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
If I may recap, are we agreed upon anything? This is how I see things:
1) There are two whole cycles of an apparent ~60 year cyclic or quasi-cyclic process evident in the climate data.
2) It is highly likely that we will see this pattern repeat in the future, based on the very close correlation between the periods 1880-1940* and 1940 to 2000* – in particular, the run up in the global average temperature metric (GATM) between the years 1910-1940* is closely replicated in the interval 1970-2000*, with the same magnitude of the excursion over the same timeline.
3) Cyclical processes are ubiquitous in nature. It is not at all surprising to see them in climate related variables. Indeed, it would be quite exceptional if there were none.
4) Nicola and others point to apparently coincident harmonics in planetary phenomena as being a likely driver. Leif and I are both skeptical that there is any physical linkage strong enough to drive climate cycles on Earth. I do not entirely discount the possibility. It could be, for example, that there is a correlation between the solar system barycenter motion and the interception of cosmic particles from the jet of a rotating black hole or some such exotic happenstance. But, without evidence of such a phenomenon, it makes little sense to dwell on such possibilities. So, I do not entirely discount the possibility of a correlation. However, I think it is almost certain that planetary motion is not a driver of Earth’s climate.
5) I (and others? Anyone?) point to lightly damped quasi-cyclical processes which naturally arise from the solution of partial differential equations over a bounded domain, as in the widely employed Finite Element Method in structural mechanics. A lightly damped modal response will exhibit quasi-cyclical characteristics when driven by random inputs with excitation energy within the bandwidth of the modal response. The oceans and atmosphere of the Earth are bounded, and have boundary conditions at their interface with one another as well. There will be natural modal responses. The only questions which remain are, what are the frequencies, and what is their rate of damping (energy dissipation)
6) At the very least, expansion in frequency harmonics (which are typical eigenfunctions of the time dependent part of separable PDEs) form a complete functional basis to fit an arbitrary function over a finite interval and, for a smooth PDE, such a fit has predictive power to at least some degree beyond the boundaries of the fit interval. Contrast this to fitting an arbitrary hodgepodge of functions as in the awful Lean and Rind paper provided by KR, which does a poor job of fitting the data within the interval, and has NO consistent predictive power whatsoever.
7) We are very likely going to see the GATM continue to fall in the years ahead, which should serve to falsify the Lean and Rind prediction above, and any others which project an overwhelming influence of GHGs. Aside from short term ENSO events, it will very likely effectively replicate the interval 1940 to 1970*, just as the interval 1910-1940* is replicated in the 1970-2000* interval. IF there is a significant systematic deviation, that MAY be a manifestation of an anthropogenic influence, but it will assuredly be far less impactful than what the IPCC has estimated.
*Please note that I am using round numbers. In fact, the peak of the current ~60 year cycle appears to be about midway between 2000 and 2010.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 10:16 am
Leif, I am sorry to make you so nervous and impatient. You will see my meditated opinion on those issues when I will publish a research paper directly addressing them. That is not the topic of the present discussion.
The topic of the present discussion is my widget above and the failure of the IPCC model in reconstructiing climatic cycles, which can be modelled independly of their physical cause.
Because in my model above I am not using Uranus and Neptune, Pluto or Quaoar, your issue is off-topic. I am only using cycles related to the Sun, the Moon, Jupter and Saturn. There might be secondary effects from other planets, of course, but they are not addressed in the published papers. So, your question is off topic.
Bart says: March 13, 2012 at 10:50 am
4) Nicola and others point to apparently coincident harmonics in planetary phenomena as being a likely driver. Leif and I are both skeptical that there is any physical linkage strong enough to drive climate cycles on Earth. I do not entirely discount the possibility. It could be, for example, that there is a correlation between the solar system barycenter motion and the interception of cosmic particles from the jet of a rotating black hole or some such exotic happenstance. But, without evidence of such a phenomenon, it makes little sense to dwell on such possibilities. So, I do not entirely discount the possibility of a correlation. However, I think it is almost certain that planetary motion is not a driver of Earth’s climate.
Sceptic is not method in science.
Personal Sceptic is no science.
A personal Sceptic because of no classic physical mechanism visible makes evidence from correlations not untrue.
Evidence of such correlation phenomena is given in this thread more the one time.
Not what one is thinking what is not, is an argument; an argument that refutes the given correlation between Earth temperature/sea level and a solar tide function from planets is welcome.
Not what one is denying is relevant; relevant is what one can show.
Statements are luxury.
Authority is not science; it is the inverse of science.
