Nicola Scafetta sent me this paper yesterday, and I read it with interest, but I have a number of reservations about it, not the least of which is that it is partially based on the work of Landscheidt and the whole barycentric thing which gets certain people into shouting matches. Figure 9 looks to be interesting, but note that it is in generic units, not temperature, so has no predictive value by itself.
While that looks like a good hindcast fit to historical warm/cold periods, compare it to figure 7 to see how it comes out.
Now indeed, that looks like a great fit to the Ljungqvist proxy temperature reconstruction, but the question arises about whether we are simply seeing a coincidental cyclic fit or a real effect. I asked Dr. Leif Svalgaard about his views on this paper and he replied with this:
The real test of all this cannot come from the proxies we have because the time scales are too short, but from comparisons with other stellar systems where the effects are calculated to be millions of times stronger [because the planets are huge and MUCH closer to the star]. No correlations have been found so far.
See slide 19 of my AGU presentation:
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
So, it would seem, that if the gravitational barycentric effect posited were real, it should be easily observable with solar systems of much larger masses. Poppenhager and Schmitt can’t seem to find it.
OTOH, we have what appears to be a good fit by Scafetta in Figure 7. So this leaves us with three possibilities
- The effect manifests itself in some other way not yet observed.
- The effect is coincidental but not causative.
- The effect is real, but unproven yet by observations and predictive value.
I’m leaning more towards #2 at this point but willing to examine the predictive value. As Dr. Svalgaard points out in his AGU presentation, others have tried but the fit eventually broke down. From slide 14
P. D. Jose (ApJ, 70, 1965) noted that the Sun’s motion about the Center of Mass of the solar system [the Barycenter] has a period of 178.7 yr and suggested that the sunspot cycles repeat with a similar period. Many later researchers have published variations of this idea. – Unfortunately a ‘phase catastrophe’ is needed every ~8 solar cycles
Hindcasting can be something you can easily setup to fool yourself with if you are not careful, and I’m a bit concerned over the quality of the peer review for this paper as it contains two instances of Scafetta’s signature overuse of exclamation points, something that a careful reviewer would probably not let pass.
Science done carefully rarely merits an exclamation point. Papers written that way sound as if you are shouting down to the reader.
The true test will be the predictive value, as Scafetta has been doing with his recent essays here at WUWT. I’m willing to see how well this pans out, but I’m skeptical of the method until proven by a skillful predictive forecast. Unfortunately it will be awhile before that happens as solar timescales far exceed human lifespan.
Below I present the abstract, plus a link to the full paper provided by Dr. Scafetta.
=============================================================
Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle
ScienceDirect link
Nicola Scafetta, ACRIM (Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab) & Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
Abstract
The Schwabe frequency band of the Zurich sunspot record since 1749 is found to be made of three major cycles with periods of about 9.98, 10.9 and 11.86 years. The side frequencies appear to be closely related to the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn (range between 9.5 and 10.5 years, and median 9.93 years) and to the tidal sidereal period of Jupiter (about 11.86 years). The central cycle may be associated to a quasi-11-year solar dynamo cycle that appears to be approximately synchronized to the average of the two planetary frequencies. A simplified harmonic constituent model based on the above two planetary tidal frequencies and on the exact dates of Jupiter and Saturn planetary tidal phases, plus a theoretically deduced 10.87-year central cycle reveals complex quasi-periodic interference/beat patterns. The major beat periods occur at about 115, 61 and 130 years, plus a quasi-millennial large beat cycle around 983 years. We show that equivalent synchronized cycles are found in cosmogenic records used to reconstruct solar activity and in proxy climate records throughout the Holocene (last 12,000 years) up to now. The quasi-secular beat oscillations hindcast reasonably well the known prolonged periods of low solar activity during the last millennium such as the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton minima, as well as the 17 115-year long oscillations found in a detailed temperature reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere covering the last 2000 years. The millennial three-frequency beat cycle hindcasts equivalent solar and climate cycles for 12,000 years. Finally, the harmonic model herein proposed reconstructs the prolonged solar minima that occurred during 1900–1920 and 1960–1980 and the secular solar maxima around 1870–1890, 1940–1950 and 1995–2005 and a secular upward trending during the 20th century: this modulated trending agrees well with some solar proxy model, with the ACRIM TSI satellite composite and with the global surface temperature modulation since 1850. The model forecasts a new prolonged solar minimum during 2020–2045, which would be produced by the minima of both the 61 and 115-year reconstructed cycles. Finally, the model predicts that during low solar activity periods, the solar cycle length tends to be longer, as some researchers have claimed. These results clearly indicate that both solar and climate oscillations are linked to planetary motion and, furthermore, their timing can be reasonably hindcast and forecast for decades, centuries and millennia. The demonstrated geometrical synchronicity between solar and climate data patterns with the proposed solar/planetary harmonic model rebuts a major critique (by Smythe and Eddy, 1977) of the theory of planetary tidal influence on the Sun. Other qualitative discussions are added about the plausibility of a planetary influence on solar activity.
Link to paper: Scafetta_JStides
UPDATE 3/22/2012 – 1:15PM Dr. Scafetta responds in comments:
About the initial comment from Antony above,I believe that there are he might have misunderstood some part of the paper.
1)
I am not arguing from the barycentric point of view, which is false. In the paper I am talking
about tidal dynamics, a quite different approach. My argument
is based on the finding of my figure 2 and 3 that reveal the sunspot record
as made of three cycles (two tidal frequencies, on the side, plus a central
dynamo cycle). Then the model was developed and its hindcast
tests were discissed in the paper, etc.
{from Anthony – Note these references in your paper: Landscheidt, T.,1988.Solar rotation,impulses of the torque in sun’s motion, and
climate change. Climatic Change12,265–295.
Landscheidt, T.,1999.Extrema in sunspot cycle linked toSun’s motion. Solar
Physics 189,415–426.}
2)
There are numerous misconceptions since the beginning such as “Figure 9 looks to be interesting, but note that it is in generic units, not temperature, so has no predictive value by itself.”
It is a hindcast and prediction. There is no need to use specific units, but only dynamics. The units are interpreted correctly in the text of the paper as being approximately W/m^2 and as I say in the caption of the figure “However, the bottom curve approximately reproduces the patterns observed in the proxy solar models depicted in Fig. 5. The latter record may be considered as a realistic, although schematic, representation of solar dynamics.”
{from Anthony – if it isn’t using units of temperature, I fail to see how it can be of predictive value, there is not even any reference to warmer/cooler}
3) About Leif’s comments. It is important to realize that Solar physics is not “settled” physics. People do not even understand why the sun has a 11-year cycle (which is between the 10 and 12 year J/S tidal frequencies, as explained in my paper).
4)
The only argument advanced by Leif against my paper is that the phenomenon is his opinion was not observed in other stars. This is hardly surprising. We do not have accurate nor long records about other stars!
Moreover we need to observe the right thing, for example, even if you have a large planet very close to a star, the observable effect is associated to many things: how eccentric the orbits are and how big the star is, and its composition etc. Stars have a huge inertia to tidal effects and even if you have a planet large and close enough to the star to produce a theoretical 4,000,000 larger tidal effect, it does not means that the response from the star must be linear! Even simple elastic systems may be quite sensitive to small perturbations but become extremely rigid to large and rapid perturbations, etc.
It is evident that any study on planetary influence on a star needs to start from the sun, and then eventually extended to other star systems, but probably we need to wait several decades before having sufficiently long records about other stars!
In the case of the sun I needed at least a 200 year long sunspot record to
detect the three Schwabe cycles, and at least 1000 years of data for
hindcast tests to check the other frequencies. People can do the math for how long we need to wait for the other stars before having long enogh records.
Moreover, I believe that many readers have a typical misconception of physics.
In science a model has a physical basis when it is based on the observations
and the data and it is able to reconstruct, hindcast and/or forecast them.
It is evident to everybody reading my paper with an open mind that under the scientific
method, the model I proposed is “physically based” because I am
describing and reconstructing the dynamical properties of the data and I
showed that the model is able to hindcast millennia long data records.
Nobody even came close to these achievements.
To say otherwise would mean to reject everything in science and physics
because all findings and laws of physics are based on the observations and
the data and are tested on their capability of reconstruct, hindcast and/or
forecast observations, as I did in the paper
Of course, pointing out that I was not solving the problem using for example
plasma physics or quantum mechanics or whatever else. But this is a complex
exercise that needs its own time. As I correctly say in the paper.
“Further research should address the physical mechanisms necessary to
integrate planetary tides and solar dynamo physics for a more physically
based model.”
Makes more sense than Mann’s interpretation of tree rings, but then again almost anything does that.
suggestion on word choice:
“2. The effect is coincidental but not causative.”
“The phenomenon is coincidental but not causative.”
In my experience, most coincidences aren’t.
Climate science has not figured out what causes weather and different cycles and makes all kinds of guesses as to what does. Chaos seems to reign. The sun, to me causes the chaos, and as we corkscrew through space the only thing I see see to cause a climate cycle is the sun. We may years before we find the answer as to what causes changes in the sun and in turn changes our climate.
Is the time-scale quite correct on those graphs? It appears to show the temperature to the rear 2150 or so. Not just to 2012
That mega Jupiter argument makes no sense. We are talking about rather subtle effects such as modulation of solar winds that are tough to detect unless you have an ACRIM satellite in orbit around the star in question.
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times: Call the police.
By climate science standards this is good enough, no need for caveats 1,2, and 3, or to bother with peer review concerns. Anthony, you’re just not supportive enough of The Cause.
I propose a new review system: pear review. After you finish your paper, give a pear to the reviewer. If the pear is delicious, the paper is good. If not, rewrite some bits and then, get another pear. Should be at least as reliable as pal review.
If Earth’s smallish moon can cause tidal action with our oceans, why shouldn’t we expect that the huge masses of Jupiter and Saturn could have some tidal effects on the Sun’s swirling gases and their related magnetic fields?
I am happy to see this topic reaching a wider, more modern audience than Landsheidt did during his lifetime, as well as the works that preceded his and upon which his were based. When Landsheidt started to do his best work towards the end of his life, the attack-machine was in full cry and at its most effective. Is there any doubt that Piers Corbyn is using the same method? True revenge is being able to make accurate predictions in the face of the serial failure of the GCM’s to predict anything, even the past.
Now that we are living in saner times the simple and obvious questions can again be asked once again. Remember that Landscheidt’s ability to predict ENSO events was not accepted as ‘legitimate’ not because he was inaccurate, but because the mechanism for its effect was not clearly stated. This made it easier to dismiss as ‘coincidence’. His prediction of the April 2003 El Nino 3.5 years in advance, accurate to within 4 weeks, is no small potatoes. Keep in mind his prediction of a major drought in the USA in 2018 and 2025 as his parting shot.
Anthony I appreciate your caveats about how well Scarfetta’s paper was reviewed but, come on, this work is not exactly new and what do we expect from the Warmists anyway? They are going to rail against you for allowing the subject to be discussed because it threatens their entire world view. Do you still care? Anything that smells of solar influence on the this planet is anathema. They are going to squeal about how this (rather obvious) effect has been ‘disproven’ and is only clung to by ….. (fill in your favourite anti-science epithet). If the planets can pull the the barycentre outside the radius of the Sun, it is a powerful effect. Consider the tidal influence of the moon on the Earth, yet the E-M barycentre is well below the surface.
Scarfetta, congratulations and thanks for the details and the graphs and the topic. Someone has to lead. It might as well be you.
Have we found any solar systems with super Jupiter mass planets very close to their star? We know that Jupiter exerts huge gravitational forces on its close-in moons (especially those in elliptical orbits), effectively causing tidal movements and surface lava flows. Isn’t it likely that a planet with three times the mass of Jupitor in close proximity to its star would be eventually torn apart by these gravitational stresses?
Bill
Everyone should check this work against Fairbridge and Sanders “The Suns Orbit AD 750 -2050: Basis for New Perspectives on Planetary Dynamics and Earth -Moon linkage”
in Climate – History, Periodicity and Predictability eds Ramino et al Van Nostrand 1987 p 446
also see the enormous Bibliography which follows that article, on p 475 – 541.
As to mechanism – barycenter etc it is the torsion caused by the rate of change of angular momentum about the barycenter that matters.- see Jose Suns Motion and Sunspots Astronomical Journal April 1965
Leif said, that there is no found tidal effects in exoplanet systems. How long we have examine exoplanets, and is it easy to find those effects?
Name HD 41004 B b
Discovered in 2004
M.sin i 18.4 (± 0.22) MJ
Semi major axis 0.0177 AU
Orbital period 1.3283 (± 1.2e-05) days
Eccentricity 0.081 (± 0.012)
ω 178.5 (± 7.8) deg.
Tperi 2452434.88 (± 0.0029)
Update 25/08/06
Distance 43.03 pc
With best equipment we have, is the distance like that (43.03 pc ) what prevents us to see. Can we find effects what Pluto’s moons cause it’s surfface? No we can’t, so there is no effect?
@Bob Paglee says:
If Earth’s smallish moon can cause tidal action with our oceans, why shouldn’t we expect that the huge masses of Jupiter and Saturn could have some tidal effects on the Sun’s swirling gases and their related magnetic fields?
++++++++
Exactly. Something to keep in mind is that the tidal action on the Earth is largely constrained by the fact it is so solid. The gases near the surface of the Sun are able to be pulled around to a much greater extent as witnessed by the ‘coincidence’ between the Earth-Moon-Venus barycentre and the sunspot butterfly pattern. However the key to the J-S phenomenon is the rate of change of the position of the more dense central region of the Sun with respect to the surface. In other words the Solar centre of gravity is disturbed with respect to the optical centre. There are several mechanisms one can imagine for how that can change the magnetic field.
For a good summary of Fairbridge see
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/Fairbridge-ClimateandKeplerianPlanetaryDynamics.htm
“Thus, we conclude that a solar dynamo
theory and a planetary-tidal theory of solar variation are
complementary, not in opposition: there is the need of both of them
to understand solar dynamics!”
Exactly what I told Leif Svalgaard here a year ago. I think I was forced (in desperation) to start using exclamation marks too.
Planetary orbital resonances = Sun internal standing waves and other flow and circulatory perturbations/changes that affect output over long periods.
@ Bob Paglee:
Because the force of gravity is proportional to an object’s mass, but inversely proportional to the squared distance between masses.
Jupiter’s mass is 20,837 times greater than the moon’s mass. But the mean radius of Jupiter’s orbit (actually the semi-major axis since it’s an ellipse) is 2025x that of the moon’s orbit.
20837 / (2025 ^ 2)
= 20837 / 4100231
= 0.0063
So, Jupiter’s tidal force on the sun would be ~0.6% of the moon’s tidal force on earth. Saturn, being less massive and more distant would be even less of a tidal influence.
Anthony,
thank you for the post. Only one comment.
You say “…whole barycentric thing which gets certain people into shouting matches”
Please note that the model that I present has nothing to do with “barycentric thing”.
My model is based on tidal patterns and solar dynamo cycle whose physical reality nobody disputes.
About the criticism of Leif, please note that we do not have sufficient detailed data about other stars to study this phenomenon there. There is the need to have extremely detailed solar irradiance records, to know the kind of planets they have (big and small) and to have very long records. We do not have this information for the other stars, unless Leif can provide a detailed sunspot number record or cosmogenic record for a few centuries about another star. Moreover, those few cases where we find a giant planet close to a star (the planet moves fast) the issue is understanding “variation” from main tide potential, not just its average strength and solar inertia to fast variations, that suppresses everything.
Tidal phenomena are however observed and well studied in binary star systems where they are very well known and in planetary systems. For example, look at:
“Tidal instability in stellar and planetary binary systems”
by M Le Bars, L Lacaze, S Le Dizès, P Le Gal, M Rieutord
http://www.mendeley.com/research/tidal-instability-in-stellar-and-planetary-binary-systems/
(this is just the first paper I got from Google) These things are in astrophysics textbooks.
About the phenomenon I am observing, it is so small that it is evident that we need to start from our Sun and solar system where we do have sufficiently detailed information and long records.
The model that I propose is supported by its proven hindcast capabilities. The model just uses the planetary frequencies and phases plus another frequency and phase deduced from a combination of planetary and sunspot record since 1749, and then the model is run back for thousand years, and all major solar and climate patterns are schematically recovered.
For those interested in a free copy of the paper, it is here
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4143
There are many other figure/tests in the paper.
May you add the arxiv link above to your main paper?
Thank you
One’s initial ‘gut’ impression is that the forces at play would be too weak to amount to material drivers.
Obviously, we do not understand the magnetosphere sufficiently to know whether bodies other than the sun and moon may have a bearing on that and if so, what is the effect of this.
However, it may not be limited to just the magnetosphere, and the effect may extend to the atmospheric bulge. The celestrial bodies (primarily the sun and moon, but to a lesser extend other planetary objects) have a role to play with the tides and atmospheric bulge. There is little doubt that the atmosphere is undergoing a constant flexing (both from the bottom and from the top) as a result of the interaction of the gravitional forces at play and the spinning nature of the globe, but whether this is sufficient to input some temperature into the atmosphere is on the basis of our present understanding and knowledge rather speculative. Can it drive climate is even more speculative.
I have long held the view that we may underestimate the significance of the atmospheric bulge. We are not in a static system and no account seems to be taken of that..
re: Bob Paglee at 8:26 AM I can’t do the calculations right
here and now, but it would seem that the gravitational pull
by the Moon on the Earth should be compared to Jupiter’s
on the Sun. That would give a bit of a clue if Jupiter really
affected the Sun as much as the Moon affects the Earth.
Tracing cycles of expolanet host stars is an angle that I thought might help settle the Landscheidt controversy. I doubt that stars with massive short-period planets will be the final word. Decades of data from true Solar System analogs would be better.
“dynamics!”
About my usage of exclamation marks, please note that I am not a English speaking person and I am not able to evaluate how a native English speaking person would interpret it.
Anthony told me that I have to avoid using them (I used it twice in the paper). In the future I will follow his precious advice. So, consider it a typo, if you do not like it.
Contrary to Mr. Watts’ claim, Dr. Scafetta’s model does not make “predictions.” It makes “projections.” While people often conflate the ideas that are referenced by the two words, the ideas are distinct. Predictions are discrete in time, are countable and have a one-to-one relationship to the events in a statistical population, making it easy to see that predictions are not the output from Dr. Scafetta’s model for the output is continuous and references no population.
When I point out to them that there is a scientifically important distinction between a “prediction” and a “projection,” many bloggers are inclined to ignore me and to continue to conflate the ideas that are referenced by the two words. However, it is well worth the expenditure of mental effort that is required in gaining an understanding of this distinction, for as predictions are falsifiable, they lie in science while as projections are not falsifiable they do not lie in science.
“So, Jupiter’s tidal force on the sun would be ~0.6% of the moon’s tidal force on earth. Saturn, being less massive and more distant would be even less of a tidal influence.”
Yes indeed. Moreover, here on the Earth we see the tides because the oceans are fluid while the continents are rigid. But the Sun is completely fluid, so what?
