I recommend you to read my paper”
N. Scafetta, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 1916–1923 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/ATP2998.pdf
where I rebut among other things Lean and Rind 2008 who made incredible mistakes.
They claim that the climate responds “linearly” with the forcing which is crazy.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Leif, also my correlations are very good! Look better at my figures.
We are talking about correlations with the planets… Not about simple curve fitting.
Wolf, for example, supported Schwabe about the 11-year solar cycle: Schawabe had only 17 years of data. Don’t tell me that you would have sided with Wolf!
Wolf went through hundreds of volumes at the library of Berne to collect 240 years of data in order to fix the sunspot cycle. And he did not ‘support’ Schwabe, as you do not support observations. Wolf simply used Schwabe’s observations. As I said, the validation of Wolf’s discovery of the sunspot connection with geomagnetic variation comes from it generally being a prediction, year after year, of what the observatories should find [which they subsequently did].
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Leif, what kind of reasoning is this? Is Monckton of Brenchley the person who is doing this research? What he believes or does not believe is irrelevant to my results.
But very much to his reputation.
You are simply arguing that my theory “must” be wrong just because you do not understand the physical mechanism: so you are talking about your own scientific limitations only.
Well, then what is the physical mechanism? just saying that the ‘planets are doing it’ is not physics.
A linear multiple regression is quite justifiable – if (for example) the climate response to a forcing change is a ramp-up/ramp-down, or exponential decay to a new value, a linear regression for a +/- forcing change will converge on a lag centered in the response, with balanced +/- residuals at the turning points.
For larger scale non-linearities you would need some physical justification – within the observed climate range, with the notable exception of the T^4 Stephan-Boltzmann response, there is little support for significant forcing non-linear effects. Yes, “…climate science predicts that time-lag
and the climate sensitivity to a forcing is frequency dependent.”, which is why there is significant literature on the transient versus equilibrium climate response. And quite frankly given the ups and downs of global temperature over the last few centuries there have been primarily transient responses.
You, on the other hand, attribute the vast majority of climate change (up to 65%) to solar irradiance, despite a general decrease in irradiance over the last half century. I believe Lockwood 2010, Domingo et al 2009, and Benestad et al 2009 (and others) appropriate responses to your paper.
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 6:50 pm
“You, on the other hand, attribute the vast majority of climate change (up to 65%) to solar irradiance, despite a general decrease in irradiance over the last half century.”
You are too sure of yourself, don’t you? There exists a controversy about what he sun did in which world do yo live?
Read my papers, for example
N. Scafetta, “Total Solar Irradiance Satellite Composites and their Phenomenological Effect on Climate,” chapter 12, pag 289-316.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-easterbrook.pdf
and my paper with willson
and see here
http://acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 6:50 pm
“A linear multiple regression is quite justifiable – if (for example) the climate response to a forcing change is a ramp-up/ramp-down, or exponential decay to a new value, a linear regression for a +/- forcing change will converge on a lag centered in the response, with balanced +/- residuals at the turning points.”
Really? so why do people use climate models (EBM and GCM) if a simple linear regression of the forcings sufficies to reconstructs the climate. Read well my papers, everything is explained there.
“I believe Lockwood 2010, Domingo et al 2009, and Benestad et al 2009 (and others) appropriate responses to your paper.”
All those papers are wrong and ridiculous, in particular Benestad et al 2009 which is pure trash. See here
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/nicola-scafetta-comments-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming-by-benestad-and-schmidt/
As also Lord Monckton has noted, you are not familiar with my papers. So study them first, and then come back.
On the contrary, the temperature trending since 2000 has been almost steady as the figure in the widget clearly shows.
HadCRUT3 is actually steady for 15 years, since March, 1997. (I know the February number is not out yet, but with RSS and UAH going down slightly in February, but GISS going up slightly, it is obvious that HadCRUT3 will not show much change in February.)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.16/trend
Nicola Scafetta
“You are too sure of yourself, don’t you? There exists a controversy about what (t)he sun did in which world do yo(u)l live?”
I would suggest looking at Usoskin et al 2004 (http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf), summarized in a graph here: (http://tinyurl.com/y95km4p). Recent warming simply does not track TSI changes.
“Really? so why do people use climate models (EBM and GCM) if a simple linear regression of the forcings sufficies to reconstructs the climate.”
Because backward attribution studies such as L&R 2008 and F&R 2011 can be done with regression of cause-effect temporal relationships without explicit detail, while forward projection of climate evolution needs to be done with detailed physics. I would think that quite obvious.
“All those papers are wrong and ridiculous, in particular Benestad et al 2009 which is pure trash.”
Then I look forward to your peer-reviewed response to these peer-reviewed papers.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 6:48 pm
why don’t you want to wait, are you in hurry? are you dying?
Why should I discuss with you my ideas on a blog? You know well that you cannot be trusted, and it is inappropriate to discuss research in progress publicly in a blog, in any case.