V.
To Henri Masson
Sorry for the delay.
1. Henri Masson says: March 12, 2012 at 1:23 am
I mostly agree. My approach is not simply a curve fitting because I am explicitly using astronomical harmonics as Kelvin did with the tides. Mine is an “empirical approach” to the problem that points toward a macroscopic holistic modeling of the global surface temperature dynamics. This methodology is quite used in science in numerous fields and it is quite efficient and useful in general.
2. Henri Masson says: March 12, 2012 at 1:45 am
I agree about the importance of adding other cycles, in particular the long ones. They can explain most of the observed patterns at multiple time scales.
3. Henri Masson says: March 12, 2012 at 1:59 am
I agree with the synchronization conclusion. I talk about this synchronization in my papers. Everything collectively synchronize and the effect become macroscopic.
4. Henri Masson says: March 12, 2012 at 5:25 am
I agree on that point too. The IPCC modeling has mistaken a long cycle as a linear trend line and then extended this line beyond the limit of the cycle. This is the main error of Hansen’s modeling in the 80s, which has created all these problems.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 11:23 am
There might be secondary effects from other planets, of course, but they are not addressed in the published papers. So, your question is off topic.
So, you cop out and evade the issue. According to the Uranus/Neptune people those effects are not secondary effects, but are causing the grand solar minima and the little ice ages that they associate with them, thus you discount the LIAs which are not ‘secondary’ effects. But I can fully understand that you duck and run from this.
Nicola Scafetta says to Leif:
“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”
The ball game is over folks, and N. Scafetta has won 8 runs to zip against the slander team of Leif et al.
OK, this fight is getting out of hand. Everybody cool their jets or I’m closing comments on this thread.
Volker Doormann says:
March 13, 2012 at 11:34 am
Sceptic is not method in science.
To quote from your writings: “However, as the gap between most disciplines in science including philosophy and astrology, are still deep, new sights are always only valuable for them who have an open mind”. Closing that gap is perhaps what you have in mind. Just as Scafetta.
Volker Doormann says:
March 13, 2012 at 11:34 am
“Not what one is thinking what is not, is an argument; an argument that refutes the given correlation between Earth temperature/sea level and a solar tide function from planets is welcome.”
We’ve done that previously on another thread. There are two ways in which gravitational influences of the outer planets can affect the Earth: They slightly alter the orbit of the Earth about the Sun, and they induce tidal forces.
As tidal forces fall off with the inverse cube of distance, the influence of the outer planets on Earth tides is EXTREMELY small. And, the perturbation of the path of the Earth about the Sun from a Keplerian orbit due to the outer planets is also extremely small. It is just not reasonable to presume that such tiny effects could have a first order effect on the Earth’s climate.
I have left open the possibility of blocking or modulating influences, e.g., of the flux of cosmic particles which could perhaps affect cloud seeding or such. But, I honestly think it is a stretch.
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 11:51 am
Here is a notion that could tie it all together, though.
As I have been saying, I believe it is likely that there is a natural ~60 year resonance phenomenon which comes about due to the boundary conditions of the oceans and atmosphere. Left to its own devices, it would “ring” with a quasi-cyclic period of ~60 years due to random forcing alone.
Gradually, over eons of time, such a resonance response could become entrained such as to be more or less in phase synchronization with small but consistent forcings at that frequency.
It still appears on the surface to be a bit of a stretch, but it is possible to run numerical experiments to probe whether such an effect might be plausible. I will do so when I have a chance.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 11:41 am
Leif, do you want to stop to say nonsense? I am not responsible of what other says.
When and if I publish a paper addressing the LIA and the other grand solar minima, we will discus the issue then, if Anthony will be kind enough to post my paper in his blog.
Your comments now are simply off topic.
So, my questions for you related to this blog topic are
1) Do you agree or not that the global surface temperature since 1850 present large cycles (including a dominant 60-year cycle) which are not reproduced by any of the IPCC models, as I have shown in my papers?
2) Do you agree or not that my model based on those cycles since 2000 (the starting point of my forecast) agrees with the temperature record much better than the IPCC model projection?
3) Do you agree or not that by failing to properly reconstructing natural cycles the IPCC has very likely used computer climate models that have greatly overestimated the anthropogenic effect on climate because they have essentially mistaken the warming from 1970 to 2000 as due to hyman emission while at least 2/3 of it was caused by the warm phase of the 60-year cycle?
4) I understand that you are skeptical about a planetary influence on climate because for you that is “astrology”. It is fine for me. In my opinion that is an open physical issue that needs to be further investigated. Can you agree on this statement?