To take an extreme example of gravitional forces at play and their effect, just think of Io.
This is the most geologically active body in the solar system. The power source for all this energy is gravity. Io being ‘pulled’ between Jupiter and the other Galelean moons.
On Io, the work being done by gravity and the resultant heat it generates is easy to see.
Why should not a similar effect but to a much leser extent, be ongoing on Earth? For example, how much energy is being counter-balanced by a leap tide as opposed to a spring tide? How much energy is involved in the displacement of the tides which in turn displaces the atmosphere from below? How much energy is involved in the creation and ongoing displacement of the atmospheric bulge?
I expect that a lot of work is involved in these phenomena and a by product of work is heat.
I can in principle see that it possible that gravitational interaction which is flexing the atmosphere both from below and above could in theory input some heat. The issue I have is whether this is just miniscule, and more significantly whether this could over time drive climate. .
I found this web site really useful in figuring out how much of an effect the planets, mainly Jupiter, have on the sun:
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html
Those who are potentially persuaded by those that say that the tidal forces are too small to be effective should remember these three points.
1) Solar variation is pretty small too. Around 0.1% over a decade. Still enough to affect terrestrial climate quite dramatically though, due to various amplifications and feedbacks.
2) If I push a flagpole just hard enough to make it rock slightly, and push it again at just the right time with the same force, it will rock a bit more. If I repeat the process enough times, I can break the flagpole because it is rocking so violently. Small forces, applied regularly, which are in harmony with the natural oscillation of the object they are applied to, create powerful resonances.
3) Leif always quotes the size of the vertical tides, and never discusses horizontal flows. On a body like the Sun, which has very high surface gravity, small vertical displacements lead to energetic and wide ranging horizontal flows, these can get reinforced by the myriad number of ‘coincidences’ in the timings of various forces acting on the solar surface.
First, something is causing periodic ice ages on this planet, the most likely causative factor is the sun for such regular occurrences, if it was purely a random variation of climate cycles not related to the sun, it would not be nearly so regular. Something is also causing periodic, regular cycles of warm and cool periods in interglacials, little ice ages, medieval warm periods, that sort of thing, and once again such regularity does not look like random cycles of entirely earth based phenomenon, such as ocean currents, ENSO, or the like. In short, something causes these cycles, if not the sun, then what? Until we know at least that, “climate scientists” need a new name, because they are neither studying the climate, what actually causes variations in it, nor are they scientists.
Second, these major variations are far apart, the smaller little ice ages are at least several hundred years apart, the larger full scale ice ages over 10,000, have we been closely observing other suns other than our own long enough to spot such similar changes over such time periods? The answer, no we have not. Therefore, we simply do not have enough data to work with yet.
Third, since our “climate scientists” are not actually studying climate, at least enough to even know what causes these major changes in our climate, we cannot know what solar effects may or may not be behind them (more likely may than may not, see above). We therefore do not know what we are looking for, so it is no wonder we cannot find it.
Fourth, the currently posited idea of what does cause periods of warming and cooling are based around the solar wind. We cannot measure the solar wind of other suns other than our own. Thus, if these climate changes depend on solar wind, we will not be able to compare our solar wind with any other suns, and thus will never see it happen anywhere else. This is especially true if other changes are not also present when there are changes in solar wind, and if these changes are not quite large, large enough for us to see them a gazillion miles away on another star (over a period of several hundred years at least, see above). This is also true of magnetism, incoming cosmic rays, and other things we can measure here but cannot measure way over there.
And lastly, As Upton Sinclair once said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” We may not have data related to this for the simple reason that we don’t want to. A lot of peoples jobs depend on CO2 causing everything, and the sun, ours or any others, not causing anything. Do not be surprised, therefore, if we do not have data to prove or disprove something that we are going out of our way to avoid looking at.
“In my experience, most coincidences aren’t.”
^This^
Richard Verney says:
“I have long held the view that we may underestimate the significance of the atmospheric bulge.”
me too:
If as postulated, atmospheric density at the surface plus TOA insolation drives temperature, then changes in the bulge due to planetary influences should change the density, thus temperature.
Changes in the bulge might change the albedo too.
Changes in the bulge should change the location of trade winds.
I look forward to reading through this later, but I already like the mention of the “quasi-millennial large beat cycle around 983 years”.
As for those negligible effects between planets and sun, resonance. Given the very slow rate at which solar system motion slows, there are many cycles of – admittedly weak – interaction which will allow the eventual exchange of energy between anything and anything else in the system which ‘rings’ at a similar frequency. It would be surprising if ‘astronomical’ cycles were not present in the climatic record, more so given that most of the runners are in the fluid state.
gallopingcamel says:
March 21, 2012 at 8:20 am
That mega Jupiter argument makes no sense. We are talking about rather subtle effects
Some starspots are huge: http://www.noao.edu/noao/noaonews/dec99/node2.html and we can today easily measure stellar activity.
While the barocentric notion may not be hard science per se, I think there would be merit to conducting more frequency domain analysis of solar and solar-cosmic behavior. After all, it’s a massive circuit.
Gravity’s influence on what essentially are electromagnetic events in the origin and consequence is at best very small, but most likely negligible.
I fear I find this totally unconvincing. First, we have three free parameters, which are the three frequencies:
Saying that he is using 9.98 because it is kinda like the mean spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn makes no sense. If it followed the actual spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn that would be one thing … but it doesn’t.
Here’s what he says about the middle cycle of 10.9 years:
Oh, please. I thought this was science, and “may be associated to a quasi 11-year solar dynamo cycle” is handwaving.
The final cycle, 11.86 years, is the sidereal period of Jupiter rounded to two decimals.
Here’s the problem with this. When you are dealing with beat frequencies, particularly short cycles with closely related periods, the exact lengths of the cycles make a huge difference to the result. If you are looking as Scafetta is at a 2,000 year run, a difference of 0.1 years in a cycle length leads to a difference of 200 years in the location of the peaks and valleys of the cycle.
This means that by making very small changes in the three frequencies, we end up with huge changes in the results … and since Dr. Scafetta is not dealing with actual astromical cycles but possible “quasi 11 year” cycles and the like, he is free to adjust the cycles to fit the results to the reality.
Anthony above puts out three possibilities for this study, viz:
I hold that a fourth possibility is much more probable than any of the above—that it is a trivial exercise in curve fitting using three free parameters, and if three hadn’t sufficed, he would gladly have used four free parameters.
Beat frequencies are a perfect way to do that, because the adjustments are so small that you can still claim that the parameters have some real-world basis because they are supposedly “closely related” to one of the literally hundreds of possible astronomical cycles.
So far, in his three posts on WUWT, Dr. Scafetta has said that the Earth’s surface temperatures are ruled by:
First Post: 20 and 60 year cycles. These were supposed to be related to some astronomical cycles which were never made clear.
Second Post: 9.1, 10-11, 20 and 60 year cycles. These were supposed to be related to:
9.1 years : this was justified as being sort of near to a calculation of (2X+Y)/4, where X and Y are lunar precession cycles,
“10-11” years: he never said where he got this one, or why it’s so vague.
20 years: supposedly close to an average of the sun’s barycentric velocity period.
60 years: kinda like three times the synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn. Why not four times? Who knows.
Third Post: (this paper). 9.98, 10.9, and 11.86 year cycles. These are claimed to be
9.98 years: slightly different from a long-term average of the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn.
10.9 years: may be related to a quasi 11-year solar cycle … or not.
11.86 years: Jupiter’s sidereal period.
I’m sure you can see the problem. When you start by claiming a given cycle is valid because it is near to, not the same as but near to, (2X + Y)/4 where X and Y are lunar precessions, and then you drop that cycle entirely in favor of a similar length cycle which is supposed to be not the same as, but near to, the long term average of the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn … sorry, kids, but that’s just picking one of the literally hundreds of astronomical cycles to justify your numbers.
When you are reduced to taking two astronomical cycles X and Y, and claiming that your magical cycle is valid because it is near to (2X + Y)/4, you can justify anything. Why not a cycle of length (2X + Y)/5, or (3X + Y)/4? Given the range of possible X and Y, and the range of possible combinations, using this method anything can be justified as an “astronomical cycle”.
I find this to be parameter fitting on steroids, cyclomania taken to the extreme. It is nothing but using free parameters, which are justified as being kinda sorta close to astronomical cycles, to make the elephant wiggle his trunk.
In support of this, please note that Dr. Scafetta first got a reasonable fit to the earth’s temperature using just 20 and 60 year cycles. Then he got a reasonable fit using 9.1, “10-11”, 20 and 60 year cycles. Now he shows a reasonable fit using 9.98, 10.9, and 11.86 cycles … so … why should we think any of them are more than playing with parameters?
I leave you to draw your own conclusion as to whether this is just trivial curve fitting. As for me, I see absolutely no scientific value in this at all.
w.
Exclamation points are a matter of style. I can see a reviewer suggesting they not be used but I don’t see how one could ever recommend rejection over a matter of style rather than substance. Thus I think Anthony is wrong to question the standard of peer review over such a thing (and I could even put an exclamation point on that).
As a matter of advice to Nicola, I would say to definitely avoid any use of exclamation points to strengthen an argument. Since it contains no logic it doesn’t add anything and the emphasis is just like repetition, or as Anthony says, “shouting.” As description, however, an exclamation point can be fine, expressing a personal sense of magnitude, but still probably hard for a non-native English speaker to judge.
OT – Oh the IRONY! Oh the hypocrisy!
[snip yes wildly off topic, which is why we have a tips and notes page, I’m not going to have this thread hijacked for a Gleick discussion – Anthony]
Alvin W says:
March 21, 2012 at 9:01 am
I can’t do the calculations right here and now, but it would seem that the gravitational pull by the Moon on the Earth should be compared to Jupiter’s on the Sun.
Here are the calculations for Jupiter and the sun in terms of center of mass. If only the sun and Jupiter existed in their present orbits, the center of gravity is actually outside the surface of the sun. Here are the important numbers:
Mass of the sun = 1.99 x 10^30 kg.
Mass of Jupiter = 1.90 x 10^27 kg.
Mean orbital radius of Jupiter = 7.78 x 10^11 m.
So the center of mass between Jupiter and the sun is
7.78 x 10^11 m x 1.90 x 10^27 kg/1.99 x 10^30 kg = 7.43 x 10^8 m.
However the sun’s equatorial radius is 6.96 x 10^8 m. This, of course, is less than the center of mass for Jupiter and the sun. The other planets will either add or subtract to this center of mass, depending on their location relative to Jupiter.
As for our earth and moon, that center of gravity is about 1000 miles below the surface of the earth or 3000 miles from the center of the earth. So in this sense at least, Jupiter has a larger effect on the sun than the moon does on earth. (Tides are a different matter.)
I contend that the matter on the surface of the sun is in such an excited state that it does not take much to stimulate an energetic release. I’ve seen countless videos of comets and other objects passing near the sun appearing to stimulate a flare release from a point near the perogee. I’ve been shot down by experts on that belief many times, but I’m still a believer.
perigee
“11.86 years: Jupiter’s synodic period.”
No, it is Jupiter’s sidereal period. The synodic period of Jupiter, for an observer on the Earth, is 399 days.
[Thanks, fixed. -w]
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 21, 2012 at 8:51 am
Please note that the model that I present has nothing to do with “barycentric thing”.
My model is based on tidal patterns and solar dynamo cycle whose physical reality nobody disputes.
Just to be sure I am understanding you correctly, does this meant that you believe that the barycenter or rapidity of changes to the barycenter absolutely has no bearing whatsoever on the “solar dynamo cycle”?
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 21, 2012 at 10:19 am
As for me, I see absolutely no scientific value in this at all.
Ah, but you need to read Scaffetta’s papers. It is all laid out in unconvincing detail. WUWT is fertile ground for all kinds of dubious claims: planetary cycles controlling the climate, planetary and lunar positions triggering earthquakes [Thousands of lives could be saved if just the lunatics were taking seriously], etc.
Legatus says:
March 21, 2012 at 9:40 am
First, something is causing periodic ice ages on this planet, the most likely causative factor is the sun for such regular occurrences, if it was purely a random variation of climate cycles not related to the sun, it would not be nearly so regular. Something is also causing periodic, regular cycles of warm and cool periods in interglacials, little ice ages, …
________________________
It is called the Milankovitch cycles.
Luboš Motl brings up the basic correction to the Milankovitch cycles that make the theory fit.
Milankovitch cycles have been known to all scientists for decades even the warmists:
Also See:
Simple explanation: http://deschutes.gso.uri.edu/~rutherfo/milankovitch.html
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Hays_OrbitPacemaker_Science76.pdf
http://www.heliogenic.net/category/milankovitch-cycles/
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
Without violating any ethics, I can say that I was a reviewer of an earlier version of this paper submitted to a better journal and the judgement of several reviewers was: “The paper is crap and based on cyclomanic derivations”.
60 years: kinda like three times the synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn. Why not four times? Who knows.
Saturn and Jupiter align every 20 years. They align in the same solar quadrant plus 9 degrees every 60 years. So it’s a case of them aligning in the same ‘earth season’ every 60 years.
Jupiter’s mass is 20,837 times greater than the moon’s mass. But the mean radius of Jupiter’s orbit (actually the semi-major axis since it’s an ellipse) is 2025x that of the moon’s orbit.
times the absolute magnitude of the field of Jupiter at a distance of the approximate radius of its orbit 
(plus a factor of 2).
. Thus your estimate is off by the neglect of 
on the one hand and 
on the other. The ratio of these ratios is order of another factor of ten, so assuming your other arithmetic is correct (I didn’t check it) the relative size of the differential “tidal field” is more like 0.06%.
20837 / (2025 ^ 2)
= 20837 / 4100231
= 0.0063
So, Jupiter’s tidal force on the sun would be ~0.6% of the moon’s tidal force on earth. Saturn, being less massive and more distant would be even less of a tidal influence.
I do so love Fermi estimates, but be careful. You’re reasoning is completely erroneous because the tides are a second order effect, due to the difference between the gravitational field at the center of mass of the tidal object and its value on e.g. the near and far boundaries. This produces and additional factor of the ratio
That is, a simple estimate of the (magnitude of the differential) “tidal field” on the near side of the sun to Jupiter might be
However, as noted, there are other really important differences one needs to account for. One is that the Sun is a really, really large ball of very hot, compressible fluid. Another is the lack of e.g. continents, although magnetic inhomogeneities may function somewhat similarly. Because the Sun is so very large and so very hot, even a very small secular variation in the laterally differential field strength in some direction has a long way to be amplified and possibly be self-organized into a tidal resonance, a breathing mode/quadrupolar deformation of the sun that slightly lags the position of Jupiter in the sky. It is this quadrupolar deformation that e.g. is slowly increasing the radius of the moon’s orbit (and slowing the Earth’s rotational velocity). In the Earth, the oceans experience very large tides in some places and not so much in others where the actual tidal field is larger because its resonances interact with coastal geometry and basically funnel the tidal wave so that it is strongly amplified. Oceanic tides in Maine and Nova Scotia are much larger than they are in NC — more than twice as high — in spite of the fact that the actual tidal field strictly increases as one approaches the plane of the Moon’s orbit. Sunspots and regions with strong magnetic flux may well do similar channelling of the solar tidal wave due to Jupiter (or other planets), but in a nonlinear and chaotic way (as sunspots are hardly fixed).
The final difference is one I have a hard time getting any sort of handle on. Solar dynamics inside has some very bizzare features. For example, the “speed of light” inside the sun is basically a crawl — you could walk faster than a photon generated deep inside the sun manages to diffuse towards the surface. Given the reasonable assumption that resonant tidal surface waves modulate pressure, they may well also modulate the core fusion reaction. Even very weak modulation would create very slowly travelling outward directed amplitude waves in energy density, and (after a lag of 100,000 years or so) those waves would reach the general vicinity of the surface. Certain harmonics of those waves may well heterodyne with the current phase of the harmonic tidal resonance, again in a way that is likely delayed differential but strongly modulated by nonlinearly and chaotic details of surface state.
Under such circumstances it would be very difficult to put limits on the magnitude of the influence of the tidal wave on solar state. With resonances, even a very small driving force with the right frequency can produce a large response. Although one might expect damping near the surface to limit the size of the resonances, the interior dynamics of the sun may be so constrained by the enormous density and pressure that they are not negligible, that a significant part of what we see today arriving at the surface of the sun is coherently connected to solar state a very long time ago.
There is substantial evidence that there are resonant processes in the Sun’s energy production cycle with many different timescales, some of which are sufficiently distinct that they get names and are postulated to be connected to specific modes e.g. r-modes — fourier studies of neutrino flux, for example. However, I think that internal solar dynamics is one of our vast wells of mostly-ignorance in the great sea of scientific knowledge; we are still building the tools that might lead to the tools that would one day let us make decent inferences about what is going in there. Lief may well disagree and think that it is all well-understood at this point, but again this is a hard problem and one where getting an experimental “glimpse” at what is going on deep inside the solar interior is a bit difficult because, well, most of the Sun is in the way…
rgb
I personally lean towards believing that the charts are more coincidence than anything, but even I can think of a few responses to Leif’s data.
1) The orbits are too close. IE, whatever is being affected can’t respond that fast. Jupiter’s orbit is, I think, 12 years. The planets Leif mentions, the orbit is just a few days. That’s a huge difference.
2) The orbits of the planets that Leif mentions are not stable enough. IE, it takes multiple millions of years for the harmonics to build up to the level where they can be detected.
3) The gravitational attraction is too strong, instead of creating harmonics, all we get is chaos.
A couple of other points.
4) The age of the star may matter.
5) The size of the star may matter.
Interesting, as you note, based on that correlation coefficient of 0.3. But as they say in Germany: “Ach! Das ist Wigglezusammenbringen!”
Leif Svalgaard says: March 21, 2012 at 10:39 am
Thousands of lives could be saved if just the lunatics were taking seriously
Dr. S ,
as a scion of land of Danes, can you help: are the visitors to the Copenhagen’s luna park ‘lunatics’?. I enjoyed it very much.
Seems like numerology to me. Whatever trace effect there may be of the planets’ configurations upon the Sun, would be dwarfed by the variabilities, however slight, of the Sun’s internal processes. A flea on a camel’s back.
On exclamations: This too is a pet peeve of mine. They should rarely (if ever) be used other than in dialogue, and then sparingly.
My personal dislike is in messages displayed by computer applications. I have to admit that I was bought up on, and firmly believe in the original Unix style where if something succeeds it does so silently. Messages are only printed in case of failure and where specifically requested by use of (for example) a debug flag.
The ones I really take exception to are messages such as:
Command succeeded!
That give the impression that the writer of this particular piece of code is astonished that it actually worked, and fully expects that the normal mode of operation will be failure.
It appears that many of the authors of code with this sort of message are not native English speakers, so perhaps there is a little leeway to forgive on that basis. But as I try to observe the customs and usage of other languages so should others learn and respect the English language to the best of their ability.
