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,
I would be extremely pleased if you could take a moment to look at, and comment briefly the , comprehensive comments I posted on your work, earlier in this discussion.
I sincerly think I brought the discussion to another level than arguing continuously about basic statisitcs as you are obliged to do all along this (however) still very interesting discussion
Roger Carr says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:31 pm
…….
Dr. Svalgaard’s comments are like a blast of cold blizzard, time to run for cover if you are not suitably equipped. If it wasn’t for his fierce rejection, I would be more often down the pub.
Bart says:
Willis Eschenbach says:
………….
The hypothesis needs clearly to specify physical process:
– external modulation
– externally forced oscillation
– externally induced resonance
– none of the above.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 12, 2012 at 5:54 pm
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 ..
.. 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.
.. 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.
There is a difference between research and researcher.
A result of the analysis of the frequency shift oft the sunspot frequency is that the shift has a relation to the global temperature reconstructions:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sp_shift_vs_proxies.gif
There is a REALLY good correlation between the main frequency of the global sea level oscillation ( 1/6.3 year^-1) and the (heliocentric) synodic tide frequency of Mercury and Earth.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_rst.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/Sea_level_vs_solar_tides1.htm
Whatever the mechanism is, that echoes solar tide functions on the global sea level and/or on the global temperature (UAH, incl. land), that there is evidence for a relation between solar tide functions and the terrestrial climate, is a fact.
Paul Weiss says: “It’s one thing not to see the forest for the trees, but then to go on
to deny the reality of the forest is a more serious matter.”
If the argumentation here is shifted to fallacies because of claiming authority in general to knock down the position of the other, I think there is something wrong.
V.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 1:23 am
“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?”
Willis, first of all, you need to read my papers first. It is evident from all my papers that I am using the 1850-2010 period, not just the post 2000 period. Look here, for example,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_figure-original1.png
The hindcast test has been done by separating the 1850-1950 and 1950-2010 period, independently. Of course, if you do not read my papers you will never understand them.
“My question is, do these cycles have the exact same cycle length, phase and relative amplitude as the corresponding astronomical cycles? ”
Again, you need to read my papers, first. As I clearly state in the paper:
1) the cycles are in very good phase with the astronomical cycles and I prove it in many ways;
2) the amplitude of the temperature cycles depends on the response of the climate system to them, in fact, the astronomical cycles are limit dynamical attractors around which the climate oscillates, so there are fluctuations in the observed cycles;
3) there might be other cycles not taken into account inthe model that modulate the observed cycles.
So, the temperature cycles are not rigorously “constant”, but in the paper what is proposed is a first harmonic approximation, which is sufficiently fine for a first order approach.
All these things are clearly addressed and explained in my papers, read them and come back.
@ur momisugly Roger Carr says: March 12, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Leif’s way of reasoning is not finalized to a constructive and fair debate. It is propaganda based continuous slandering and on numerous red herring fallacies such as “ad Hominem” etc. where he never acknowledges the merits of the people whom he dislikes and continuously twists the facts.
Look at his contorted reasoning:
“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).””
on one side Leif realizes that, in particular after my paper discussed here, the models of the IPCC do not hold the scientific scrutiny (they are proven by me to strongly disagree with the data and not be able to reconstruct known climatic cycles), so he correctly conclude that the IPCC science has severe problems. But at the same time he does not acknowledge any merit to my work that he has implicitly used to form his opinion on the IPCC by proving the inconsistency of the IPCC models with the data.
So, Leif implicitly acknowledges at least some merits of my work by using its results to form his expressed opinion, but explicitly at the same time he does not acknowledge not even one merit to my research that has been important for him because he has used it to form his opinion. This is a slandering and a subtle form of plagiarism.
Essentially, Leif’s way of reasoning is the following:
If John proves Tom’s position wrong, but Leif dislikes John, Leif says: Tom is wrong, that is evident, but John does not have proven anything and everything he did is clearly wrong. But Leif refuses to prove that what John did was wrong and implicitly uses John’s findings to express his opinion on Tom’s position.
Question for Leif: how can Tom’s position be wrong (after John’s proof) if everything John did was wrong by definition?
Geoff Sharp says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:36 am
backed up by Wollf and Patrone
About the ‘mechanism’ proposed by Wolff and Patrone: The obvious way to approach the matter is to work in the accelerating frame of reference about the center of the star and go through the usual analysis but with the Euler force included. It then becomes immediately obvious that the influence on the standard results of the Euler force, which modifies the effective gravity, is utterly negligible.