We are discussing only published literature, so do not go beyond it. Your arguments are based only on your ignorance, which is not a strong scientific argument.
The astronomical cycles are there and they are very clear and are correlated with the temperature data. Look at my figures in the papers, for example,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/scafetta_60-20.png
the black is the temperature and the red is astronomical cycles. It is not a curve fitting, Leif. It is a superposition. Do you deny that the correlations are very good? On which argument?
Moreover, my model is not based on just curve fitting, as you say. It is much more complex that it. It is based on harmonic hindcast tests, as currently done with the ocean tides (you have never understood it, don’t you): I use astronomical frequencies and I see whether a model based on those frequencies calibrated on the period 1850-1950 is able to reproduce climate variability from 1950 to 2010, and vice versa. This is not curve fitting, it is hindcast testing, that you do not understand at all.
Of course you are not stupid, so you are simply try to twist the reality as usual, and more and more readers of this blog are realizing day after day that you are not a honest person nor in your comments nor in your criticisms. What do you think to accomplish with your methods, Leif? Do you believe to change reality?
If you think that my analyses are wrong, prove it.
If you think the theory that I propose is wrong, prove it.
Here we are discussing the model I have proposed above. Do you agree or not that such a model agrees with the data much better than the IPCC models up to now? This is the issue here. So, keep focus on the issue.
You are very different from people like Wolf.
MAVukcevic says:
March 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm
I should be flattered to belong to same grouping as Karl Marx, whose works I have ( had to ) study for about 3 years. I wonder have you read any of Das Kapital
I actually have (as well as ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’).
Recall the definition of pseudoscience as “fields that poach on the imprimatur of science yet shuns the rigors of the scientific method”
Your dabbling certainly qualifies under that definition, whether or not you believe in it. Scafetta’s writings are not pseudoscience, but pathological science (as is that of IPCC, Mann, etc).
Scafetta in a nutshell: ‘anyone who points out my errors either hasn’t read my papers or their own research is garbage.’
Not a very scientific attitude.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Do you agree or not that such a model agrees with the data much better than the IPCC models up to now? This is the issue here.
So does my old shoe model. That IPCC is wrong does not prove me nor you correct. Remember the False Dilemma Fallacy:
Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim X is false.
Therefore claim Y is true.
If you think the theory that I propose is wrong, prove it.
You do not provide a theory at all, just curve fitting, speculation, and hand waving.
Study Kean’s definition of pathological science and recognize how it fits your work.
KR says: March 12, 2012 at 7:44 pm
“Then I look forward to your peer-reviewed response to these peer-reviewed papers.”
The peer-review papers disproving those papers are already published, read my papers and try to understand them, all of them are are peer reviewed. Do not be so foolish in your arguments, that prove only that you do not reason and that you are only a cult-believer.
The issue is very simple. There are large natural cycles such as the 60-year cycle, plus many other cycles, that the models of the IPCC, including the model used in your three papers, do not reproduce, as proven in my papers.
By not reproducing these natural cycles, those models have greatly overestimated the anthropogenic GHG by mistaking the warming since 1970 as due to GHG alone, while at least 2/3 of it was due to the positive phase of this 60-year cycle.
Once that the appropriate corrections are done, the projections for the 21st century are much less allarmistic that what the AGW advocates and the IPCC have proposed. And my forecast model since 2000 based on such assumptions agrees well with the data , while the IPCC model have failed, as the above figure shows very well up to now.
Do you believe that the (apparent up to now) truth is otherwise?
What is your contrarian argument?
That I have to prove it in a peer reviewed paper? I did it, many times. For example in
[1] Nicola Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005
[2] Adriano Mazzarella and Nicola Scafetta, “Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change.” Theor. Appl. Climatol. (2011). DOI: 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4
[3] Craig Loehle and Nicola Scafetta, “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data.” The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5, 74-86 (2011). DOI: 10.2174/1874282301105010074
[4] Nicola Scafetta, “A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 74, 145-163 (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013
[5] Nicola Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015
and in many other papers.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 8:11 pm
“Scafetta’s writings are not pseudoscience, but pathological science (as is that of IPCC, Mann, etc).”
It that your scientific argument?
Only you are excluded from such a pathological science list, isn’t it? Are you sure that it is not you who have some pathological problem?
Tell me, Leif. In three words, how would you describe yourself and your behavior, which many people here have found to be dishonest and based on a long series of logical fallacies .
The list here here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
choose three fallacies that you wish, and I will prove that you have committed them in a way or in another.
You are not trying to look for the truth, Leif. And I am sorry for that.
Dr. Scafetta, I fear I greatly mistrust any time series that starts in 2000. What does your method look like for the period say 1850-2012, compared to the historical record?
Because a fit from 2000 to 2010? Sorry, meaningless to me. Please show the full record so we can have something to discuss.
Finally, you say that you are using a series of cycles of 9.1, 10-11, 20 and 60 years. You also say these were “based on astronomical cycles”.