Russ R says: March 21, 2012 at 8:48 am
Because the force of gravity is proportional to an object’s mass, but inversely proportional to the squared distance between masses.
Jupiter’s mass is 20,837 times greater than the moon’s mass. But the mean radius of Jupiter’s orbit (actually the semi-major axis since it’s an ellipse) is 2025x that of the moon’s orbit.
20837 / (2025 ^ 2)
= 20837 / 4100231
= 0.0063
For gravity, correct. For tides, incorrect. The tidal force is the derivative of gravity with respect to distance (from one side of the Sun to the other vs. distance to Jupiter). So:
T = 20837 * d (2025-2) / dd (minus 2 drops out, as it is the same for both systems)
= 20837 * (2025-3/sup>) = 2.51 * 10-6
So, Jupiter’s tidal force on the sun would be ~2.5 * 10-6 of the moon’s tidal force on earth. Interestingly, if you want to calculate it from one side of the Sun to the other, you must then multiply by (1,320,000 / 12,756) 3.
This gives T = 20837 * 103.53* 2025-3 = 2.78
So, solar tides caused by Jupiter would be 2.78 times the size of those on Earth caused by the Moon. Total tides of ~1-10 meters.
Saturn, being less massive and more distant would be even less of a tidal influence.
@ Leif Svalgaard says: March 21, 2012 at 10:39 am
I see that Leif does not have arguments any more.
So, until now the most serious criticism has been the accidental use of two exclamation points to express an emphasis on two comments I thought important to stress (according to their Italian usage which is more liberal in that than English). As I said, I will take your advise of not using them in the future.
The offending sentences are at page 13:
“The above critique in the early 1980s definitely convinced most solar scientists to abandon the planetary theory of solar variation first proposed in the 19th century. In fact, while good correlation patterns stimulate researchers to look for a possible explanation and their physical mechanisms, a lack of correlation can be easily interpreted as if no physical link truly exists!”
and
“Smythe and Eddy made the mistake of not taking into account the fact that solar variations had to be the result of a coupling between internal solar dynamo dynamics and external planetary tidal forcing, not just of the planetary tides alone: when the planetary tides interfere destructively with the internal solar dynamo cycle, the Sun becomes quieter and periods such as the solar Maunder minimum occur, as Figures 5-8 show. Thus, we conclude that a solar dynamo theory and a planetary-tidal theory of solar variation are complementary, not in opposition: there is the need of both of them to understand solar dynamical evolution!”
I’m sorry but fig. 7 the temperature does not match the lower graph. I see no correlation other than some peaks matching. This non-sense about planets and barycentric stuff just does not jive to me. I think most solar physicists want the sun to be the issue to get much more funding. Yes the sun may be the driver and it may be hyper sensitive but the proof is in the pudding. Proper speculation is not a bad thing and I am sure Leif and others would appreciate proper speculation.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 21, 2012 at 10:46 am
Leif, everybody here knows that you are not fair toward my research and you should not have served as reviewer on my paper. And my opinion is that your criticism was plainly wrong and clearly biased.
If Anthony allows, it would be a pleasure for me to discuss your criticism on this web-site. I can write a rebuttal, parallel to your arguments in a guest blog.
What do you think Anthony?
Let me know
Tidal action is caused by gravity. Gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Jupiter is approximately 5 AU from the Sun and Saturn is approximately 10 AU from the Sun. 1AU ~ 150E6 km. The Moon is approximately 0.0025 AU from the Earth.
I believe the tallest tidal wave on the Sun is in the order of 1mm high.
I leave you to draw your own conclusion as to whether this is just trivial curve fitting. As for me, I see absolutely no scientific value in this at all.
I mostly agree, Willis, although I would be less vehement about the “no scientific value at all” bit. My difficulty (like yours, I think) is that I keep waiting for a hypothesis in there and one never quite appears. Surely at this point we have enough data and computational power to solve the equations of motion for the actual planetary and solar orbits to at least reasonable precision for a rather long time into the past and the future, so this using of this and that and another frequency/period picked out of all of the periods available and ignoring the rest, even though over time they can cumulate to not at all be negligible seems difficult to defend, and it is also unstated why or how the selected periods modulate solar state, let alone how they modulate the Earth’s nominal climate.
The Earth’s “mean temperature” (whatever that really means, given that we cannot easily measure or compute this in a non-controversial way even now with modern instrumentation and irregular non-systematic sampling, let alone in the distant past) appears to have a fair amount of natural variability with many different time scales present. Some of the time dependence appears to be “noise”. Some of it appears to be signal in the sense that characteristic frequencies rise above the general noise, where I have to use the phrase “appears to be” because our proxies suck, our reliable temperature record is phenomenally short compared to the time-scales of variation visible in the proxy record such as it is, because every time we extend the time domain over which such analysis occurs some of what appeared to be predictive signal turns out to be longer period noise and new possible harmonics appear, and because we are almost certain that the actual climate system modulation is described by some sort of complicated nonlinear delayed differential forms that exhibit chaos, where quasiperiodic oscillations around local attractors appear and disappear after a few cycles as the system evolves to where new attractors dominate the dynamics.
Identifying things that might be important periodicities is “science”, but if it stops there it isn’t very complete or useful science. Humans knew the day was one day long and highly reliably periodic for a very long time, but that in and of itself didn’t help us understand the dynamics that makes it so for almost all of that time, and many false models occurred that could explain the data as well as anything in the meantime, from a very regular god riding a flaming chariot across the sky once a day up to a fairly small ball of fire that orbited us once a day. As always, to move it from a set of unexplained observations that might well be coincidences or artifacts of an insufficiently long period of observation that happens to transform chaotic quasiperiod noise into hypothetical periodic signal one requires a concrete causal chain that can be verified and/or falsified.
In this case one needs to build a model that is more subtle and physically motivated than just displaying a fourier sum of a few harmonics and noting that it has a fair degree of correspondence to a data set over a few periods. Does it work across the last few cycles of glaciation and interglacials? Does it work across the whole Holocene, including the Younger Dryas? If it doesn’t, why should we believe that it is true/correct now? And above all, how is Jupiter affecting anything enough to produce the observed climate variations (let alone still smaller Saturn, still farther away)? What is the causal chain? Without a concrete hypothesis, there is nothing to verify or falsify, not really.
rgb
rgb
You probably mean the Sun’s change of orbital angular momentum. This is accounted for by similar change of orbital angular momentum of the planets, i.e. well known orbital perturbations, resulting in no change in the angular momentum of the whole solar system.
It may be the other way around, our motion, and that of the other planets affects the suns climate, which in tern than affects us. Tidal force, which is influence by the planets to a lesser extent also affect the earths climate. Tidal force changes the shape of the atmosphere, the shape of the ocean and the crust of the earth, it also affects wind patterns as friction of ocean currents can move air masses along with it, thats why when the tide changes and starts to come in we suddenly get mist roll over the town I live in. I can tell what the tide is doing by looking at the wind direction and the clouds outside! Theres far more affecting the climate than we realise
If Jupiter can have a measurable influence on the Sun why does it not have a measurable influence on the Earth during appropriate times when both are on the same side? If it does has the influence been measured to be what? BTW I did observe the Jupiter/Venus show last week. I did actually feel my heart strings being pulled just knowing what I was looking at.
harrywr2 says:
March 21, 2012 at 10:50 am
So they are kinda close every three years, gosh, that’s impressive… which I suppose fits perfectly with the “kinda close” numbers that they’ve picked to represent everything else.
SO WHAT? Your claim is that as long as the cycle comes back somewhere near the start every three years, heck, it’s only nine degrees off, lets call it a real 3X cycle …
I find these kind of explanations and excuses ludicrous.
w.
We know one thing causing periodic ice ages: Milankovitch cycles
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:14 am
I see that Leif does not have arguments any more
There are things not worth discussing. All has already been said about this subject.
Philip Peake says: March 21, 2012 at 11:12 am
“But as I try to observe the customs and usage of other languages so should others learn and respect the English language to the best of their ability.”
Talking is very easy, Philip. How many languages do you master?
Leif Svalgaard says: March 21, 2012 11:42 am
“There are things not worth discussing. All has already been said about this subject.”
Not really, Leif. The discussion just started.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:42 am
“First, something is causing periodic ice ages on this planet, the most likely causative factor is the sun for such regular occurrences”
We know one thing causing periodic ice ages: Milankovitch cycles
Of course, the planets [mostly Jupiter] change the Earth orientation and orbit on time scales of tens of thousands of years and hence the climate. This has nothing to do with the Sun and we should all keep the distinction and the time scales in mind.
Carsten Quite right – I thought my meaning was clear from the context- but obviously not and course the total angular momentum of the whole system is constant.
Richard Verney says:
“I have long held the view that we may underestimate the significance of the atmospheric bulge.”
—————————————————–
If this were a factor, there would be a 19-year signal in the weather/climate record. I do not see much evidence for this.
.
Exclamation points to not alter the truth or falseness of an argument…. but neither does snark, nor unsupported dismissiveness on the part of ‘scientists’ who disagree with it.
Nor, for that matter, does the ‘quality’ of the ‘publication’ which first prints it.
Amazes me, the adolescent hangups & personal emotionality that supposedly qualified scientists allow themselves to engage in, when they are supposed to be objectively pursuing truth.
As a scientific layman, I’d have a lot more faith in the evaluations of ‘professionals’ who behaved more professionally, to be completely honest.
To Willis and to others interested in the progress of astronomical forcings:
Willis has the tendency of getting lost in smallish effects and starts to dicker
whether a cycle is 11.97 or 11.98 in length….but….he loses the oversight over
the whole battleground at the same time……
Therefore, one has to judge from a Napoleons position to see any progress:
The IPCC is still centered around AR4 and the astronomical/planetary orbit
arguments made in AR4 are not only weak but grossly false, as I have stated
in my AR4 error complaints: They “ASSUME (!!) that “”orbital forcing is INVARIANT” (!!)
on less than milleniums scale…(AR4-wg1-chapt2) or “insignificant” (chapt9).
These statements are based on nonsense of some Belgians (Goosse 2005, and
Bertrand 2002) as reference, NASA JPL Horizons is completely ignored in
their papers……these guys have never heard of planetary
cycles or forcing…..they would not even know what Scafetta is talking about…
I had some correspondence with the great Andre Berger as former head
over there….they are decades behind in their outfit in Louvain…. too bad…..
Whereas Nick Scafetta is the grand astronomical climate pioneer, leading us in
showing the road to real climate science; he being ahead of our times……
If smallish effects are still unresolved, then lets join and take the few disturbing
hair out of the soup instead of dipping the complete pot out…..
Nick Scafetta did it and we can expect more of progress…..
JS
tallbloke says:
March 21, 2012 at 9:26 am
It was lack of understanding of those harmonic resonances that caused the collapse of the three cooling towers at Ferrybridge in the ’60s.
DaveE.
Robert Brown says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:27 am
My difficulty is that I keep waiting for a hypothesis in there and one never quite appears.
Patience is one of the seven ‘heavenly’ virtues.; forgive the pun.
Couple of years now, I am waiting for others to have their go first.
For the moment just a graphic preview:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTC.htm
the words will come later.
Maybe the influence on the earths magnetosphere could account for possibility number 1) “The effect manifests itself in some other way not yet observed.”, or has been observed 45 years ago: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967SSRv….6..655S
Robert
Robert Brown – It is now abundantly clear that the Younger Dryas was an impact caused aberration . http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/01/1110614109.abstract
Since February 2010 I have submitted my discovery of the relation between the solar tide functions and the terrestrial climate functions to climate authorities and blogs.
Phil Jones, http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/jonesp
Eduardo Zorita, http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/
Thomas Edwards, http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~twdedwar/
Anders Moberg, http://people.su.se/~amobe/research.htm
Ulf Büntgen, http://www.buentgen.com/index.html
Nicola Scafetta, http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/
Christoph Spötl, http://www.oeaw.ac.at/kfq/spoetl.html
Fritz Vahrenholt, http://www.kaltesonne.de/?page_id=49
Sebastian Lüning, http://www.kaltesonne.de/?page_id=49
Robert Ehrlich, http://mason.gmu.edu/~rehrlich/
Frederik Ljungqvist, http://su-se.academia.edu/FredrikCharpentierLjungqvist
Henrik Svensmark, http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Staff/All.aspx?lg=showcommon&id=38287&type=person
Nicole Vollweiler, http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/ruca/ruca07-3/klima.html
Leif Svalgaard, http://www.leif.org/
Luboš Motl, http://motls.blogspot.de/
Roy Spencer, http://www.drroyspencer.com
Anthony Watts, http://wattsupwiththat.com/
There where always ignorance on my discovery. I do not know, what the reason is, that science people, who are looking to the processes on the Sun because of climate relevant functions are practicing silence.
I have submitted a guest posting to WUWT on this discovery without any reply. Later I have put the posting in a pdf file and published it on my site. My paper from August 2010 is known here > http://www.volker-doormann.org/ghi_solar_s.pdf <.
I have mentioned in this blog in many comments to postings of Dr. N.S. but although I have informed him by email in 2010 on my discovery he never has replied to my email and not on comments in this WUWT blog until today.
Some text from my page: In February 11th 2010, some eight years after the discovering of Quaoar by Chad Trujillo und Michael E. Brown, while looking to the common cycle of the couple Quaoar and Pluto, and their strange gymnastic around the sun, it was obvious to me, that the triples of conjunctions and oppositions are connected with Eddy’s warm climate phases and the triples of squares (90°) are connected to cold climate phases like the so called “Little ice age’ in the Maunder minimum. Simply by folding the heliocentric aspect angles of Quaoar and Pluto at 90° the Geometric Harmonic Index (GHI) was born, and could be compared first with an adapted curve Eddy has outlined in his paper. Especially the two minimum around 1500 CE and 1700 CE are showing precise coincidences with two of the three Square aspects in the cold Maunder minimum, but also the warm times of Rom in the first century CE and the 13th century CE. Because of the strange pattern of this common cycle of Quaoar and Pluto, it is not easy to find the time length of the period. But from ephemeris now available for ±3000 years, a length of 1827 years can be estimated from three cycles in total. It was clear that tide effects we have on earth have mostly the same aspect pattern from sun and moon, as this unknown mechanism. But physicians tell us that the masses and distances are mostly irrelevant for tide effects on the sun surface for such far objects like the couple of Quaoar and Pluto beyond Neptune. Nonetheless it is well known that, because an opposition of the couple of Sun and Moon results in the very same way as a conjunction of the couple for the height of the tide mostly two times daily, this halves the length of the period down to 913.5 years, and comes near to the estimated cycle length of roughly 1000 years, which J. A. Eddy has seen from the 14C data. Also two of the three maximum values in the GHI are appearing in the 22nd and 23rd century, from conjunction aspects of Quaoar and Pluto. “
After N.S. has stated that his cycle gymnastic is limited on a ~60 year cycle because of no acceptable proxies for longer times, he now cames up with a 983 year sinusoid function pasting in phase to known 2k year proxies.
I have prepared some weeks ago a comparison graph for Frederik Ljungqvist:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/comparison_ghi_l.jpg
and shown here for nothing.
I have given up to explain ad nausem why this math gymnastic is hobby handycraft but not a valid method of science.
It is not my point to discuss anathema disciplines in science here; it’s just to understand some ideas from history http://doormann.tripod.com/astroclima.htm (mostly German)
It is not my thing to speak here as guest on an integer behavior, but it is not my understanding of respect and discussion culture.
Have fun with his stuff.
V.
Is the inverse relationship considered? (I can’t read the entire article on my phone.) Have similiar cyclical solar influences driven mass and orbits over time in addition to climate changes?
When I plug the values for mass (m1=sun), (m2=planet) and radius (distance from planet to sun) I get Jupiter as having the largest gravitational force followed by Venus, then Jupiter then Earth. I didn’t check the radius or mass values for accuracy, but the force from Jupiter would seem to be greater than any other planet by a factor of 10 times. Also I did the calculations in Excel so not sure what happens when you use these very large numbers.
Planet Force (N) Ratio of Jupiter to Other planets
Jupiter 4.21E+29 1.0000
Saturn 3.75E+28 0.0890
Neptune 6.80E+26 0.0016
Uranus 1.42E+27 0.0034
Earth 3.59E+28 0.0852
Venus 5.60E+28 0.1331
Mars 1.66E+27 0.0039
Mercury 1.32E+28 0.0314
Pluto 4.82E+22 0.0000
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:50 am
“There are things not worth discussing. All has already been said about this subject.”
Not really, Leif. The discussion just started.
Looks DOA to me. You might put it back on life support by publishing the reviews you got for the first version.
Agreed, Milankovitch cycles has nothing to do with the Sun.
Tom in Florida says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:37 am
Newtons law of attraction explains the gravitational influence between Earth and Jupiter. Because both masses are taken into consideration, the force will be much less for the Earth given its mass is six orders of magnitude less than the sun.
F = G*m1*m2/r^2
So if my numbers are correct the force between Jupiter and Sun versus Jupiter and Earth is 4.1E+29 versus 1.94E+24 (N) or 217,000 times higher for Jupiter-Sun.
Leif Svalgaard,
“The paper is crap and based on cyclomanic derivations”.
Sometimes one has to put up with a great deal of ridicule to jolt science out of a rut. Poor Wegman endured some really vile treatment before people realised he was right and by then it was too late to apologize.
Those “better journals” you mention (e.g. Nature?) regularly publish junk science based on dendrochronology or models based on CO2 driving global climate.
No matter that the tree-mometers defy history, ice core records and much more. No matter that the CGMs have no hindcasting skill or predictive skill.
Lief,
I forgot to thank you for that interesting information on measuring doppler shift on large stars.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm
“Looks DOA to me. ”
Not to me, Leif. Not to many people.
Try to be more humble in the future, your criticism was filled with ludicrous statements.
@Carsten Arnholm, Norway
>…The Moon is approximately 0.0025 AU from the Earth.
>I believe the tallest tidal wave on the Sun is in the order of 1mm high.
+++++++++++
Is that if the sun were a liquid? What if it were a tenuous gas? More than 1 mm? What if it built up harmonically for a few thousand years?
First there are resonant waves which build up as Jupiter and Saturn align then depart. The whole point about resonant waves is they are much higher than they would be if the gravitational pull was suddenly exerted once. So, everyone calculating 0.06% of the Earth-moon stuff….it is not only about the strength of the pull, it is about the resonance. Further, it may be the influence on the magnetic system of the sun, and that of course affects the heliosphere, which affects the protection from GRC, which affects the rate of cosmic ray impact on Earth’s atmosphere, which affects cloud formation, which powerfully affects temperature.
It was once considered that the Earth’s climate system was completely determined internally. By now the effect of solar activity is agreed, through the indirect mechanism of the heliosphere (perhaps other things too, but apparently not so much the TSI value). So what is the next level of openmindness? If we find the large planets are capable of shaking the sun up a little in a rhythmic fashion, how long would we have to wait for recognition of this reality?