Are you able to give simple and fair answers to the above questions without using slandering and logical fallacies?
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2012 at 6:53 am
Thank you for your answers, Dr. Scafetta. First, it is apparent that the figure you linked to is different than your figure 1 above. You appear to have used different constants or something, and you have two lines instead of one. I asked about the earlier results from the particular method used in your Figure 1 above, not some other calculation.
Second, saying “read my papers” is meaningless. I asked specific questions, I expect specific answers. I will not root through every paper you ever wrote hoping to guess what you think might be an answer to a specific question.
So they do NOT have the same phase as the astronomical cycles, but merely some “good” approximation to that phase.
And you say “as I clearly state in the paper” … in what paper, and on what page, do you “clearly state” that.
But if one cycle is tiny in the data and the other one huge … why would the climate respond differently to them? That makes no sense. Presumably this is all mediated by the sun … but why should a small cycle in the sun have a big climate response, and a big cycle have a small climate response?
Yes, anything is possible, but I don’t understand what that has to do with my questions.
So if I can sum up your answers regarding the cycles:
1. You are NOT using the same phases as in the astronomical data.
2. You are NOT using the same amplitudes as in the astronomical data.
3. You are NOT using the same cycle lengths as in the astronomical data.
4. You have adjusted the phase, frequency, and amplitude of some carefully chosen cycles in order to FIT those specially-selected cycles to the temperature data.
No thanks. Two reasons. FIrst, those four facts above are enough to demonstrate that you are NOT using the astronomical cycles, you are just engaged in meaningless curve fitting.
Second, you are just waving your hands at your entire body of work in answer to specific questions, and I’m not willing to read hundreds of pages and then try to guess what you are referring to. I’ve done that before with people who made the same claim. When I came back to say that after much looking I’d finally located what I think they’re referring to, they told me no, that’s not it.
So I’ve given up playing that game. If you have something in your work that answers a specific question, then give me chapter and verse so I can find it.
Finally, you never did answer my question. Why is one cycle listed as 9.1 years, and another as 10-11 years? Bonus question—why are two cycles only given as being accurate to the nearest year, one given to the nearest a tenth of a year, and one given to a one-year interval?
Thanks,
w.
PS—Double bonus question—which “astronomical data” did each of those cycle lengths and phases and amplitudes come from, and what is their exact value to say the nearest tenth of a year? Please give a reference to a paper wherein you actually derive the values from the astronomical data, because like I said, nobody wants to try to guess what you mean.
One huge problem I have with your work is that in the solar barycentric data, the 60 year cycle is much, much smaller than the 20 year cycle. But in the climate it’s reversed, the 60 year cycle is much larger than the 20 year cycle. I see no reason that should be so, and no physical explanation of why that should be so.
As a result, if you are going to make the claim that these cycles have totally different amplitudes in the climate than in the sun, you need to propose some method or mechanism by which that might occur.
Because as it stands, you are NOT using the astronomical cycles at all. Instead, you are using similar cycles which have had their phase, amplitude, and frequency adjusted to fit the climate data … and sad to say, that’s just congenital curve fitting, and is meaningless.
Nicola Scafetta – Thank you for the paper references; when I have a chance I will look through them. However, I still feel you have not addressed the baseline, monthly vs. yearly variances, or 1-sigma range issues properly, and I’m disappointed that the discussion has long since digressed from your widget.
Bart – I strongly suggest you look into what multiple regression can (and cannot) do, as your comments simply do not match the tools.
Adieu
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
“But if one cycle is tiny in the data and the other one huge … why would the climate respond differently to them?”
One word: resonance. See above.
KR says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:12 pm
I strongly suggest you get a clue, and face reality.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
One huge problem I have with your work is that in the solar barycentric data, the 60 year cycle is much, much smaller than the 20 year cycle. But in the climate it’s reversed, the 60 year cycle is much larger than the 20 year cycle. I see no reason that should be so, and no physical explanation of why that should be so.
In fact, the solar data and auroral [geomagnetic] data do not have a 60-yr cycle, while the climate does [since the mid-19th century at least]: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-Temps.png
I guess that Nicola will counter that the planets influence the climate directly without working through the Sun, but as you said “that’s just congenital curve fitting, and is meaningless”
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:15 pm
One word. Handwaving. See above.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“One word. Handwaving.”
Right. Because resonance phenomena are so rare and unusual.
Not.
Look, I acknowledged it looked like a stretch at the present moment. But, it could explain what you asked to be explained.