My question is, do these cycles have the exact same cycle length, phase and relative amplitude as the corresponding astronomical cycles? Or are they “based on astronomical cycles” in the same way that Hollywood movies are “based on a true story”, meaning that you have adjusted (fit) their cycle lengths and relative phase and amplitude to match the temperature record?
I understand that you are free to ignore my question about the origin and fit of the cycles. I’d suggest for your continued credibility that you answer them and show the full 150 year comparison, but it’s up to you.
w.
PS—Bonus question. Why is one cycle 9.1 years while another cycle is “10-11 years”? Does the period of the second one vary from ten to eleven years?
Willis…..please read a bit WUWT for a change, for example, the post “Why William D.
Nordhaus is wrong about global warming skeptics”‘……..
and halfway through the text the graph of Davis, J.C. and Bohling, G.C
Graphic: “GISP2 Holocene Power Spectrum (Fixed Time Intervals) and
you can see the 61(60) year cycle, occurring 16 times EACH millenium
for the past 10,000 years, thus 160 time already in the Holocene….. this
includes the PRESENTLY occurring 60/61 year cycle…….
This 60/61 year cycle produces a staircase STEPWISE temp. change CURVE
SHAPE: i.e: 40 years of PLATEAU followed by 20 year Step INCREASE.of 0,4’C…..
and this HARMONIC (i.e astronomic) cycle of 60 /61 years has nothing to do with
CO2, because CO2 does not produce ANY cycles (so far as I know, unless a
Warmist will think one up?)
Cheers
JS
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2012 at 8:36 pm
You are not trying to look for the truth, Leif. And I am sorry for that.
Truth? Only a cult or religion has the Truth.
dishonest and based on a long series of logical fallacies
Time to wash your mouth out with soap.
Leif Svalgaard is neither a Lysenko nor a Stalin who used draconian powers to defend Lysenko’s flawed science.
Leif is a free man who chooses to engage here on WUWT? with opinion and debate, thus meeting Anthony’s criteria of commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science… etc..
Lief does not imprison, even execute, as Stalin did; nor call for protection from any present day Stalin. He simply gives an opinion. Presents facts as he has studied them. Become exasperated at times as most of us do.
Why, in exchange for his time, do some here (effectively) curse him?
This is not science and reason. We have the keyboard options to ignore him if we choose; or to debate him if we choose ─ both civil options; but when we stoop to name-calling we demean both ourselves and the full purpose of science: to think, discover and learn.
If Leif can learn from content here I believe he will grasp the opportunity, even as he takes the opportunity to teach when that opportunity presents.
Don’t miss the wood for the trees, kids…
Willis, it’s really very simple, maybe you should take the time to actually read before commenting. The data shown from 2000+ is showing reality versus Scafetta’s prediction for what happens post 2000. There is not ‘fit’ from 2000-2012.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2012 at 5:54 pm
On the other hand, Wolf is also the originator of the planetary theory for sunspots and eventually abandoned that because it didn’t hold up: “this research (by myself and others) never produced any really satisfactory results”, and it still doesn’t.
And yet you have still not been able to debunk my research after several years that is now backed up by Wollf and Patrone which shows a a planetary link to solar grand minima and solar cycle modulation. The method predicts SC24/25 will be a solar grand minimum, along with all other grand minima through the Holocene. Nicola’s theory dovetails into my research which uses similar components.
It wouldnt matter what evidence was presented to you, as your AGW agenda and sophist strategies would be brought out to put out the fires .
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236
KR says:
March 12, 2012 at 6:12 pm
“In the L&R analysis there appear no significant ’60-year’ or ’20-year’ cycles remaining in the regression residuals.”
This analysis is very poor. They just did a fit, and ignored the trough at ~1910 and the peak at ~1940 where the fit is lousy due to the ~60 year cycle. This really is pathological science.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2012 at 6:48 pm
“Well, then what is the physical mechanism? just saying that the ‘planets are doing it’ is not physics.”
Identifying cyclical behavior in a natural system is physics. Because of the ubiquity of quasi-cyclical responses, is the first logical step in determining which leads to pursue. A well detailed physical mechanism is not necessary to prove the existence of something which is so trivially evident.
On the other hand, taking a jumble of back-of-the-envelope physical relationships and forcing a least squares fit to them and declaring that to be a physically justified and empirically confirmed theory (see KR above) IS NOT physics. It is simply an exercise in reconfirming the robustness of least squares fitting, which has already been more than adequately demonstrated since at least the time of Gauss.
KR says:
March 12, 2012 at 7:44 pm
“Then I look forward to your peer-reviewed response to these peer-reviewed papers.”
That boat sailed long ago. Nobody who can think for themselves believes any longer in an uncorrupted peer review process. The magic words have lost their power. Try another tack.
andyd says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:33 am
Thanks, andyd. You have not answered, and likely cannot answer, my question.
So I believe I’ll wait to hear from Dr. Scafetta …
w.