Large planets ‘pulling together’ cyclically
=> gravitational jerking around of the sun, (an object perhaps akin to a marble – the heavy centre – floating in the middle of a balloon where the balloon gets moved with respect to the marble)
=> undescribed mechanism because no one is sure
=> variation in the magnetic field strength of the sun
=> change in the radius of the heliosphere
=> change in the GCR flux hitting the Earth
=> change in cloud cover and duration
=> change in global temperature
Is this really so difficult to follow? The correlation is a heck of a lot better than some mumbo-jumbo from climate models predicting more water vapour in the stratosphere that turns out not to be there.
Hi Willis,
I do take your analysis on this (and other issues as well) very serious.
But, Scafetta is trying to find a relationship, with numbers that are between certain values. Isn’t that the same problem as when one is to find relationships with solar cycles, which also do not have a really fixed period of time?
In my earlier post I used km instead of m. My apologies.
F = G*m1*m2/r^2, mass in Kg and distance in meters, F in Newtons.
Jupiter #1
Saturn #2
(The % is the ratio of planet’s to Jupiter’s effect on Sun)
Jupiter 4.21E+23 100.000%
Saturn 1.26E+23 29.941%
Neptune 2.27E+22 5.395%
Uranus 1.92E+22 4.572%
Earth 1.32E+21 0.315%
Venus 1.08E+21 0.256%
Mars 1.42E+20 0.034%
Mercury 7.32E+19 0.017%
Pluto 2.77E+18 0.001%
Earth-Jupiter 1.84E+19 N or 22,900 times less than Sun-Jupiter attraction
If Jupiter and Saturn were in alignment the Force could be 130% versus 70%. Assuming that the force is not negligible this would be a huge change (almost a doubling of the net force).
Professor Scafetta you might consider that with the cyclical nature of earth’s obliquity that the solar insolation available is being modulated by another factor which may go a long way to explaining why planetary motion affects earth’s climate. Based on what we now know about the cosmic ray link to cloud formation in regards to the solar wind’s output shielding the solar system from galactic cosmic rays, maybe we have over looked a more mechanistic explanation here.
Since the earth’s obliquity varies from 22.1 to 24.5 degree (regulated by the moon) does it not stand to reason that the earth’s magnetosphere ALSO positions itself relative to the sun in the same angle? If so, is it not reasonable to expect that different angles of magnetosphere orientations have greater or lesser shielding values to galactic cosmic rays? Hence as the magnetosphere decreases in orientation to the sun MORE galactic cosmic rays are allowed to strike the earth’s atmosphere inducing greater cloud cover. It may be causation that satisfies Anthony’s #2 correlation you have documented.
comparisons with other stellar systems where the effects are calculated to be millions of times stronger
Forget this old red herring. The point is Jupiter is accelerating parts of the object it is orbiting, mainly Earth and Venus. Then the rest of the object, the Sun, has to counter that acceleration.
So when looking at other systems, is there a large planet AND smaller inner planet(s)?
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Not to many people
Sure, you have your sycophants among the unwashed masses.
But, show us what the reviewers said.
Crispin in Johannesburg says:
March 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm
gravitational jerking around of the sun
Not even Nicola believes this. The planets do not jerk the Sun around, nor the other way around. All bodies are in free fall in the solar system [Galaxy, Universe] and feel no forces [except tides] just like an astronaut on a spacewalk is not jerked around by the very massive Earth just a hundred miles below.
To Crispin in Jo’burg:
Do not believe Leif, he knows about the Sun but nothing about planetary orbits.
The orbits are not a free fall but describe difficult spirals as all astronomers
know (“jerking in space”) except Leif….he urgently need some introductory
lectures on astronomy…
just to quote from an astronomical website about the Earth’s orbit; “is having J-2
cross track motion equations of a harmonic oscillator….” and not like a motion
when Leif drops his wine glass….sorry to say…
JS
Leif Svalgaard says: March 21, 2012 11:42 am
“There are things not worth discussing. All has already been said about this subject.”
Not really, Leif. The discussion just started.
MMMM … Almost sounds like the science is settled???
We seem to have evidence that the Earth has been in a cycle of relatively long glaciation timespans interspersed with relatively short interglacials.
There are many arguements about the cause for this.
Landscheidt’s work is one attempt to find some reason.
Like it or not it seems equally credible to “greenhouse gases” creating energy, cold objects warming warmer objects, trapping energy permanently, solar insolation is one quarter of the solar constant, there is a solar “constant”, getting the factor of four wrong, relying on models which disagree with observation, faking model’s mistakes, adjusting the temperature records, ignoring urban heat island effects, making obviously outrageous predictions based on no evidence, ignoring same outrageous predictions when they fail and trying to hide them, etc etc.
Perhaps Landscheidt did favour his hypothesis but he has at least a few “runs” on the board while the IPCC is still batting zero.
His prediction from 2004 was that the Earth would cool to a major minimum around 2030. The only “stay” to this cooling will be ElNino events, however he suggested LaNina will become the norm and ElNino will be weak or non-existent.
From 2009\2010 Australia has followed his prediction with a return to very wet events (LaNina brings rain to Eastern Australia) three years in a row and we’re still in the middle of one in mid Autumn 2012 – it ought to be easing off now, it ought to be easing off now…..
Another few years ought to demonstrate if his predictive value is real – even if you disagree with his hypothesis.
But it makes as much sense as what is promoted by the IPCc – especially the line that the CO2 already in the atmosphere will prevent a return to glaciation. This has not been observed in the past proxies BUT would certainly be more beneficial than harmful if it were possible – provided we don’t burn in hellfire first.
Robert Brown says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:27 am
Thanks, Robert. OK, I’ll bite. What scientific value is there is projecting three cycles with the following lengths:
a) kind of the same length as an average of the spring tidal period of “Jupiter and Saturn” (presumably combined, although Jupiter is way larger than Saturn), but actually different.
b) a length that may or may not be associated to a quasi 11-year solar dynamo cycle but who knows, and
c) the sidereal period of Jupiter.
You’ll have to point out the scientific value in that, because I can’t see it.
Bear in mind that last time we heard from Scafetta he was loudly insisting that one of the crucial cycles was (2X + Y) / 4, with X and Y being lunar precessions … but now that cycle has disappeared entirely, I guess the moon is no longer in ascendancy … science at its finest.
Where’s the value?
w.
timebandit says:
March 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Actually, in Scafetta’s work it’s the lack of science that’s settled …
w.
timebandit says:
March 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Not really, Leif. The discussion just started.
You are way too late for the boat. It sailed long ago.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 21, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Last time Dr. Scafetta was loudly insisting that one of the critical cycles was (2X + Y)/4, where X and Y were lunar precession cycles. Now, that’s all disappeared entirely … the Moon vanishes, and you call that a “smallish effect”?
If a an approximately 9 year cycle is off by a tenth of a year, in two millennia that adds up to a couple hundred years difference in the result … how is that a “smallish effect”?
Sure, you are welcome to overlook all of that and acclaim Dr. Scafetta as the new scientific messiah.
Me, I pay attention to the details as well as the large picture. When a man trades in the Moon for the spring tides of Jupiter and Saturn, I tend to notice …
w.
Willis, no getting excited….. a true scientist sometimes overshoots, this may be
the case with the Moon…..trial and error in virgin lands where nobody has ploughed
yet, or if, then only by light scratching on the surface…….
but here its different: He found the rich mine, the 60 year cycle,…..
let him drop the smallish stuff and let him concentrate on the heavy guns…..
Let the Moon watchers also do some contribution: Moon&CLIMATE, good topic….
We should not overload Nick Scafetta so he can stay in shape and focus on the
big stuff…..
Cheers JS
Steve from Rockwood says:
March 21, 2012 at 12:56 pm
When I plug the values for mass (m1=sun), (m2=planet) and radius (distance from planet to sun) I get Jupiter as having the largest gravitational force followed by Venus, then Jupiter then Earth. I didn’t check the radius or mass values for accuracy, but the force from Jupiter would seem to be greater than any other planet by a factor of 10 times.
As long as it is a fact that heliocentric synodic double frequencies of 6.3 oscillations per calendar year from the couple of Mercury and Earth effects the global sea level oscillations with the same frequency, you (and other) can learn that Sir Newton’s gravitation idea has nothing to do with the relations between solar synodic functions and the sea level oscillations.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/Sea_level_vs_solar_tides1.htm
This becomes also clear, because far distance small bodies like Quaorar and Pluto or Neptune have the main impact on the terrestrial climate magnitudes.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi2_x.jpg
So called heliocentric ‘tide functions’ showing tide like geometries, but that does not mean that Sir Newton’s gravitation, what ever that is, must be the cause for the relation. Moreover it is not compatible with the observed real geometries.
It should be discussed why tide like solar functions from objects with high densities despite of a far or near distance can explain terrestrial climate functions and frequencies and phases.
Newton is dead.
V.
My first impression on this was that I can see return of medieval astrology – depending on which zodiacal sign which planet occupies, good or bad things will happen.
But now I want to be a bit more serious.
No, I don’t think Jupiter or Saturn can have any significant influence on Sun cycles. I just don’t see any way they could have any non-negligible influence there, considering the amplitude of their tidal forces compared with how violent and largely chaotic processes does the sun produce itself. Similarity between sun cycle length and Jupiter orbital period is most likely just a coincidence.
What I am not so sure about, though, is planet’s influence on Earth orbit. This influence is not too great, Jupiter’s mass is 0.1% of Sun’s and Saturn is half of that. But it still means Earth’s orbit is sometimes a bit more eccentric and sometimes a bit more round, causing greater or smaller variations in incoming sun energy during the year – and, due to the fact that radiation decreases with square of distance, also small variations in the integrated energy income over the year. No, I don’t mean Milankovich cycles. I mean “real-time” tidal deformations of the orbit caused simply by the presence of the planet at certain relative position to the Earth’s elliptical orbit. Yes I know these changes are small, maybe in order of 0.1%. But it still is more than what planets do to the Sun and I have already learned that changes in order of 1% in many Earth climate parameters are considered huge. Has anyone looked at this?
I asked Dr. Leif Svalgaard about his views on this paper and he replied with this:
The real test of all this cannot come from the proxies we have because the time scales are too short, but from comparisons with other stellar systems where the effects are calculated to be millions of times stronger [because the planets are huge and MUCH closer to the star]. No correlations have been found so far.
See slide 19 of my AGU presentation: …
To this I would echo what Olavi says:
March 21, 2012 at 8:43 am
Leif said, that there is no found tidal effects in exoplanet systems. How long we have examine exoplanets, and is it easy to find those effects?
What Leif is trying on here is perhaps the most extreme case you could find of argumentum ad ignorantium. He is saying, in effect, that “we should expect to be able to detect climate change on distant, non solar system planets hundreds or light-years away, under the influence of other large planets in the same system”. If we cant – then we conclude that barycentric effects cannot affect climate.
Where can you start in addressing this? We have enough difficulty as it is assessing the presence or absence of climate change on our OWN PLANET – but we can happily use our failure to detect climate change on some distant planet only detectable as a miniscule variation in light from a star – as evidence against any barycentric effects?
Leif – WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON??
O yes and he finishes with – surprise surprise – a plug for his own conference presentation! Hooray!
Joachim Seifert says:
March 21, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Ah, yes, the famous 60 year cycle that is three Jupiter/Saturn synodic cycles, three because after three cycles it kind of returns to somewhere near where it started, except it’s off by 9 degrees … that’s real convincing, Joachim, science at its finest.
Spare me. He had no reason to pick the moon. He had no reason to get rid of the moon. This is curve fitting of the highest order, and is useless.
As to “overloading” Nicola, this is just the normal scientific process. Someone makes a claim, and other scientists try to find fault with it … sorry you and Nicola don’t like it.
I’m sure you and he would prefer a love-fest of sycophants and toadies, but that’s not gonna happen. Nicola has to face the questions just like any other scientist, especially a scientist making the ridiculous claim that his cycles are “astronomically based” because they are kinda sorta near the same length as (2X + Y)/4 where X and Y are lunar cycles … riiiight …
w.
phlogiston says:
March 21, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Leif said, that there is no found tidal effects in exoplanet systems. How long we have examine exoplanets, and is it easy to find those effects?
What Leif is trying on here is perhaps the most extreme case you could find of argumentum ad ignorantium. He is saying, in effect, that “we should expect to be able to detect climate change on distant, non solar system planets hundreds or light-years away, under the influence of other large planets in the same system”. If we cant – then we conclude that barycentric effects cannot affect climate.
The planets in question are close to their star, so their effect, if any, would be very large, and since the orbital period is short we don’t have to observe for hundreds of years. And it is not a question of ‘cant’ but of ‘dont’. The usual counterargument [which has also been used in this thread] is that perhaps we need the planets to be far away for them to have effect: a sort of homeopathy on a stellar scale: the weaker the impulse, the greater the effect.
Many a break through in Science has been blocked because supporters of the status quo gleefully put up paper-tiger arguments and then smash them down. They gain great comfort from the fact that they can so easily overcome their own self-created weak (paper-tiger) arguments, not realizing how ridiculous they look chasing their own tails.
One such argument is that put by Leif Svalgaard. He creates a paper-tiger argument by proposing that much stronger planetary tides in other stellar systems outside our Solar System show no correlation between stellar activity and planetary motion ergo – planetary cycles have nothing to do with solar activity.
However, any self-respecting scientist would have no problem seeing this silly argument for what it really is – as an obvious paper tiger.
Image that you have a person that is slowly swinging back and forth on a swing. The swing has a natural frequency of about five seconds i.e. ideally a person pushing the swing will be able to push the swing higher if they stand back and gently push on the swing roughly once every five, as the swing comes back up to where they are standing.
Any logical person would realize that it they wanted the person on the swing to go higher and higher that would have to match the natural resonance of the swing. Any attempt to try and push the swing half, a quarter or even three-quarters of the way through a swing would quickly destroy
any build up of energy/motion within the system.
Many physical systems have natural resonances e.g. the convective layers of solar-type stars.
It is very likely they these natural resonant frequencies are measured in years or decades and not days. Hence, it is scientifically stupid to argue that if you were to force the convective layer of a solar-type star with strong tides with periods 1 – 100 days you should get a much greater response in the convective envelop than if you forced it with much weaker tidal forces with periods of years to decades.
Leif may as well argue that you cannot push a person higher and higher on a swing (with a natural resonance of say five seconds) because randomly hitting the swing with sledge hammer every one to seconds produces no discernible swing.
In other words, Leif’s paper tiger arguments are just that – weak arguments put up by Leif to re-confirm his own well-established pseudo-scientific prejudices.
Why can’t Dr. Scafetta’s papers be presented without added commentary from Leif? The paper already passed peer-review, let people read it unbiased by Leif’s comments in the main article. Everything relating to solar physics does not revolve around Leif Svalgaard. This is getting old.
I continue to post wrong values for Force of gravity. Can I blame Excel?
Planet Mass (Kg) Dist (m) Force (N)
Jupiter 1.90E+27 7.73E+11 4.21E+23
Venus 4.87E+24 1.07E+11 5.61E+22
Saturn 5.68E+26 1.42E+12 3.75E+22
Earth 5.97E+24 1.49E+11 3.59E+22
Mercury 3.30E+23 5.76E+10 1.32E+22
Mars 6.42E+23 2.26E+11 1.66E+21
Uranus 8.68E+25 2.85E+12 1.42E+21
Neptune 1.02E+26 4.50E+12 6.70E+20
Pluto 1.25E+22 5.87E+12 4.82E+16
Sun 1.99E+30
So, if I’m correct, Jupiter has the largest force on the Sun, followed by Venus. What does it mean? To me the planet with the strongest force will cause the largest gravitational pull (tide). The only weakness is I’m using mean distance. Am I way off track?
Volker, you’re going to have to convince me that Pluto has an effect on anything, given both its distance away and small relative mass. It has less mass than Mars and is more than ten times further away from the Sun.
“… comparisons with other stellar systems where the effects are calculated to be millions of times stronger [because the planets are huge and MUCH closer to the star]. No correlations have been found so far.”
I’m not convinced that we know enough about solar cycles to be able to explain how they are initiated and by what, nor how they might be different in other stars. Some stars are strongly variable, for example, while others less so and still others apparently not at all.
It is conceivable, for example, that a large planet near a star could so disrupt whatever process it is that causes our solar cycles to change that those dynamic changes never occur.
It remains that there does appear to be a relationship between perturbations in the net solar angular momentum and the appearance of Grand Solar Minima like the Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton… as well as the modern Landscheidt Minimum which is arguably just beginning:
http://www.landscheidt.info/
2. The effect is coincidental but not causative.
An effect that is predicatable that is co-incidental with an effect that is not predictable, will suddenly render the second effect predictable. This is often as important than any notional mechanism (which often turns out to be wrong). The ancients had no idea what caused tides, but the prediction of them was exceedingly important.
There seems to be a bias here against any work which doesn’t come with a “cause”, no matter how ludicrous. Except Livingston and Penn, who quite freely admit they have no idea what’s going on, yet they’ve ended up with a almost-mystical free pass on it here.
The assertion about the exo-planets misses the point about the barycentric idea. The point is that the barycentre moves within the star, with corresponding effects. A single big planet orbiting a big sun has a stable barycentre, so under the theory you should not expect to see any periodic changes. This is seen by observations. What you should be looking for are 2 or more planets which are a similar order of magnitude in mass, and have differing orbits (no twirling dumbells).
Questions: Are there any trinary star systems? How stable are their stars? The mass revolving the star should not need to be “unlit” for the effect to manifest, and multi-star systems have better lighting than most..
Inside the sun, there is the core which has an outward force to it.(photon pressure) and the surface which has an inward force to it (usually) due to gravity (magnetics and centripetal forces also play a part). This means that somewhere in the middle, there is a place where the net force due to the sun is zero. This “free floating” band will attempt to orbit the barycentre with the rest of the solar system and not the centre of the sun.
Questions: Where is it? Does it have a name? How big is it (i.e. the volume of the 3D “shell” where the net force from the sun is less than the net force from the rest of the solar system)? Does the barycentre ever enter this shell?
The planets will also produce “tides” upon this band, making a surface truly “free fall” (i.e. the net effect of the sun and the solar system will be zero). A particle below this band (and feeling an outward force), may find itself thrust above the band without moving (and hence feel an inward force). If it was doing something finely balanced, then it isn’t any more.
Question: How big are these tides at this “free fall” area?
I can’t say I’m convinced by the barycentric idea, but I wouldn’t shoot it down because of the use of exclamation marks.
populartechnology says:
March 21, 2012 at 5:14 pm
You ask, why can Leif post his comments and objections?
Because this is science, and anyone can propose objections to a scientific theory. Your attempt to censor Leif is a typical tactic of those positing pseudo-scientific theories.
You don’t want people to object to Dr. Scafetta’s outrageous claims? You want nothing but support?
Buy a bra …
w.