Bart says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Right. Because resonance phenomena are so rare and unusual.
Not.
Except there is no 60-yr cycle in the solar, auroral, and geomagnetic data.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
I am sorry, but you need to be more humble and you need to read my papers first before criticizing my work.
It is evident that you are not caring to study the issues first. You are simply waving around. I do not have time to copy and past my entire papers on this blog. You need to read them first, including my past guest posts on this blog. There you find all answers to your questions.
I will respond just your first point that proves your arrogance and your not having done your homework first:
You say:
“First, it is apparent that the figure you linked to is different than your figure 1 above.”
As the title of the above post clearly states my first figure above is an “update” of my widget that was originally published in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafettas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperature/
Try to read the above original post (with its links) and you will easily realize that the figure that I linked in responding to you is the first figure in the original post and that is the figure in my published paper.
So, do your homework first, and then come back with interesting questions, and ask them with the proper respect if you want to receive an answer.
[SNIP: Dr. Scafetta, please, your respect for Dr. Svalgaard, in spite of your differences, shines through all your comments, but this is just pouring oil on troubled fires. Let’s not do this, Please. -REP]
To WILLIS:
Willis, don’t let you confuse by Leifs astronomical nonsense:
The HARMONIC cycle is NOT a pure solar cycle and Leifs solar data is just net
solar and aurora output…… solar and aurora output change is minuscule….
This Gleickish-Leif just remasticates his minuscule output data….. nobody,
talks about Leifs shining Aurora….
The 60 year HARMONIC CYCLE is due to a “3-body-gravitational problem”:
1. One body is SUN, the second the Jup/Sat/Asteroid belt and 3. Earth, which
interact all with gravitation and which is being taken into the JPL DE405
ephemerides …..
Willis, look at the description of JPL Horizons and you will see how JPL
did a composite job, taking VARIOUS GRAVITATIONS into account….
Forget Leif and his shining Aurora…. for me, all his shine is gone already……
2. The Interaction of the three bodies, more Lit on how the Earth orbital aspect
is taken into account by JPL: [ http://www.Chapter 8: Orbital Ephemerides of the
Sun, Moon, and Planets….pdf]
and those gravitational interactions PRODUCE the 60/61 year cycle,
Again, forget all Auroras and Leifs meagre solar data, which produce
nothing scientifically or only confusion to the uninformed reader….this is why
he stays on the blog instead of quitting…..plain to see….
JS
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm
“Except there is no 60-yr cycle in the solar, auroral, and geomagnetic data.”
Of course you are wrong. A 60-year cycle has been detected in all three records, just look at my papers and references. You simply do not know how to analyze the data, don’t you?
The things are just a little bit subtle Leif.
Please, respond the above question in
Nicola Scafetta says: March 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm
“Except there is no 60-yr cycle in the solar, auroral, and geomagnetic data.”
I have seen for myself there is none significant in the sunspot data. How long have the others been sampled? How reliable are proxies, and what precisely are they measuring?
Who determined there were no such cycles in the data, and what tools did they use?
I haven’t switched over to believing in a planetary-climate link, mind you. Just trying to leave no stone unturned.
And, any scientifically inclined person should understand that dynamical systems respond differently to different frequencies. This is the whole foundation of Control Theory.
To Bart:
The 60/61 year cycle is evident in the stepwise temp change, see HadCRUT3 or the
previous HadCRUT2: Alternating 40 year flat, followed by 20 years temp increase by
0.4 C….makes 60 years for 1 cycle……this easy system is continously repeated, since it
is astronomical and cannot switched on or off at will…… check my other replies today,
there is literature quoted for this : For 10,000 years studied, each 1,000 year section
contains 16 cycles of 61 years in length and this is due to planetary gravitation between
Sun and also the planets among each other…..maybe the magnetism of the Sun etc
also changes somewhat, well another cycle prove, be happy….
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
March 13, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Thanks, Joachim. I see that the GISP2 power spectrum has a cycle that is either 62 years (fixed time analysis) or 61 years (fixed depth analysis). There is NO evidence of any 60 year cycle used by Scafetta. I also see that it is a very weak cycle, much weaker than the longer cycles.
Finally, I see that the two methods give very different answers. One finds the largest cycle at 1,113 years, while the other one finds the largest cycle at 950 years … color me unimpressed. When two methods vary by that much, one or the other or both are wrong.
Finally, there is no 60 year, 20 year, “10-11 year”, or 9.1 year cycle in the data … so I haven’t a clue what this has to do with Scafetta’s cycles. In addition, the paper says:
Funny … Scafetta didn’t say anything about that.