Of course one can choose the alternative route attempted by Wolff and Patrone of remaining in an inertial frame, which simplifies the governing equations, but complicates the boundary conditions substantially because they are now moving (with the star) relative to the static interchange, a point which has passed unnoticed by Wolff and Patrone because, unlike their forerunners, they appear not even to have considered boundary conditions, neither explicitly nor implicitly. One should also keep in mind that instability can never be proved by interchange arguments, unless one can demonstrate that the interchanges considered can be realized by the fluid; one can, in principle, demonstrate stability, however, by showing that no displacement, realizable or not, can liberate energy to drive the instability. However, when the interchange is carried out in a plausible manner which avoids this complication, as did Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar (whom W&P refer to), the outcome can be usefully suggestive. Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar usually used such arguments simply to shed light on their earlier ‘rigorous’ analyses of the differential systems describing the physical situations under consideration, although once they had gained the experience from doing that, they appear to have used interchange arguments to guide subsequent analysis of new systems that are ‘close’ to those that they had analysed previously and understood. The interchange considered by Wolff and Patrone leaves the fluid elements, apparently filling the spaces into which they have been displaced, yet moving with respect to them; therefore it is valid dynamically, for the purposes of energy computation, only for an interval of time of measure zero, which is insufficient to take the temporal derivative(s) required to determine subsequent evolution, essential, of course, for assessing stability. Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar considered certain classes of fluid interchange under restricted circumstances under which the issue of moving boundary conditions does not arise. Therefore their analyses are meaningful. Wolff and Patrone consider more general situations. What they failed to point out, however, is that in consequence application of the perfectly valid arguments of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar, inadequately modified by the modified situation, is not correct. They have fallen into the trap of many a naive modern physics student of misapplying an initially valid formula to a situation in which it is not valid.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 7:47 am
how can Tom’s position be wrong if everything John did was wrong?
That John is wrong does not mean that Tom is right.
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.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 8:02 am
Why don’t you write a comment to Wollf and Patrone areticle and see what they respond?
For comparison, this is a prediction for year 2011 by the Australian cartoonist John Cook of Sceptical Science. “the world will experience record high temperatures in 2011”
http://wiki.sev.com.au/Global-Warming-Prediction
Willis Eschenbach says: March 12, 2012 at 8:57 pm
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?
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?
I think the Scafetta prediction story is leaded by the old reason of fame, which results in talking with two tongues; the basis is a confuse dark picture of discussing science that avoids clear speech on the facts. I’ll try to bring some light in this darkness.
First it is necessary not to argue on (time) cycles, but on frequencies, because astronomical frequencies never have a sinuous function and only in the dimension frequency it is possible to operate with other frequencies or harmonics or something else.
If you run a FFT of the hadcrut3 data, you will get the ‘Scafetta cycles’. But that what you get are frequency elements of strong sinusoid profile character, despite the natural possible astronomic profile character. That means that such FFT analysed frequency must not have a corresponding real astronomical frequency, and because all planetary movement is of elliptic nature, there is never a stable single frequency over the time. Moreover, if synodic functions of two objects of elliptic movement would be discussed ( I do), each ‘astronomical cycle’ in years makes no scientific sense; it’s nonsense.
If then the fame is the leader to win the prediction award, it becomes scientific terrible to reconstruct the sinusoid elements again from the FFT in a synthetic math function, because there is no knowledge about all the possible astronomical frequencies, with lower and higher frequencies, it gets worse.
There are indeed astronomical frequencies which are corresponding to terrestrial functions like the sea level oscillation with exact the same (main) frequency and a good phase stability, but these frequencies are different from the ‘Scafetta cycles’ and are always solar tide frequencies of two celestial objects. The logic for the amplitudes is unknown, and may a job for astrophysicans, but it does follow not the law of Sir Newton.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_rst.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/Sea_level_vs_solar_tides1.htm
Because of the given arguments, the claim of Scafatta’s cycles are of astronomic base is to rejected. If harmonics of fundamental frequencies play a role in his math, the term ‘harmonic’ may OK.
BTW. You can make a FFT of the sea level data from Colorado (seasonal data retained) and you get a double peak at ~6.3 years^-1 because of the nonsinusoid character of the sea level oscillation function. This shows that blind (and hidden) use of FFT leads astray; him and his consumers.