PS—If you think it actually means something that the paper passed peer-review, you need more help than we can give you here …
Leif said:
Some starspots are huge: http://www.noao.edu/noao/noaonews/dec99/node2.html and we can today easily measure stellar activity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What he doesn’t tell you is that there is almost no overlap between the set of solar-like stars that have measurable stellar activity (e.g. [CaII] emissions) and the set of solar-like stars that have known planetary systems.
Why? For the simple reason that until just recently, the bulk of the planetary systems discovered have been detected using the absorption line doppler-shift method. This measures the radial motion of the star caused by the motion of its surrounding massive planets. The doppler-shifts are so small in many cases that it is only possible to detect them in stellar systems that do not have a
lot of back-ground “noise” produced by stellar-activity on the star’s surface i.e the stellar activity
produces up-and-down motions of the stars surface that can mimic the radial motion of the star caused by the planetary forces acting on the star.
Needless to say Leif will fire back that current planetary searches (e.g. Herschel) are getting around this problem but what he will leave out is that it will take another decade of two before
enough data is collected to to figure out what is really going on in these external solar systems.
Ninderthana says:
March 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Any logical person would realize that it they wanted the person on the swing to go higher and higher that would have to match the natural resonance of the swing.
And it so happens that the natural resonances of the sun are just those that match Nicola’s several planetary cycles, right?
Many physical systems have natural resonances e.g. the convective layers of solar-type stars.
Those seem to have a period around 5 minutes, perhaps you could produce links to papers demonstrating convective resonances in sun-like stars of the order of decades or centuries. You are welcome to educate us here.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 21, 2012 at 5:33 pm
PS—If you think it actually means something that the paper passed peer-review, you need more help than we can give you here …
And the paper in question actually failed peer-review the first time around. When this happens the author often resubmits to a journal with a lower standard of quality or with only peripheral emphasis on the subject area of the claims.
Willis, please quote where I stated that Leif should be censored. You seem really confused about what I suggested in the main article. Try reading more carefully next time.
Leif said:
Without violating any ethics, I can say that I was a reviewer of an earlier version of this paper submitted to a better journal and the judgement of several reviewers was: “The paper is crap and based on cyclomanic derivations”.
Translation into English: Leif admits that he has closed mind and he is proud of it!
populartechnology says:
March 21, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Sure, glad to. You said:
Short of censoring Leif, how were you planning to accomplish that?
All the best,
w.
Willis, the word censored did not appear in that quote and you have instead chosen to butcher the context of my statement for your strawman argument. Your reading comprehension problems are not my concern. I was referring to the main article not the comments. I am not surprised you would jump insane conclusions by carelessly reading what people write. This sort of behavior is getting fairly embarrassing for you.
I find it interesting that magnetic envelopes caused by the planets and other bodies is so easily dismissed. Paraphrasing Tall Bloke, a weak pulse which repeats in a rhythmic fashion can demolish hardened steel.. To write them off as insignificant is unwise…
Just look around you today…something very rhythmic is pulsing the earth to its core, causing increased earthquake activity along with increasing intensity of those quakes… If the Earth is being pulsed by magnetic waves ( and it is) then the terrestrial reaction is not just earth responding… the star we call our sun is affected as well. To think otherwise is foolish.
Very interesting to watch some throw this away, even when the results are very real, observable,and quantifiable.. It s sad to see some think their “knowledge” is greater than everyone else and thumb their nose up.. We get to much of this from warmists and alarmists… time for a good look in the mirror..
One simply has to hit a nuclear reactor with high pulsed magnetism to see it disrupt the reaction.. our sun is no different..
Z says:
March 21, 2012 at 5:31 pm
The point is that the barycentre moves within the star, with corresponding effects.
the point is that the barycenter has no effect [not even Nicola believes that]
What you should be looking for are 2 or more planets which are a similar order of magnitude in mass, and have differing orbits (no twirling dumbells).
How about just looking at my diagram at the top of the page…
Inside the sun, there is the core which has an outward force to it.(photon pressure) and the surface which has an inward force to it (usually) due to gravity (magnetics and centripetal forces also play a part). This means that somewhere in the middle, there is a place where the net force due to the sun is zero.
This is complete nonsense. At every point from the center to the surface the inward pressure [gravity] balances exactly the outward pressure [of a hot gas]. This is called hydrostatic equilibrium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium
Milankovitch cycles appears to explain full scale ice ages, however, it does not explain little ice ages. These appear, from what little data we have, to coincide with periods of low sunspots, and possibly with periods of higher cosmic radiation. So full blown ice ages may be not related to changes of the suns performance, yet mini ice ages appear to be strongly related to exactly that.
The current article under discussion tries to find out exactly why the sun changes. it may or may not succeed (I would lean toward not). However, something is causing the sun to change, and we need to find out what and how (and how that effects climate).
Currently, I would say that we do not really understand why the sun changes, what causes it to go into active or passive phases. One reason for this can be that we really don’t know what is going on under it’s surface, or even what is under there, especially at the core. Recent unexplainable activity by the sun has at least shown present science that we know a lot less about it than we thought we do.
So, I would have to complement the author on at least trying, however, I would say, back to the drawing board.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 21, 2012 at 5:06 pm
==================
Ok,
Willis, you have taken over another thread, as if it was your own.
FYI, without WUWT, you, along with the rest of us would be lost in the wilderness.
Let’s not mess that up.
Leif said,
Many physical systems have natural resonances e.g. the convective layers of solar-type stars.
Those seem to have a period around 5 minutes, perhaps you could produce links to papers demonstrating convective resonances in sun-like stars of the order of decades or centuries. You are welcome to educate us here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How about David Hathaway and the 11 year Solar meridional flow?:
Science 12 March 2010: Vol. 327 no. 5971 pp. 1350-1352
Variations in the Sun’s Meridional Flow over a Solar Cycle
David H. Hathaway, and Lisa Rightmire
The Sun’s meridional flow is an axisymmetric flow that is generally directed from its equator toward its poles at the surface. The structure and strength of the meridional flow determine both the strength of the Sun’s polar magnetic field and the intensity of sunspot cycles. We determine the meridional flow speed of magnetic features on the Sun using data from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. The average flow is poleward at all latitudes up to 75°, which suggests that it extends to the poles. It was faster at sunspot cycle minimum than at maximum and substantially faster on the approach to the current minimum than it was at the last solar minimum. This result may help to explain why this solar activity minimum is so peculiar.
Oh, I forgot, Science one of those lesser journal that you spit on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OR
The Sun’s Shallow Meridional Circulation
David H. Hathaway
Solar and Stellar Astrophysics
(Submitted on 8 Mar 2011 (v1), last revised 29 Mar 2011 (this version, v2))
The Sun’s global meridional circulation is evident as a slow poleward flow at its surface. This flow is observed to carry magnetic elements poleward – producing the Sun’s polar magnetic fields as a key part of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Current theories for the sunspot cycle assume that this surface flow is part of a circulation which sinks inward at the poles and turns equatorward at depths below 100 Mm. Here we use the advection of the Sun’s convection cells by the meridional flow to map the flow velocity in latitude and depth. Our measurements show the largest cells clearly moving equatorward at depths below 35 Mm – the base of the Sun’s surface shear layer. This surprisingly shallow return flow indicates the need for substantial revisions to solar/stellar dynamo theory.
Arrrh… of course, Solar and Stellar Astrophysics is just another fly-by night journal,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star
About two-thirds of all variable stars appear to be pulsating. In the 1930s astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington showed that the mathematical equations that describe the interior of a star may lead to instabilities that cause a star to pulsate. The most common type of instability is related to oscillations in the degree of ionization in outer, convective layers of the star.
I could go on and on….
Ninderthana says:
March 21, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Leif admits that he has closed mind and he is proud of it!
when it comes to crap, from Nicola, from you, or from anybody else, I have a good crap-detector and am duly proud of how well it works. It would be refreshing if you would restrict yourself to science or at least pseudo-science, rather than continue down the stinking ad-hom path you have chosen…
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 21, 2012 at 10:19 am
I fear I find this totally unconvincing…
– – – – – – –
His critique is reminiscent of the critique on numerology. No one is saying Dr. Scafetta is up to this, but then you have to realize if you start looking for numerical coincidences or patterns in phenomena, objects, pieces of literature, images, whatever, you are going to find them. Wherever you want to find them.
It may be a trap, if you don’t realize this creative aspect of the human mind. Many patterns we perceive are but artefacts of the human mind. So there are methods developed to distinguish these from the real patterns out there. I think that’s what science is about.
Dr. Scafetta uses an “phenomenological” approach in his analysis of data I did learn from earlier comments on WUWT. I am curious about this. As I understand the phenomenological approach is a paradigm in the social sciences where you deal with phenomena too complex and unique in terms of a pure “physical approach”, as that would become pretty meaningless, say to understand the mechanisms of a political movement of psychological processes. So it is the object here that defines the paradigm: social and psychological phenomena, and the meaningfulness (to individuals) of these phenomena. I cannot see such objects in climate science, but then, I don’t know how Dr. Scafetta uses this approach.
populartechnology says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:09 pm
If your meaning was restricted to just the main article and not the comments, then I did misunderstand you, poptech, and you have my apologies.
I still say that it is perfectly valid for Dr. Svalgard’s comments to be in the main article. Why should they not be there? I have said many times that if you have a new scientific theory, the best person to hand it to for evaluation is your worst enemy. If they can’t find holes in it, that’s a good sign.
You, on the other hand, want to keep Leif’s comments out of the main article. You may not understand that Leif’s comments provide information about the other side of the story, and Anthony does not want to be seen as either a supporter or an opponent of Dr. Scafetta’s theories. Anthony wants it to be a balanced presentation of both sides of the issue.
I’m sorry if you object to a balanced presentation, but if Dr. Scafetta’s theories can’t survive that, then he should publish elsewhere.
w.
PS—As to what embarrasses me, you don’t have a clue and you’re wasting your time guessing. Mostly I’m embarrassed by pseudo-scientific trash like Dr. Scafetta’s claims getting any space at all on WUWT, but hey, that’s just me.
Ninderthana says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:22 pm
How about David Hathaway and the 11 year Solar meridional flow?
The meridional flow is not ‘natural resonance’ anymore than the Hadley cell in the Earth’s atmosphere is.
About two-thirds of all variable stars appear to be pulsating.
Pulsating variable stars are confined to certain regions of the H-R diagram and are not solar-type stars at all.
I could go on and on….
Dishing up more irrelevant stuff? Your examples show that you have no idea about what goes on in stars. Perhaps stop embarrassing yourself further…
Ninderthana says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:22 pm (Edit)
Ninderthana, I don’t understand what a slow variation in a flow system has to do with natural resonances.
For example, the rivers where I live have a slow natural variation in their flow, with an annual cycle. But describing that variation in flow as a “resonance” is totally incorrect.
The same seems to be true with the slow changes in the suns meridional flow. There is certainly a slow change, but I see nothing to indicate it is a resonance.
Perhaps you could clarify for us what you are calling a “resonance”
w.
Leif:
>Many physical systems have natural resonances e.g. the convective layers of solar-type stars.
Those seem to have a period around 5 minutes, perhaps you could produce links to papers demonstrating convective resonances in sun-like stars of the order of decades or centuries. You are welcome to educate us here.
Well lets see, the Earth-Moon system has one resonance period that is close to the 24 hours, and another close to 28 days, and yet another close to 38 years. Are those long enough?
typo:
…political movement or psychological processes… (last alinea)
u.k.(us) says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:22 pm
You’ll have to define for me what “taken over” means on your planet. You can post comments on this thread. I can post comments. You post them. I post them.
So how is it that I’ve “taken over” in your mind? I mean other than by the strength of my arguments? What is it I’ve done that you object to, that you could not do yourself? I’m not stopping you or anyone else from posting, what do you mean I’ve “taken over” the thread?
w.
Leif is more than capable of typing them in the comment section. By including Leif’s comments and Anthony’s own criticism in the main presentation he is seen as an opponent and it is not a balanced presentation. The reader is immediately biased against the paper.
I would expect that if Leif had a new paper it would not include critical commentary from Dr. Scafetta in the main presentation here.
REPLY: My blog, my decision, butt out and take it elsewhere – Anthony
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:39 pm
=======================
You drug Anthony’s name into this.
[snip] nobody has any [snip] scruples anymore.
I would be getting up on my soap box (if for no other reason than that people could see me) to continue the drum beat of my pet theory (aka, sacrifices at 8:00 sharp), ‘cept that Leif and Willis would knock the box out from under me. What’s really crazy about that is they would be saying the exact same thing about my caveworman theory. That says a whole lot more about this pet temperature/solar/barycenter connection theory than it does about Leif and Willis.
A few years ago, Ian Wilson published a paper about spin-orbit coupling. It was discussed here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/28/astronomical-society-of-australia-publishes-new-paper-warning-of-solar-quieting-and-global-cooling/). I thought then and still think that his ideas are interesting. Rather than getting hung up on tidal effects, the paper focusses on changes in angular momentum of the planets. Considering the surface of earth is 70% water, if something causes the period of rotation to change, it will have an effect on the flow of ocean currents. I think the idea is brilliant and that merits a closer investigation.
populartechnology says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Leif is more than capable of typing them in the comment section. By including Leif’s comments and Anthony’s own criticism in the main presentation he is seen as an opponent and it is not a balanced presentation. The reader is immediately biased against the paper.
So you are taking Anthony to task over him presenting an opposing view to get a balanced presentation…
If you don’t like Anthony’s approach, don’t visit his home here.
Robert Leyland says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Well lets see, the Earth-Moon system has one resonance period that is close to the 24 hours, and another close to 28 days, and yet another close to 38 years. Are those long enough?
What has the Moon to do with the natural frequencies of the Sun? And I thought that the lunat libration modes have periods of 2.9, 75, and 81 years, but let that slide for now…
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:49 pm
===================
Willis,
I like your stories, can’t understand most of your graphs, and really hate your comments towards those less informed than ………..
No I didn’t forget.
Willis Eschenbach and Leif Svalgaard appear to be like the cat and the fox in the Pinocchio’s Adventures. They both try to mislead (first themselves and then others).
The paper is quite clear and theoretically simple. The sunspot cycle is not constant but varies. A power spectrum analysis of the record reveals that the Schwabe cycle is made of three cycles, two of which are very close to two major tidal frequencies produced by the Jupiter/Saturn spring tide (9.93 year) and Jupiter Sidereal tide (11.86 year). The third frequency is almost but not exactly in the middle frequency at 10.87-year.
At this point I interpret the two side frequencies as truly due to the two tidal frequencies and I associate to them the phases of the two tidal frequencies. The third phase is calibrated on the sunspot number sequence because it represents the solar dynamo cycle.
At this point I sum the three harmonics, and the magic occurs. The periods of destructive interference coincide with the grand solar minima. in addition to the Schwabe cycle, cycles with about 61, 115, 130 and 983 years observed in the solar and climate data during the Holocene are easily recovered.
Willis Eschenbach and Leif Svalgaard, do not see it, nor they understand the meaning of what they see, and get lost in their vane thoughts by convincing themselves that they know everything. What arrogance!
Leif, get it. Your prejudices are not shared by everybody. To oppose a scientific theory it is not enough to say: I do not believe in it. You must propose an alternative theory that agrees better with the data. Do you have it or not?
If not, stop with your arrogance. You are getting boring.
Jurgen says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:35 pm
“but then you have to realize if you start looking for numerical coincidences or patterns in phenomena, objects, pieces of literature, images, whatever, you are going to find them. Wherever you want to find them.
It may be a trap, if you don’t realize this creative aspect of the human mind. Many patterns we perceive are but artefacts of the human mind. So there are methods developed to distinguish these from the real patterns out there. ”
Jurgen, an algorithm would also find the patterns. It’s not a trick of the mind. The patterns do objectively exist to quantifiable amounts in the past data, it’s only that you can’t say whether the patterns will also exist in the future, in other words, whether your model has predictive skill.
This is interesting my last two comments never showed up for moderation.
REPLY: yes, see my addition to your comment above – take it elsewhere for awhile – Anthony
Willis Eschenbach and Leif Svalgaard are talking about everything but the content of my paper.
Leif started to talk of other planets in other far stars! What kind of argument is that, Leif!
We do not have good data nor long enough data to simplistically dismiss what we can deduce for the sun. About the sun, we have long and sufficiently accurate records.
Willis and Leif, tell me what is your theory that explain the observed climatic and solar cycles? What is producing the Maunder minimum, the Dalton Minimum, the 60-year, the 115-year the 1000-year cycles, etc? Please, respond.
u.k.(us) says:
March 21, 2012 at 7:30 pm
u.k., I couldn’t figure out what this was in reference to. Turns out you were talking about this:
From your latest post I see that you really hate my comments, but I’m still in mystery about how I’ve “taken over” a thread.
Finally, I speak my mind. If you are looking for someone to go all California on Scafetta and rub his tummy and blow in his ear and worry about hurting his poor feelings when they talk to him, I’m not your man. Like Popeye used to say, “I yam what I yam.” I figure people can handle the unvarnished truth, and that if they can’t stand the heat they should get out of the scientific kitchen.
Yes, sometimes I’m more outraged than I should be about scientific malfeasance and the state of climate science … but then as far as I’m concerned, most of the time I’m far too many people are nowhere near outraged enough about scientific malfeasance and the state of climate science.
And yes, when someone jumps into a thread and starts out by insulting me and attacking me, I bite back. You can go all pacifist at that point if you want, it’s every man’s choice how to react to that kind of nonsense, but I won’t stand for it.
All the best,
w.
Is anyone other than myself interested in the fact that Dr. Scafetta’s conjecture references no statistical population thus lying outside science? isn’t this supposed to be a science blog?
Within the mist of what seems to be several on going pissing contests may
I ask a question?
Is there any effect on any of the mentioned forces as a result of our solar system’s
tilt as it orbits in free fall around the Milky Way Galaxy?
several mentions of the force of lunar tidal effects on the earth being 2.1 compared to the sun 1.0 amount of effect and a couple more stressing the more horizontal movement vectors of fluid unbounded atmospheres. Compared to the parallel bands of global circulating winds for both Jupiter and Saturn, where all of the moons and residual ring system is centered on the equator, the Earths moon swings wildly North and South on the ecliptic plane and more so in reference to the equator. One would think that there would be very strong lunar declinational tidal effects on the Earths atmosphere, observations referenced to the declinational cycle period should make it obvious?
Higher definition global circulation video showing the lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere, three cycles from 10 degrees North of the equator to max North,then back through the cycles to the same point again. Christmas of 2009 through March 8th 2010.
I’m closing comments for awhile – everybody needs to cool off and step back for awhile.
I’m reopening comments now.
Argue the issue/science, not the persons. Otherwise I’ll close this thread permanently if I see a repeat of what went on yesterday. Some comments were not approved due to that sort of thing.
Moderators, snip comments that cross this line.
About the three Schwabe peaks in the power spectrum analysis
The three peaks derive from two alternative direct measures of the power spectrum analysis of the sunspot number record, see figure 3.
Similar peaks were found also by other people, for example.