Let me repeat it again, Joachim. It’s no good to root around trying to guess what Scafetta did. In this case, not one of the cycles you listed matches up with the 60, 20, 10-11, or 9.1 year cycles Scafetta is using. That’s why I called it “congenital curve fitting”. He has FIT the curve, Joachim, he has NOT used the astronomical cycles.
I know there are a host of cycles out there, Joachim, cycles in the sun, planetary cycles, cycles in the GISP2 ice core records. So what? I want to know exactly where Scafetta got his numbers, and for that, your guesses are obviously as useless as mine …
w.
To Willis:
The big problem is the explanation of the exact and detailed mechanism of this
60/61/62 cycle (it works with either number)….
Fact is that Warmists now embark on asking for presentation of the full cycle
background, for full mechanism calculations still fresh and steaming right on the
table and served down on the knees…..I wrote to him to be more arrogant and
less conciliatory and patient…..
Everyone who is ahead of his time should claim this right, whereas those, who
wasted billions over 30 years in AWG nonsense should be humble and remorse….
Scafetta’s Harmonic paper is out only 2 months….. meanwhile, the Warmists on the
other hand, as your very good “1979” paper showed, had 30 years and billions $ at
hand and still “assume” with “95% certainty.”..
….. Today, the cycle mechanism is clear in its smallest detail by now, I forewarded him
calculation results but his German knowledge is not so good…..
Willis, be pacient for a couple of month, I tackled the mechanism, since I am
into it for quite some time….No point that Nick looks into the harmonic mechanism,
why should the wheel be invented several times?
Some observations to your reply::
(1) Cycle weakness:
The strongest cycles are the long cycles, as the graphics show…..and the
62 year cycle is lesser in strength, but SUBSTANTIAL as we know its the 0.4’C
staircase/step increase per 62 years (40 flat/22 increasing) …….over the
complete HOLOZAEN (as in the graph) for
10,000 years and for all paleo-times before, since you cannot switch it on or
off….. A o.4′ C step increase is SUBSTANTIAL and is not weak….
(2) The long cycles (see Dansgaard-Oeschger events) ……the actual problem
with them is that nothing stays indefinite the same size ….. the calculation method
for the long cycles are meticulously presented in my booklet ..– I pointed this out
various times, if you remember…. they increase/decrease in periods and in amplitudes
by the value of 17,88 years compounded for one cycle length….
Therefore, the 1100/950/554 year values are blurred within all FIXED PERIOD
Davis/Bohling graphs,. …and could only made better if they could take
wave amplification/prolongation into the measuring process…..
Therefore, graphs are not bad but only need to be checked against the
amplification background, nothing stays fixed, I guess you know………
(3) As I wrote before, the present astronomical calculation mechanism MUST
be the same as the paleo-mechanism using the same parameters….
Just to add: The present cycle is 790 years long, with half the cycle as
recovery from the LIA and its peak after 395 years in 2043 and a short flat
top plateau on which we are on….before and after the peak……
(4) No worries…..mate…as they say…. we will finish all AGW-dinosaurs off
before 5 years time, their time has run out, just wait the astronomical comet
cometh………
Cheers
JS
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm
“I see that the GISP2 power spectrum has a cycle that is either 62 years (fixed time analysis) or 61 years (fixed depth analysis). There is NO evidence of any 60 year cycle used by Scafetta.”
I’m having a hard time understanding what such an apparently nonsensical statement means. Apparently, Willis, you want to force the model into a straightjacket of reproducing a precise number for an infinitely narrowband process. I don’t even want to say what I think of that.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm
How much do you know about time series analysis?
“I see that the GISP2 power spectrum has a cycle that is either 62 years (fixed time analysis) or 61 years (fixed depth analysis). There is NO evidence of any 60 year cycle used by Scafetta.
Finally, there is no 60 year, 20 year, “10-11 year”, or 9.1 year cycle in the (GISP2) data.”
Do you really think that a 60-year cycle is so different from a 61 year cycle? Have you tried to evaluate the error associated to the 61 year cycle in the GISP2 record?
Moreover, my best estimated cycles is a 59-63 year cycle. Not exactly 60-year. Read my papers!
Moreover, Do you know that the GISP2 record has a varing resolution from a decadal scale to a multidecadal scale during the Holocene which does not allow to detect any 20 year, “10-11 year”, or 9.1 year cycle in it?
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Again you need to read my papers where the proper references are given.