V.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:36 am
Nicola’s theory dovetails into my research which uses similar components.
It might be of interest to hear Nicola’s opinion about your proposition that the main drivers of solar activity (and hence climate) are Uranus and Neptune.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 8:09 am
Leif, you are not proving anything. You are just stating that I must be wrong without proving it.
“That John is wrong does not mean that Tom is right.”
However you conclude that John is wrong because of something that Tom has said.
Your argument is that my opinion is “necessarily wrong” simply because not everything is accurately proven yet. Your logical fallacy is called “Nirvana fallacy”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
“a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect”
In the same way you would oppose any frontier research and trust only textbook established science.
Be patient, Leif.
Science is not something that is already written in the textbooks.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:25 am
Science is not something that is already written in the textbooks.
[snip] science doesn’t make it into the textbooks.
REPLY: Leif, just a bit over the top there, Anthony
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 8:34 am
“Pathological science doesn’t make it into the textbooks.”
Ok Leif,
also Galileo’s, Kepler’s, Newton’s, Einstein’s etc science was at the beginning considered to be “pathological science”.
Do you remember the famous 100 german scientists who claimed that Einstein was wrong?
Time will tell about the merits of my ideas.
@dana1981
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.
?!
Well what kind of attitude do you call NOT reading his papers but pointing out “errors” imagined.
If you want a nutshell the attitude expressed here is what the poor Dr Scafetta is valiantly struggling against on this thread.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:48 am
also Galileo’s, Kepler’s, Newton’s, Einstein’s etc science was at the beginning considered to be “pathological science”.
Apart from the dubious comparison of yourself to those gentlemen, let me recall the definition of pathological science:
“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, 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. 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.”
Fits you, but does not fit them.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:25 am
Science is not something that is already written in the textbooks.
Pathological science doesn’t make it into the textbooks.
REPLY: Leif, just a bit over the top there, Anthony
I fail to see that that general and true statement is ‘over the top’. God forbid that it be false.
@Nicola Scafetta: Do you remember the famous 100 german scientists who claimed that Einstein was wrong?
And he was!…what about his SQUARING the velocity of light, was it not that “C” was the maximum velocity?
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:09 am
Why don’t you write a comment to Wollf and Patrone areticle and see what they respond?
I have considered that, but I have more important things to do than embarrass W&P.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:09 am
Why don’t you write a comment to Wollf and Patrone areticle and see what they respond?
Why don’t you here comment on whether you also consider Uranus and Neptune to be the primary drivers of solar activity and climate?
@AdolfoGiurfa:
C squared is not a velocity, is a velocity-squared (check the units). In relativity the maximum velocity-squared is… C^2.
I hope you were joking with such “Einstein refutation”.
Leif, I leave you to your Nirvana-fallacy pathological state.
“Uranus and Neptune primary drivers of solar activity and climate?”
If Wolf would be here, as he did with Schwabe’s findings, he would respond you: “The issue needs to be carefully studied, Geoff found some interesting correlations and we need to see whether the correlation indicate a primary or secondary related cause, etc.”
I agree with Wolf’s way to approach scientific research.
And I do not agree with your approach which is based only on slandering and Nirvana-fallacy logic.
Dr. Scafetta
Spectral output (using Fourier transform based analyser) of HadCRUT3 temperature data you linked to within your article is:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HadCRUT3.htm
Dominant frequencies with periods in years are:
44, 57,72 and 89 all stronger than 62.5 which you chosen as the most important one.
Why is your choice 62.5 years and not one of the stronger components with periods of 44, 57, 72 or 89 years?
Which planet/s generate/s cycle at or near 62.5 years?
I hope the answer (if forthcoming) is clear and concise.
Thank you.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 9:58 am
“Uranus and Neptune primary drivers of solar activity and climate?”
“The issue needs to be carefully studied, Geoff found some interesting correlations and we need to see whether the correlation indicate a primary or secondary related cause, etc.”
And when one studies it carefully, one finds it wanting. But my question was how that fits into your scheme. Real science progresses by building on other’s work, so, again, do you agree with Geoff’s assessment or are you just paying lip-service? Perhaps you could hold off the ad-homs [“slandering”, etc] and try your scientific acumen on the influence of Uranus and Neptune. Or of Pluto and Quaoar: http://www.volker-doormann.org/ghi_solar_s.pdf [yet another piece frontier science – as you call it – that has not made it into the textbooks either]. Come on, have an open mind.