Kane, R.P.,1999. Prediction of the sun spot maximum of solar cycle 23 by extrapolation of spectral components. Solar Physics 189, 217–224.
see figure 1A in the attached paper where the sunspot record is found to have three peaks at about 10, 11 and 11.6 years, as I say in the paper
I get slightly different results because I use 13 years more data than Kane. One needs to use long records to see well these peaks, because longer the record better is the analysis (if the record is sufficiently accurate). Moreover, it is evident that the sunspot cycle is not constant, so it cannot be described by just one frequency.
What I do next, considering that power spectrum analysis is not an infinitely accurate methodology (as Willies erroneously believes) and it is easy to get some peak shift, I interpret my results (9.99, 10.9 and 11.86) as due to the two J/S tidal frequencies (9.93 and 11.86) which would imply that the middle solar dynamo cycle is 10.87 year for keeping the same three frequency resonance, as explained in the paper. All these corrections are within one month error (+/- 0.08 year), which is the precision of the sunspot number record, which is a monthly record as clearly explained in the paper. So, the corrections are legitimate.
At this point I add the astronomical phases of the planetary tides (this is a very important point to determine the physical nature of the cycles), and use the middle frequency phase as deduced from the sunspot number which is since 1749, well after the Maunder minimum.
Finally, I test the hindcasting capability of the model against much longer solar and climate records covering thousands of years. And the model started to produce complex beats that match almost exactly all grand solar minima (Dalton, Maunder etc), the quasi 1000 year cycle during the Holocene (12,000 years), the 1000-year cycle in the temperature records, seventeen 115 year cycle in the temperature proxies since 1AD, the quasi 60 year modulation of the temperature since 1850 and its upward trend since Dalton minimum. All phases of the beat cycles are directly deduced from the main three Schwabe cycle, so they are not fitting parameters.
Moreover, the model forecast the approaching grand solar minimum that is predicted by a lot of solar scientists (actually I was one of the first, but Leif blocked my publication last year). And my model explains that is will be deep because produced by the combined minima of the 60 and 115 year cycle. Etc…
All these things are clearly written inthe paper. So please read it before criticizing.
About the initial comment from Antony above,I believe that there are he might have misunderstood some part of the paper.
1)
I am not arguing from the barycentric point of view, which is false. In the paper I am talking
about tidal dynamics, a quite different approach. My argument
is based on the finding of my figure 2 and 3 that reveal the sunspot record
as made of three cycles (two tidal frequencies, on the side, plus a central
dynamo cycle). Then the model was developed and its hindcast
tests were discissed in the paper, etc.
2)
There are numerous misconceptions since the beginning such as “Figure 9 looks to be interesting, but note that it is in generic units, not temperature, so has no predictive value by itself.”
It is a hindcast and prediction. There is no need to use specific units, but only dynamics. The units are interpreted correctly in the text of the paper as being approximately W/m^2 and as I say in the caption of the figure “However, the bottom curve approximately reproduces the patterns observed in the proxy solar models depicted in Fig. 5. The latter record may be considered as a realistic, although schematic, representation of solar dynamics.”
3) About Leif’s comments. It is important to realize that Solar physics is not “settled” physics. People do not even understand why the sun has a 11-year cycle (which is between the 10 and 12 year J/S tidal frequencies, as explained in my paper).
4)
The only argument advanced by Leif against my paper is that the phenomenon is his opinion was not observed in other stars. This is hardly surprising. We do not have accurate nor long records about other stars!
Moreover we need to observe the right thing, for example, even if you have a large planet very close to a star, the observable effect is associated to many things: how eccentric the orbits are and how big the star is, and its composition etc. Stars have a huge inertia to tidal effects and even if you have a planet large and close enough to the star to produce a theoretical 4,000,000 larger tidal effect, it does not means that the response from the star must be linear! Even simple elastic systems may be quite sensitive to small perturbations but become extremely rigid to large and rapid perturbations, etc.
It is evident that any study on planetary influence on a star needs to start from the sun, and then eventually extended to other star systems, but probably we need to wait several decades before
having sufficiently long records about other stars!
In the case of the sun I needed at least a 200 year long sunspot record to
detect the three Schwabe cycles, and at least 1000 years of data for
hindcast tests to check the other frequencies. People can do the math for how long we need to wait for the other stars before having long enogh records.
Moreover, I believe that many readers have a typical misconception of physics.
In science a model has a physical basis when it is based on the observations
and the data and it is able to reconstruct, hindcast and/or forecast them.
It is evident to everybody reading my paper with an open mind that under the scientific
method, the model I proposed is “physically based” because I am
describing and reconstructing the dynamical properties of the data and I
showed that the model is able to hindcast millennia long data records.
Nobody even came close to these achievements.
To say otherwise would mean to reject everything in science and physics
because all findings and laws of physics are based on the observations and
the data and are tested on their capability of reconstruct, hindcast and/or
forecast observations, as I did in the paper
Of course, pointing out that I was not solving the problem using for example
plasma physics or quantum mechanics or whatever else. But this is a complex
exercise that needs its own time. As I correctly say in the paper.
“Further research should address the physical mechanisms necessary to
integrate planetary tides and solar dynamo physics for a more physically
based model.”
Nicola Scafetta (March 21, 2012 at 8:17 pm):
In the second to last paragraph, you imply that your model that has the status of a scientific theory. I disagree.
The term “conjecture” references a model that is insusceptible to statistical validation. The term references a model that is susceptible to statistical validation but that has not been statistically validated while the term “scientific theory” references a model that has been statistically validated. As your model is neither statistically validated nor susceptible to statistical validation, the appropriate descriptor for it is “conjecture.”
In its assessment reports, the IPCC obfuscates issues such as this one by attaching confusing semantics to the word “evaluation.” In an IPCC-style “evaluation” one or more model projections to the global average surface air temperature are compared to a global average surface air temperature time series. As the word “evaluation” sounds like the word “validation” one might draw the conclusion that a model has been validated when it has been evaluated but this is far from the case.
Dr. Svalgaard,
“And it so happens that the natural resonances of the sun are just those that match Nicola’s several planetary cycles, right?”
It would only have to be close for resonance effects or synchronization between two oscillators. Much weaker forces synchronized the orbits of pluto and neptune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_of_chaos
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 21, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Willis Eschenbach and Leif Svalgaard are talking about everything but the content of my paper.
There is nothing new in your paper that has not already been covered extensively here.
Leif started to talk of other planets in other far stars! What kind of argument is that, Leif!
We do not have good data nor long enough data to simplistically dismiss what we can deduce for the sun.
As it is hard to cover the full breadth of a field, you may be excuded for been ignorant of stellar activity. The question of Star-Planet-Interaction is an active area of research. We have studied many dozens of systems for which such interaction might be suspected [and the number is growing as we speak].
E.g.: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0189v1.pdf
“there is no significant correlation in the relation between the X-ray activity indicator LX/Lbol vs. planetary mass (see Fig. 3, right panel); testing for rank correlation yields r = 0.003, i.e. practically
no correlation at all. This is also true for stars with far-out planets, for which no SPI-related effects are expected (Fig. 4).”
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Moreover, the model forecast the approaching grand solar minimum that is predicted by a lot of solar scientists (actually I was one of the first, but Leif blocked my publication last year).
The coming minimum was, as you say, predicted by many [Schatten, 2003; Svalgaard, 2005; etc] based on sound physics, you were not ‘one of the first’. Your papers were rejected by several referees. Post the objections by the reviewers here so everybody can see why your papers were rejected.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:21 pm
About the three Schwabe peaks in the power spectrum analysis The three peaks derive from two alternative direct measures of the power spectrum analysis of the sunspot number record, see figure 3.
Dr. Scafetta
You don’t need any of that , here is a simple way, and even more acurate:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC5.htm
same as in here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
All done about 9 years ago.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm
It would only have to be close for resonance effects or synchronization between two oscillators.
the natural frequencies for solar oscillations are of the order of a few minutes. And you do not seem to know what a resonance is. Let me refresh your mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance “Resonance occurs when a system is able to store and easily transfer energy between two or more different storage modes”. So what storage modes do you have in mind?
Leif,
“We have studied many dozens of systems for which such interaction might be suspected”
We need to start with the Sun, because we need very long record, we will see what we have in the next 50-years.
“there is no significant correlation in the relation between the X-ray activity indicator LX/Lbol vs. planetary mass (see Fig. 3, right panel); testing for rank correlation yields r = 0.003, i.e. practically
no correlation at all. This is also true for stars with far-out planets, for which no SPI-related effects are expected ”
On the contrary the rank correlations that I found using the data in my paper are extremely high more than 99.9%. You are just looking at the wrong observable.
Does not make any sense to state that my work is wrong just because everybody else has failed!
You need to see what I did, not what others have done.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:14 pm
This is complete nonsense. At every point from the center to the surface the inward pressure [gravity] balances exactly the outward pressure [of a hot gas]. This is called hydrostatic equilibrium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium
So there are no convection currents, no CME’s, no turbulence, no “magnetic ropes”, no flows – the sun is in exactly balanced hydrostatic equilibrium.
I see.
A balanced presentation would have included both a positive and critical review or it would have included a response from Dr. Scafetta to your and Anthony’s criticism. There is nothing balanced about the current presentation as it is biased against Dr. Scafetta’s paper as he was not given the opportunity to defend himself in the main article. This is why I recommended leaving the criticisms to the comments.
I hope I added two numbers correctly this time, if so the polar magnetic field appears to be on the move.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
Ideal ‘zero crossing’ would have happened about now, but it appears it’s few months late. SC24max in a year or so ?
Poptech says: March 22, 2012 at 12:54 pm
“There is nothing balanced about the current presentation as it is biased against Dr. Scafetta’s paper as he was not given the opportunity to defend himself in the main article.”
I agree.
At least my comment in
Nicola Scafetta says: March 22, 2012 at 12:30 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/21/scafettas-new-paper-attempts-to-link-climate-cycles-to-planetary-motion/#comment-931615
needs to be added to the main article.
Terry Oldberg wrote:
The term “conjecture” references a model that is insusceptible to statistical validation. The term references a model that is susceptible to statistical validation but that has not been statistically validated while the term “scientific theory” references a model that has been statistically validated.
Could you please provide me with the source of these definitions? I am most interested in knowing their origins, as I am unable to find any reference work that insists on the usages you are putting forward as mandatory to either physics in particular or science in general.
I’m familiar with both Popper’s and Hawking’s oft-quoted definitions of ‘theory,’ and neither of them seem to demand ‘statistical validation’ for the term to be applicable.
Since general usage of the two words considers a theory to be by-definition conjectural, which would make your criticism a distinction without a difference. I’m assuming that you are citing some form of canonical definition that you can reference.
General definitions simply hold a ‘theory,’ scientific or otherwise, to be an explanation of a system or observed phenomena that has been proposed but not yet proved or disproved.
Can you enlighten me with a citation for your much more specific definitions, please?
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:50 pm
We need to start with the Sun, because we need very long record, we will see what we have in the next 50-years.
Not at all. We have a great laboratory called the Universe. It presents us with many examples that show us the effects with which to compare our theories
You are just looking at the wrong observable.
see above
You need to see what I did, not what others have done.
I and several reviewers have seen what you did and found it wanting. Post the reviews here, so everybody can see what you did wrong.
Z says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:52 pm
So there are no convection currents, no CME’s, no turbulence, no “magnetic ropes”, no flows – the sun is in exactly balanced hydrostatic equilibrium.
I see.
You do not see anything. My point was that there is not some point inside the sun where the forces are balanced, but that they are VERY nearly [to high degree of approximation] balanced throughout the sun and any other star.
Poptech says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:54 pm
he was not given the opportunity to defend himself in the main article. This is why I recommended leaving the criticisms to the comments.
He was given the opportunity to present the paper in the first place. If Anthony has reservations, that is his prerogative. You don’t like that, go elsewhere
vukcevic says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:45 pm
All done about 9 years ago.
that particular numerology [and the numbers 9.93 and 11.86] is 112 years old: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1900MNRAS-Brown-Sunspot-Tides.pdf including the 61-yr period and its [failed] prediction of a solar maximum in 1908 [although Scafetta believes that there was a auroral and solar large maximum at that time]
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 1:12 pm
At least my comment in […]
needs to be added to the main article.
As well as the reports from all the expert reviewers.
Great paper Nicola – I’m convinced your empirical approach to climate is the only useful one and contrasts with the IPCC assumption based modelling approach. Don’t worry about Leif too much his position reveals a failure of imagination. But don’t discount what he says entirely . I always found in business it was very useful to have an “abominable no man” around to keep everyone honest.Empirically based paradigms have often been said to be impossible because the orthodox couldn’t conceive of a mechanism . In my own field – as an undergraduate in geology at Oxford continental drift – as it then was – was regarded as science fiction by the faculty because the lighter continents couldn’t possibly drift through the heavier mantle. I believe Kelvin calculated that because of the measured heat flow the earth couldn’t be more than about 45 million years old while geologists were looking for hundreds of millions or more.. Then radioactivity was discovered. Empirical correlations point the way to new fundamental discovery. The correlation comes first and the mechanisms will follow
[+ emphasis]
May I suggest that the choice to use the word magic was a bad one.
I predict that you may take some flak for that.
O, for goodness’ sake, Poptech, when will you drop this refrain? Your kvetching about “balanced presentations” and showing bias is wearing thin.
Anthony introduced Dr Scafetta’s paper by declaring his reservations, and he ends his prelude with a declaration of his skepticism. This is his right and even his responsibility. Whether you and others agree or disagree, this whole topic that appears to me like a mad mazurka on the fuzzy borders between science and pseudoscience.It’s Anthony’s perogative, then, to clarify his views. exercise his bias and to even distance himself lest he and WUWT be misunderstood. The accusation of being sympathetic to pseudoscientific claims is toxic one to the skeptics who, because of politics and funding, have to work ten times as hard to establish their credibility. Leif and of course, Willis (being Willis), do the same with less subtlety and politeness, and while you may not like this and even I might raise an eyebrow, it’s one way of doing informal and vigorous peer review. Think of it as an invention of the blogosphere and an improvement on the vague, two-faced blather and pretence of objectivity one often encounters in professional journals.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 22, 2012 at 1:25 pm
……..
Hi doc, here we meet again ..
Thanks for the link, that is an excellent article, that any aspiring planetologist (astrologer is a wrong term, astrology = science of stars), should study in detail before embarking on calculating planetary gravitations, tides, etc. In my defence, I did do a rough calculation long ago and realised that a few cm tide of the subsurface flow’s fluid, in the convection zone, are next to irrelevant.
Hence, as you may recall I proposed ‘the electro-magnetic feedback hypothesis’; here is short reminder we considered some 2-3 years ago:
‘Magnetic ropes or clouds’ that emanate out of the sun, are linked to it by combination of electric current and magnetic field
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
moving through heliosphere as shown by this NASA animation
If the ‘magnetic rope’ doesn’t hit a magnetosphere it progresses to the far reaches of the heliosphere and disperses along the heliopause. But if it does hit a magnetosphere, a reconnection ensues, part of it is short-circuited, than ‘bang’! the energy is discharged.
http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/THEMIS/SCI/Pubs/Nuggets/reconnection/262351main_reconnect.mpg
Nothing controversial to this point I hope.
The hypothesis:
since the ‘magnetic rope’ is connected to the source, i.e. the sun, the short circuit effect is transmitted back to the solar surface.
Svalgaard and Hathaway said to me: this can’t happen since the solar wind doesn’t allow anything electro or magnetic to move upstream i.e. against the solar wind, to connect back to the sun.
My reply: solar wind gets swept out of the way by the CME ( e.g. , day the solar wind died, Forbush etc), as clearly shown here:
http://iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov:8080/IswaSystemWebApp/iSWACygnetStreamer?timestamp=2038-01-23+00%3A44%3A00&window=-1&cygnetId=261
Thus the role of gravitation force is limited, and only important as far as it moves J & S with their huge magnetospheres along the orbits. Many details are left to be worked out, but that could be a task for next generation of enthusiasts, to whom I sincerely recommend article
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1900MNRAS-Brown-Sunspot-Tides.pdf
as the most essential reading.
Sarge (March 22, 2012 at 1:14 pm):
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Wikipedia’s article { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture } on the topic of “conjecture” defines two of the three terms. To quote from the article:
A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been
disproven. Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term “conjecture” in scientific philosophy.
Conjecture is contrasted by hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable
statement based on accepted grounds.
I’ve used the term “validation” as it is used in Wikipedia’s article { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics) } on on “Cross-validation (statistics)” To quote from the article:
…cross-validation involves partitioning a sample of data into complementary subsets,
performing the analysis on one subset (called the training set), and validating the analysis on
the other subset (called the validation set or testing set).
I’ve prepended the modifier “statistical” to “validation” to make it clear that the semantics attached to “validation” are those of mathematical statistics and not those of computer engineering.
In the article entitled “Spinning the Climate,” { http://www.klimanotizen.de/2008.07.12_Gray_Spinning_the_Climate.pdf } the long-time IPCC expert reviewer Vincent Gray reports that the IPCC once claimed its climate models to be statistically validated. When Gray pointed out to IPCC management that none of these models had been statistically validated or were susceptible to being statistically validated, the IPCC reacted through a suberfuge in which the word “validated” was changed to “evaluated” in all subsequent IPCC assessment reports. “Evaluated” is a statistically meaningless term but few readers of the IPCC’s assessment reports know that. Thus, the IPCC’s subterfuge has had the effect of suggesting validation in the minds of the IPCC’s numerous dupes without providing the reality of it. In the minds of these dupes, the IPCC’s models appear to be scientific theories when they are at most conjectures.
vukcevic says:
March 22, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Svalgaard and Hathaway said to me: this can’t happen since the solar wind doesn’t allow anything electro or magnetic to move upstream
My reply: solar wind gets swept out of the way by the CME
CMEs are sweeping outwards and the same goes for them.
To all:
My opinion is that everybody who presents a new approach or theory,
which he can substantiate with some reasonable evidence, in particularly
overlooked evidence, should receive a double {[+]}. and should be ENCOURAGED
……whereas….a double {[-]} should go to all Warmists, they had 30 years time
and billions in funds…
Furthermore, a double { {[-]} should go AS WELL to commentators who, until
now, have NOT produced an approach of their own, for not being capable to do
so, and therefore, to feel important, resort to “know-it-all-critizism”, which they
mistakenly consider to be “scientific”….but are only attempts to “derail” the post….
Double {[-]} to the baddies…..
JS
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 22, 2012 at 2:36 pm
…………..
Your observation is correct; there is no external magnetic field within body of the magnetic rope
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
as outlined with a ‘wriggly’ purple line, to impede bi-directional electro-magnetic communication, (as outlined by the arrow-ed purple line) between front lobe of the rope and its source at the sun’s surface.
Electro-magnetic feedback path along purple line marked with arrows (consult the above link)
– Solar surface
– Front lobe & reconnection
– Back to the solar surface
Here feedback loop flow is in the anticlockwise direction.
Let’s remind everyone of the following:
Sunspots (as the solar activity in general) in the origin and the consequence are essentially of the electro and magnetic nature, where the gravitational effects are negligible.
In figure 10 of the Scafetta paper, just after 2020 and around 2035, the SSN drops to zero. This gives the impression that they have gone negative and have been clipped because negative SSNs are not possible.
I encountered the same problem recently and I worked around it by recognizing that the solar cycles reverse sign from one cycle to the next (observable through magnetic fields). Two consecutive cycles are in fact two halves of one full cycle of 22 years.
I have not fully read the Scafetta paper (& most comments above), so perhaps it is explained there, but it seems as though it is a mistake to ignore the sign of the cycles.
Without known data I assumed that they alternate, ad nauseam, but in all likelyhood the beat between frequency components may cause a the cycle to break up and result in consecutive positive cycles.
Is there any better information available than my guess of simple alternation of the cycle sign?
(The method I have been using is the Periodicity Transform of Sethares and Staley, using seat-of-the-pants engineering and my own interpretation of the method. I am merely tinkering for the hell of it and pure curiosity).
Just a note that some of us in the peanut gallery would appreciate, whenever possible and at everyone’s convenience, an “elevator speech” summary of this kerfaffle. If it’s not too much trouble.
Do you give yourself a “a double {[+]}” for your post, Mr Seifert? 🙂
Thanks for the formatting fix-up, moderator; I promise to be more careful.
To Peter:
If not, I would not have said so, see German Amazon.de
with ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4
Thank you for the question…..
JS
vukcevic says:
March 22, 2012 at 3:19 pm
there is no external magnetic field within body of the magnetic rope as outlined with a ‘wriggly’ purple line, to impede bi-directional electro-magnetic communication
The rope is filled with coronal plasma and a magnetic field and is moving out from the sun a supersonic [superalfveninc] speed so no feedback is possible. The counterstreaming electrons are a VERY VERY tiny population of high-energy particles that [like cosmic rays] are not frozen in, but they do not have any effect on the overall propagation. It is like an airplane flying into a hurricane. the plane can go where it wants but the air goes with the hurricane and the wind cannot blow counter to the flow of the storm. You can get off the electro- magneto- chair. There is nothing there.
Ken S says:
March 21, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Within the mist of what seems to be several on going pissing contests may
I ask a question?
Is there any effect on any of the mentioned forces as a result of our solar system’s
tilt as it orbits in free fall around the Milky Way Galaxy?
=================
Yes. Our climate changes…
Someone mentioned in one discussion the Kate Humble/Dr Helen Czerski series which has just finished running on the BBC, can’t recall which, he wondered if they’d blow it with some AGW nonsense, I didn’t notice any. Instead, they actually gave really good real world physics explanations of our seasons and weather; terrific explanations of the Indian monsoon and typhoons in the US and the climate/weather at the Antarctic. In all the programmes they were very detailed in describing the tilt, explaining how this affected the Earth using lines in the sand on beaches and stone for the Sun and an apple carried around with its stalk pointing the direction, as well as good computer graphics, because, the whole series was built around the Earth’s tilt..
I was particular interested in what they had to say about the climate change in the Sahara around 5,000 years ago when it dried out, as I’ve wondered before how that had happened. I’d been recording them to watch and so kept the last programme which covered this so I could watch it again – here’s I hope an accurate in the important details, but I got the gist, of what was said:
“Although the gravitational pull of the Moon and Sun have stabilised Earth’s tilt they don’t do it perfectly, today’s angle of tilt 23.4 degrees, but over regular 41,000 year cycles the angle swings between 22 and 24.5 degrees.
“Back when the Sahara was green, [5-10,000 years ago], the Earth’s tilt was close to its maximum angle – together with small cyclical changes in the direction of the tilt and the shape of our orbit was the result that the Sun shone more intensely over the northern hemisphere, powering a monsoon in the Sahara.
“About 5,000 years ago the monsoons failed and the Sahara changed, the vegetation began disappearing, and within a few hundred years it turned from savannah to desert. The people moved north and east to the still fertile river valley, the Nile.
“It’s wonderful to think that because changes in the tilt and orbit are cyclical the Sahara will become green again – but not for another 15,000 years!” (Kate H.)
“In the year long journey around the Sun we’ve travelled 900 million kilometres through space, and in that time we’ve seen how the Earth’s spin dictates the Earth’s climate patterns. How changes in our orbit can transform our planet and how the Earth’s tilt controls the seasons.” (Dr Helen C.)
“Now our voyage is over, but the planet goes on. Each new orbit creating its own unique mix of endlessly varied natural phenomena. It’s quite a ride.” (Kate H.)
“Orbit: Earth’s Extraordinary Journey”: Right now you’re hurtling around the Sun at 100,000 kms an hour. Join Kate Humble and Dr Helen Czerski as they explore the relationship between the Earth’s orbit and the weather
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xztbr
[Automatic re-direct, it gave the url as /orbit ]
Joachim Seifert says:
March 22, 2012 at 3:42 pm
———————————
“Das Ende der globalen Erwaermung”….aber mein Deutsch ist sehr schlecht, Herr Seifert. Nur zwei Jahren im eine Wiener Hauptschule….1970-1972.
Terry Oldberg said @ March 21, 2012 at 8:33 pm
It’s also about “commentary on puzzling things in wife”. This makes me hopeful that I might eventually discover here the meaning of wife, and whether there is wife after death. While I strive to give my wife meaning, wife remains an utter mystery to me. It saddens me that to think is to risk one’s wife. Thinking has made my wife a misery.
The strongest force in the universe is the wife force.
Anthony added my comment to the main article. Thank you Anthony.
Because I was criticizing also some of his statements, Anthony also added two short responses. I will respond to them here
Anthony wrote
{from Anthony – Note these references in your paper: Landscheidt, T.,1988.Solar rotation,impulses of the torque in sun’s motion, and
climate change. Climatic Change12,265–295.
Landscheidt, T.,1999.Extrema in sunspot cycle linked toSun’s motion. Solar
Physics 189,415–426.}
Anthony, the fact that I reference some studies that use the barycentric model does not means that I am using it in the paper. My paper is quite clear. I am using tidal considerations. You just need to read the title of the paper and the abstract of my paper to realize it.
Anthony wrote:
{from Anthony – if it isn’t using units of temperature, I fail to see how it can be of predictive value, there is not even any reference to warmer/cooler}
Anthony, it is evident from the paper that my figure 9 refers to solar dynamics, not temperature. The graph has a clear predicting values. About the reference to warmer/cooler, there is no need to add them given the fact that the issue is evident from other figures, for rexample figure 7 that you report above: when the curve goes up it means that solar activity in increasing, and the temperature too will increase, when the curve goes down it means that solar activity is decreasing, which means that the temperature too will decrease.
I do not see why these things are so complicated for you.
I believe that for some reason you are upset. And this negative feeling is making you to miss the importance of a very good paper. Read it again with calm, in one week.
Robert Brown: I mostly agree, Willis, although I would be less vehement about the “no scientific value at all” bit. My difficulty (like yours, I think) is that I keep waiting for a hypothesis in there and one never quite appears. Surely at this point we have enough data and computational power to solve the equations of motion for the actual planetary and solar orbits to at least reasonable precision for a rather long time into the past and the future, so this using of this and that and another frequency/period picked out of all of the periods available and ignoring the rest, even though over time they can cumulate to not at all be negligible seems difficult to defend, and it is also unstated why or how the selected periods modulate solar state, let alone how they modulate the Earth’s nominal climate.
I like your idea of solving the equations of motion and using the results.
Dr Scafetta’s modeling is hard to take seriously, but it if the future matches its “predictions” or “projections” closely enough, then some attention will have to be paid to it. However, I do not see how an actual “prediction” has emerged from the modeling. Can a projection of the data onto the resultant curve in figure 7 result in a translation of the “generic units” into, say “degrees C”/”generic unit” to translate the figure into an actual prediction of future temperatures?
poptech: There is nothing balanced about the current presentation as it is biased against Dr. Scafetta’s paper as he was not given the opportunity to defend himself in the main article.
We got the link to the original article, and a series of Dr. Scafetta’s responses to the criticisms. I think your claim of lack of balance is insubstantial.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 22, 2012 at 3:47 pm
…………………
NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.
“The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.”
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/203795main_FluxPower_400.jpg
It doesn’t appear to be so ‘tiny, tiny’ since it affects movement of the Eart’s outer core 3000km below the surface, where the magnetic field is generated.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
and that is for interactions with the Earth’s magnetosphere, which is only fraction of the Jupiter’s which extends to ~5AU.
You can get off the electro- magneto- chair. There is nothing there.
From the above quote, one could conclude that here is plenty there, but we have an impasse which may not be resolved, so I close my side of the exchange.
Nicola Scafetta: On the contrary the rank correlations that I found using the data in my paper are extremely high more than 99.9%.
I could not find this in the paper. Could you tell us where it is?
KenS – p.s., sorry, got wrapped up in trying to read my handwriting that I forgot to add – if the changes in the tilt of the Earth towards the Sun has such dramatical changes, the tilt of the solar system must perhaps also show some effect in the Sun, though not with the drama which being in orbit around our Sun gives us; the Sun some 99.9% mass of our solar system.
– http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sun
“The Sun lies close to the inner rim of the Milky Way Galaxy’s Orion Arm, in the Local Fluff or the Gould Belt [The Gould Belt is a partial ring of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, about 3000 light years across, tilted toward the galactic plane by about 16 to 20 degrees], at a hypothesized distance of 7.5–8.5 kpc (25,000–28,000 lightyears) from the Galactic Centre, contained within the Local Bubble, a space of rarefied hot gas, possibly produced by the supernova remnant, Geminga. The distance between the local arm and the next arm out, the Perseus Arm, is about 6,500 light-years. The Sun, and thus the Solar System, is found in what scientists call the galactic habitable zone.
The Apex of the Sun’s Way, or the solar apex [The solar apex is the direction that the Sun travels with respect to the Local Standard of Rest. In lay terms, it’s the “target” within the Milky Way that the Sun appears to be “chasing” as it orbits the galaxy…], is the direction that the Sun travels through space in the Milky Way, relative to other nearby stars. The general direction of the Sun’s galactic motion is towards the star Vega in the constellation of Lyra at an angle of roughly 60 sky degrees to the direction of the Galactic Center [Galactic Center is the rotational center of the Milky Way galaxy. It is located at a distance of 8.33±0.35 kpc from the Earth in the direction of the constellations Sagittarius, Ophiuchus, and Scorpius where the Milky Way appears brightest…].
The Sun’s orbit around the Galaxy is expected to be roughly elliptical with the addition of perturbations due to the galactic spiral arms and non-uniform mass distributions. In addition the Sun oscillates up and down relative to the galactic plane approximately 2.7 times per orbit. It has been argued that the Sun’s passage through the higher density spiral arms often coincides with mass extinctions on Earth, perhaps due to increased impact events. It takes the Solar System about 225–250 million years to complete one orbit of the galaxy (a galactic year) [The galactic year, also known as a cosmic year, is the duration of time required for the Solar System to orbit once around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Estimates of the length of one orbit range from 225 to 250 million “terrestrial” years….], so it is thought to have completed 20–25 orbits during the lifetime of the Sun. The orbital speed of the Solar System about the center of the Galaxy is approximately 251 km/s. At this speed, it takes around 1,190 years for the Solar System to travel a distance of 1 light-year, or 7 days to travel 1 AU [An astronomical unit is a unit of length equal to about or approximately the mean Earth–Sun distance….].
The Sun’s motion about the centre of mass of the Solar System is complicated by perturbations from the planets. Every few hundred years this motion switches between prograde and retrograde.”
Nicola Scafetta: The paper is quite clear and theoretically simple.
With that I agree. It is also the latest in a long series of statistical/modeling exercises, so it is not naive and appears ad hoc. It is now one of dozens of models forecasting, projecting or predicting the future.
Willis Eschenbach: Me, I pay attention to the details as well as the large picture. When a man trades in the Moon for the spring tides of Jupiter and Saturn, I tend to notice …
Just so. And that contributes to what I called the “ad hoc” appearance of the paper.
Peter Kovachev, I am well aware that it is Anthony’s right to do what he wishes on his site. It is also my right to state my opinion about something, which is all I did. I find it hard to believe that presenting peer-reviewed papers from a credentialed scientist is what Anthony gets all his criticism from. Though I am sure there are a select few who are very vocal about this to him regarding certain authors. When something is presented here I never believe it to be blindly endorsed by Anthony unless he states so.
Anyone who thinks they can be seen as “moderate” or “rational” in this debate by AGW or AGW Alarm proponents without endorsing their positions is naive.
Regardless, it is a positive development that the topic has been updated with a response from Dr. Scafetta so people can at least read his position and make up their own minds.
Septic Matthew, those responses by Dr. Scafetta were added after I suggested this.
I think all the “experts” need to take a timeout and consider …. that just because you can’t explain it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exists.
Sven .. what ever his name is … came up with this theory that Galactic Rays influence Clouds. The “experts” said .. no way! Slowly, the experts are being proven wrong. With each confirmation, they challenge it with another “no way”. But what is troubling, is that they hold that their own unproven story is the “truth”.
The AGW crowd said the Sun could have no effect on Climate. All is tied up in TSI. But again, we are finding out that TSI is not the whole story. There is magnetics, solar wind, etc etc etc.
As for Exclamation Marks … how else do you get a person attention .. especially when they’ve already predetermined that they don’t want to hear it? … !!!!!!!!
Poptech: Septic Matthew, those responses by Dr. Scafetta were added after I suggested this.
As far as I can tell, the link to the original article and Dr. Scafetta’s first responses occurred before your first comment. Where am I wrong on this?
Dr. Svalgaard,
“So what storage modes do you have in mind?”
The storage would be something in the state of the admittedly poorly understood solar dynamo responsible for the solar cycle. It may be a coincidence that the period of the dynamo is close to the period of Jupiter’s orbit, but such a coincidence might make a coupling of the oscillators, not just possible, but likely.
Septic Matthew, I was referring to the main article only,
Poptech says: March 22, 2012 at 12:54 pm
UPDATE 3/22/2012 – 1:15PM Dr. Scafetta responds in comments
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:21
Nicola, I’m not sure that paper helps your case in the slightest. It’s paywalled and I don’t pay for failed cyclomania, but the abstract says (emphasis mine):
Unfortunately …
So he got the timing for cycle 23 right, but was about 20% too high on the number.
That’s not too bad, but it gets much, much worse. He predicted that cycle 24 would peak in 2010-2011 … and since solar cycle 24 still has not peaked and we are in 2012, I’d call his method an abject failure.
In addition, I note that he uses cycles of 5.3, 8.3, 10.5, 12.2, and 47 years … and I’m sure his reasons for his choices are as good as yours.
So if his totally failed prediction is the evidence that is supposed to convince us that you are on the right track … well, color me unconvinced.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 22, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Sorry, Willis. I do not know what to say about the fact that you cannot read papers. Avoid comments on what you cannot verified.
You do not need other papers, just read mine.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 7:39 pm
I’m sorry, Nicola, but that’s totally unresponsive. You have cited a badly failed prediction as support for your claims.
Regarding whether I “need other papers”, you cited the paper, not me. I’m just reading the paper you pointed to.
How about you deal with the issues and stop the ad hominem attacks. How does a failed prediction buttress your case??
w.
Willis Eschenbach:
You’ve erred. That’s not a “prediction” but rather is a “projection.”The two words reference distinct ideas.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 22, 2012 at 3:11 pm
You are welcome to sit around and pat each other on the back if you wish, but science progresses, not by encouragement and telling people how great their new idea is, but by falsification.
You continue to argue against subjecting Nicola’s claims to the normal scientific process, which is a harsh examination of the claims in the most unflattering possible light. If you don’t like that, then you should get out of science entirely.
w.
Willis Eschenbach:
If I were to restate your position regarding Dr. Scafetta’s paper, I’d say that science progresses by subjecting claims to falsification. You appear not to understand that, by and large, claims made in the climatological literature are not subject to falsification. In particular, claims made by Dr. Scaffetta in his paper are not subject to falsification. Furthermore, time after time, wattsupwiththat publishes papers making claims which, like Dr. Scaffeta’s, are not subject to falsification. These claims are not scientific for the lack of falsifiability. Why, then, does the supposedly scientific blog wattsupwiththat continue to publish these papers? If the management of wattsupwiththat realizes that a mea culpa is in order, now is the time to make it. I can’t fight this battle by myself and win unless I have allies.
To: Willis:
Concerning falsification: Its is “one part” of the process ….and the difficult
part starts BEFORE a falsification: To set up a new heuristic system which
explains global warming [necessary in our life times because AGW is
(1) absolutely false + (2) too costly for manking/waste of wealth of nations]
….. Once the heuristic ACHIEVEMENT reaches table, we have to recline and
rejoice……..and then, by and by, we can start with ATTEMPTS of falsification…
……..whereas it is clearly wrong to cry wulf right from the first minute the new
heuristic approach appears on the table….
JS
I accidentally run into this thread. Actually I enjoyed the main articles, but I am rather puzzled about these intense exchanges after the main articles. For example, Scafetta’s paper is already published in a journal, whether it was rejected in another journal is immaterial. So, I am not sure why he is spending this time defending against his critics – it is a better use of time for him to do some other work for the next paper. Let the professional community decide whether this paper is correct or not, and that will happen in time. I am also puzzled that one of the reviewers decided to disclose what other reviewers consensus’ and the final decision was. In my view disclosing the content of his own review in public is problematic, but disclosing the others’ opinion is highly irregular. I saw some calling Leif Svalaard as Dr. Svalgaard, although I could not find any information to suggest that is true from the public information posted in Stanford – maybe he is, and it is not include at Stanford. The other tough critic, Willis Eschenbach, I could find nothing much about him other than in blogs, but I thought I saw somewhere that he criticized some climate academic Judith Curry. I get the impression that most of these discussions are by people who have some knowledge on climate issues, but not with any formal background in the subject. Which is fine in a casual discussion, but when they put so much certainty and weight in their opinion, then it becomes a puzzling issue.
There is a lot of uninformed criticism surrounding Nicloa’s latest paper that unfortunately casts a bad light on the knowledge of this forum. This area of science is not well known and those wishing to criticize should at least arm themselves with some of the basic knowledge. In my experience very very few people bother to consider this.
To clear up some misunderstandings.
1. Nicola’s latest paper has nothing to do with barycentric type theory. The concepts involved in this paper deal with tidal forces from Jupiter & Saturn, which is clearly laid out in his paper. Skimming and not bothering to read the detail often leads one up incorrect paths.
2. The rebuttal concerning exoplanets in other systems is a total red herring. In another paper (Perryman M.A.C. & Schulze-Hartung T) dealing with this topic, several star system barycentric paths are produced showing that so far our own Sun’s path is quite unique. Our Sun shows a regular varying grand minimia cycle of around 172 years which coincides with a solar path change brought about by the outer 4 planets, if we were observing our own Sun from many light years away we would need to observe for possibly 200 years before noticing a change of the grand minima proportion. There is also a smaller modulation or Gliessberg cycle across the solar cycles which moves very slowly and also coincides with the movement of the outer planets, to get this modulation or path change it is necessary to have two main outer planets that are balanced by a further 2 large planets. It would be possible to achieve something similar with a different mix of planets but what is required is a main oscillating force (J/S) disrupted by a periodic change (N/U). The planets also need to be in the outer part of a solar system, so our situation is difficult to reproduce and should not be thought to be common amongst other star systems, a small review and link of the referenced paper can be found at my website.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/202
3. Some are confusing Nicola’s latest paper in this thread with his other paper which is the topic of the WUWT Scafetta climate widget. Nicola has two theories in place covered by different papers. One deals with planetary influence on the 60 year Earth climate cycle (climate widget) which has no input towards solar modulation while the other (this thread) deals with solar changes of longer periods. Any reference to lunar cycles are incorporated in Nicola’s climate widget paper and have nothing to do with his latest paper.
4. Willis is still lost on the importance of the 3rd synodic of Jupiter and Saturn which forms the 60 year cycle in Nicola’s climate widget paper, even after I gave several links which would have cleared his confusion. Once again no one is bothering to read the data. The 3rd synodic or 3rd time Jupiter and Saturn meet in conjunction is close to a 360 degree circuit or cycle. When looking at the JPL data it can easily be seen the 3rd synodic makes a difference, there is a repeating pattern in the Jupiter/Sun distance by several hundred thousand kilometers that cycles every 3rd conjunction. This has been pointed out to Willis but he has either not bothered to read the links provided or purposely ignores the data.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/233
This thread is an example (by some) of the fear to venture down a new path that may produce a new area of science. Planetary science has come along way since Landschei.. passed away and in fact has moved on to totally different paths hardly connected to his science. Take the time to review the new data before passing it off as pseudo-science.
Willis Eschenbach says: March 22, 2012 at 7:46 pm
“How about you deal with the issues and stop the ad hominem attacks. How does a failed prediction buttress your case?”
Because I am not referring to their prediction by itself, Willis.
The prediction used in that paper was based on a specific model the authors proposed. That model was quite naive, and immideately failed. But this does not mean that every word written in that paper is authomatically wrong!
Those authors presented a graph with the power spectra of the sunspot record they had, and found that the sunspot cycles is described by three peaks, as I also found. So, that specific point has been veryfied. And it can be easily verified by repeating the analysis.
Even Leif got the three peaks with his poor FFT, see here
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Daily-Sunspot-Number.png
But then you need to think about how to interpret the analysis, which is what the authors of that paper (as well as Leif) did not do properly.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler says:
March 22, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Dr Scafetta’s modeling is hard to take seriously, but it if the future matches its “predictions” or “projections” closely enough, then some attention will have to be paid to it.
It didn’t even hindcast the past correctly, having a large maximum in ~1900, while in fact that was the smallest cycle the past 170 years.
vukcevic says:
March 22, 2012 at 5:02 pm
“That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.”
It doesn’t appear to be so ‘tiny, tiny’ since it affects movement of the Eart’s outer core 3000km below the surface, where the magnetic field is generated.
You are hard at learning. The energy and magnetic field is from the plasma and field that are just like the ordinary solar wind, and is is indeed tiny in the scheme of things. The stuff does not affect movements in the core, the current flows in the atmosphere 100 km up. And does not show that the interaction with the Earth influences the sun.
but we have an impasse which may not be resolved
it is due to your refusal [inability?] to learn. And that there is not much to do about.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 8:25 pm
But then you need to think about how to interpret the analysis, which is what the authors of that paper (as well as Leif) did not do properly.
The several reviewers of your rejected papers explain quite plainly what is wrong with both your analysis and your ‘interpretation’, so man up and post the reviews here so people can see what the problems are.
REPLY: I’ll be happy to post the reviews if Nicola provides them – Anthony
susan smith says: March 22, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Thank you for your analysis.
I hope that Anthony reads and realizes that there are two guys arguing improperly thinking that they know everything: “but when they put so much certainty and weight in their opinion, then it becomes a puzzling issue. ”
You are also right about other things.
So, those who are interested in my paper, please read it.
That is the best way to know what I found.
As Geoff says, This is a new path that may produce a new area of science.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 22, 2012 at 8:38 pm
why do you want to hurt yourself so badly?
If you think my paper is wrong, just submit a comment to the journal. And we will discuss there.
In any case, Leif, the first referee did not find any error in my analysis by his own admission, the second referee’s argument at the end was rejected by the editor. You do not know it, don’t you?
So, it was you and only you.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 22, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Say what? The guy said that cycle 24 would peak in 2010-2011. That is not only a prediction, it is a badly failed prediction.
w.
Willis Eschenbach:
You’ve got the wrong idea about the nature of a prediction. It is an extrapolation to the unobserved but observable outcome of a statistical event. In the case of Dr. Scafetta’s paper, there clearly are no such events for the set of these events, the “statistical population,” is undefined.
A function that maps the time to a variable such as the global average surface temperature is not a “prediction” but rather is a “projection.” While predictions are falsifiable, projections are not, as I’ve tried to call to your attention on a number of past occasions without reply by you. In wattsupwiththat I’ve already provided details on the distinction between a prediction and a projection and why predictions but not projections are falsifiable in the comments sections of numerous articles and will do so again if asked by wattsupwiththat management. Also, a year ago I published a series of three articles on the same theme at Climate, Etc. I’ll supply the URLs if you wish.
Over a period of 13 years, my job was to design and manage a succession of scientific studies for the Electric Power Research Institute. While in this position, I learned that a scientific study centered on the underlying statistical population for a sample drawn from this population provided the sole basis for falsification of the associated models. Thus, for a scientific study to neglect identification of the underlying population was a sure way for this study to fail. As a scientific study it failed because it was not scientific in lieu of means for falsifying the models..
Like Dr. Scafetta’s study, the IPCC’s study of global warming has no underlying statistical population. Thus, this study lacks a scientific methodology. Nonetheless, the IPCC represents this methodology as scientific. Voters, politicians, journalists, taxpayers, bloggers, laymen etc. need to understand this state of affairs for disaster awaits us if they don’t. I can’t enlighten these folks all by myself. How about some help?
A couple of thoughts:
Terry, string theory and M-theory are mathematical descriptions of the universe developed over the last 25 years by theoreticians seeking to reconcile the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics. M-theory describes an infinite number of different universes and one or other of the M-theory universes can adapt to just about anything. Researchers have no way of testing which of the answers that string/M-theory produce is correct. Indeed, it’s possible they all may be correct and we just happen to live in that one particular universe among an infinite number of universes. So far, no one has been able to make a prediction, using string theory, that can be tested to see if it is correct or not. That is, it fails the falsifiabilty criterion big-time.
String and M-theory are physics and the last time I checked, physics was definitely not merely a science, but the scienciest science that could ever possibly be.
Nicola, nearly 2,000 years ago, Aristotle pointed out that the mammalian marine animals such as dolphins and whales were distinctly different to those other denizens of the sea, the cold-blooded fishes. This was considered to be complete and utter balderdash by ever so many scientists during the ensuing centuries despite ever so much evidence to the contrary. It was Jean Baptiste Lamarck who rediscovered that difference in the late 18thC. He also at that time coined the word “biology” to include both botany and zoology. Current scientific opinion is that Lamarck was an utter numpty whose lifework was completely negated by Charles Darwin. So it goes…
This is not a counsel of despair, nor intended to compare your work to either of these giants of science. Your ideas, if they have sufficient merit, will live on. And if they do, your ghost should not be too surprised to find that what was the Scafetta Theory is widely known as the Eschenbach, or Svalgaard Theory and only obscurantist historians will note the truth.
Now it’s time for the Git to return to his everyday wife and prepare the repast for the Gitling’s 26th burpday celebration.
The Pompous Git:
To the extent that physics embraces non-falsifiable theories, physics is no longer a science, by the definition of “science.”
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 8:25 pm
You are citing that paper as a support for your claims, when it is clear from their failed prediction that their claims simply don’t work.
I wouldn’t refer to their prediction either if I were you, but then, you did refer to it, and recommended it. I’m unclear why you recommended a failed prediction, but it certainly doesn’t buttress your position.
w.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 22, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Thanks, Terry. I understand very well that many claims made in the climate literature are not falsifiable … which means that they are not science. A claim which is incapable of being falsified is not a scientific claim.
So if Dr. Scafetta’s claims are not falsifiable, they also are not valid scientific claims, and you sure don’t have to convince me of that …
w.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 9:06 pm
If you want us to believe that, simply put your money where your mouth is and publish the reviews. Because your word simply won’t do. I have no opinion on the matter, never having read the reviews. But if you are right, then publish them and show us, not just claim but show us, that you are right.
Leif is not hurting himself at all. After all, he’s not the one refusing to publish …
w.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 22, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Terry, apparently you mis-read what I said. What I was referring to as a prediction was the claim, not in Dr. Scafetta’s paper but in the paper referenced by Dr. Scafetta, that the sunspot cycle 24 would peak in 2010-2011.
Merriam-Webster says:
So when someone says that a specific thing will happen in the future, like say that solar cycle 24 will peak in 2010-2011, Merriam-Webster says that is most definitely a prediction.
You also say that “predictions but not projections are falsifiable”. Since the solar cycle did not peak in 2010-2011, the claim is falsified, and thus according to you must be a prediction.
w.
Willis Eschenbach (March 22, 2012 at 10:44 pm):
I stand corrected. By the way, Merriam-Webster’s definition of “prediction” can be misleading for it fails to provide a context for the use of the term. Under the scientific method of inquiry, a “prediction” exists in the context of the complete set of predictions that are made by an inquiry’s model. The relation from this set to the inquiry’s statistical population is one-to-one.
To Terry: You seem to be hung up on this 3 P prediction/projection/prognosis
confusion…..
According to Adam Smith: Terminology must be clearly understood …otherwise
we get into Scholastics, where everyone puts HIS sense into the term….
The only way to avoid confusion is to AVOID both terms and stay with good old
“Forecast.”…. This word was invented for its clearness……
If I say: Folks, listen, in this decade global temps are not going to increase and
I bet 10,000 $ on it , and the first person who comes by in 2020 showing
temps have increased and have not plateau-ed will receive this sum….
then I am not going to dicker with “THis only is a one of the 3 PPP quoted
above without any significance…. whereas on the AGW side:
The IPCC has lawyers and word inventors at hand working to eliminate all
RESPONSIBILITY when their future scenarios do not come true….
The MetOffice in England gives detailed temp numbers up to 2020….
NOBODY there will be dismissed there, when the numbers will prove wrong…..
They will claim ADDITIONAL funds to make more “3PPP”s instead….
JS
Wow! This is so cool! Two egotistical tin foil hat brainiacs having a juvenile pissing match in public! Sweet! Let me get some popcorn and a light beer and enjoy the social stupidity of the intelligent.. Leif old buddy…you impress me as an inflexible stubborn condescending hard ass know it all with a God Complex. Do your students worship you…or are they always cutting class? Both of you…cease fire…grow up…and go to opposite corners for a time out. Your bizarre exchange is very creepy. Maybe we could discuss abnormal psychology instead of astrophysics. Cabin fever maybe? Get out of the chalet and get some fresh air and sunshine before you go postal. Is this hissy fit you’re subjecting us all to the sausage making of real science in action? Does Nick owe you money?
Can we assume that Dr. Svalgaard’s review comments were similar to what was included in the post proper? If so, they were hardly relevant at all. There is no reason to assume that a solar dynamo could be synchronized with an orbital period so short, no matter how massive the planet. Venus’ tidal effects on the Sun are as large as Jupiter’s yet noone is arguing that the solar dynamo is coupled with Venus. Perhaps solar variation is totally chaotic and all perceived order in it is spurious, but declaring the debate closed is no way to establish that. If there are longer term solar cycles, I doubt the solar dynamo can be sustaining them internally and immune to general relativistic gravitational effects relevant to extended bodies.
I am a little disappointed by both Willis and Lief in this post, you have both done yourselves a disfavour. When new science is presented only those with a bias attack like bulldogs, being sceptical is fine but an open and inquiring mind is finer.
Nicola has presented some vary serious research with some very strong correllations to real world events and he is not the first. Some thing very basic and beyond our world controls our climatic conditions and their cyclic nature, this man is trying hard to find the reasons and you can him.
I would have thought that both of you understood that our climate is controlled by outside forces, and the study of these is most important as CO2 certainly does not control our climate.
After a hundred years of consensus science in quantum mechanics they still can not tell me what gravity, electricity or magnetism is, not to mention the higgs boson.
Science in the grand scheme of things has failed us for one hundred years practical scientists using engineering have give us wonderful things and they work we just are not sure why they work.
The imaginary friends that scientists invent to try and prove their grand scheme of every thing is starting to wear a bit thin after a hundred years [ imaginary particles and oops the universe does not work any more, invent dark matter and energy, ok now it works oops]
Nicola you are on the right track, the harmonics of the solar system are the key to its understanding, the harmonic equations of nuclear physics on the speed of light and the gravity harmonic will enlighten your path. These were worked out long before I was born and I am old.
wayne Job says:
March 23, 2012 at 12:45 am
Wayne, if you want to go all California on Scafetta, and tell him what a great man he is so he doesn’t get discouraged, offer him praise so as not to damage his self-esteem, that’s fine … but don’t pretend it is science.
Science proceeds by exposing new claims to the pitiless light of public enquiry and to the most strenuous attempts at falsification. If you want an encounter group, go to Esalen. This is science, and it is a blood sport.
When I put out my new ideas, people gather like sharks to try to find any possible holes in my science … funny, but I don’t recall you saying that they were out of line.
And neither did I say they were out of line, because they weren’t—that’s what I expect. That is science. It’s not about holding hands and singing kumbaya. It’s about one scientist trying his damnedest to poke holes in another scientist’s theory. I hope and expect that people will do that to my ideas and claims, and you can be quite sure I’ll do it to their ideas and claims.
w.
wayne Job says:
March 23, 2012 at 12:45 am
I understand no such thing. As far as I am concerned, climate is controlled by the Constructal Law, which lays out the parameters underlying the many thermostatic and homeostatic phenomena operating at a range of temporal and spatial scales.
w.
I see the usual “Does So!,” “Does not!” has broken out about all things circular…
FWIW, folks really ought to keep in mind that the solar system is dominated by Orbital Resonances and all sorts of things happen at similar times for no good reason other than that they have balanced their energy over millions of years via small nudges. This paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
Posits and presents evidence for a tidal influence on the climate of Earth, caused by the moon, with periods noticed that match changes of the lunar orbit perigee and planar tilt. One period noted is almost identical to the 179? ish year solar cycle.
This illustrates both a value and a risk from ‘wiggle matching’. I can give something usable, but for all the wrong reasons or no reason at all. At the same time, it can easily lead to what IS causal.
So all the running off to look at solar internal dynamics may simply be missing the point that the sun, moon, and earth have been wobbling together for a long time and have their tune in harmony… and what wiggle matches to a Solar / Jupiter / Saturn orbital fit might be a Lunar / Earth tidal effect (that just happens to be synchronized).
Oh, and the Taurid Meteors are also in a Resonant Orbit and might well have a periodic impact (literally!) that shows up in the ‘few thousand year’ periodic cold “issues”. We’re presently near the outer edge of the meteoric cluster mass and our orbit slowly comes back to the middle of the track while the “main lump” of the Taurids vs the Earth also have to sync up arrival times. The product of those two looks like it is in sync with Bond Events (speculative…) so it may just be added meteor dust from a Resonant Orbit beat frequency.
So please do not disparage the folks who ‘wiggle match’ to planetary positions. It might well be that the planets are not causal of the event, yet causal of the Orbital Resonance that actually drives the (as yet undiscovered) agent of the event.
Why is the study of gravitational and barycentric effects treated like voodoo or witchcraft?
There is nothing more controversial here than the proposal that two masses might exert a gravitational pull on eachother (there – I’ve said it!!).
It is well accepted that some of the the Milankovich orbital parameter oscillations are due to interaction with other planets particularly the Jovian ones. So why all the jowl-flapping about a possible climate influence?
Here are some papers detailing further this thrillingly controversial idea of gravity:
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-9559.pdf
http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/Sidorenkov.pdf
http://www.netpilot.ca/geocryology/annals/volume4/volume4.pdf
Above “Seems like the NSIDC sea ice graphs are broken” They ALWAYS break down when ice goes normal or above . They don’t like it just you see how in the coming weeks they will try to adjust the whole thing down again
phlogiston says:
March 23, 2012 at 4:08 am
Why is the study of gravitational and barycentric effects treated like voodoo or witchcraft?
There is nothing more controversial here than the proposal that two masses might exert a gravitational pull on eachother (there – I’ve said it!!).
==========
Because gravity isn’t included in warmist physics – they have empty space instead, based on the very basic descriptions of ideal gas in a container without temperature or pressure variation..
..so all their arguments are without volume, weight and attraction.
And as they have no sound in their atmosphere so they can’t hear any arguments to the contrary.
[NB which is why they have radiation in a vacuum and no convection, why their gases are not buoyant in air, why they are ‘well-mixed’; an atmosphere of empty space with molecules like hard dots bouncing off each other at hight speeds, etc. as they spontaneously diffuse through nothing unrestrained by gravity – hard to credit that they have no concept at all of our fluid voluminous gas ocean above us, weighing down a ton on our shoulders..
..but not only do they appear to be utterly oblivious to it, they argue it doesn’t exist. And shout at everyone who tries to point out the real world around us.
http://mcat-review.org/phases-equilibria.php
“Ideal gas
•definition
◦An ideal gas consists of pointy dots moving about randomly and colliding with one another and with the container wall. The ideal gas obeys the kinetic molecular theory of gases and has the following properties.
■Random molecular motion.
■No intermolecular forces.
■No (negligible) molecular volume.
■Perfectly elastic collisions (conservation of total kinetic energy).
◦You can treat gases as ideal gases at:
■Low pressures
■High temperatures
◦Deviation from the ideal occurs at high pressure and low temperature. At these conditions, the gas molecules are “squished” together. When the gas molecules are so close together, they experience intermolecular interactions. Also, the molecular volume becomes significant when the total volume is squished down so much. The intermolecular attractions will cause collisions to be sticky and inelastic. At the extremely high pressures and low temperatures, gases cease to be gases at all – they condense into liquids.
◦Ideal gases behave according to the ideal gas law. ”
Real gases don’t..
Instead of gravity they have pressure created by hard dots of things they call oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide bouncing off the inner surface of their greenhouse through which no direct heat from the Sun can enter… That’s why they have no water cycle in their comic cartoon energy budget – their clouds appear by magic in an atmosphere of empty space where gas molecules can’t separate out as they’re all madly dashing about at great speeds bouncing off each other..
..because they have no way to form.
Empty vessels make much noise.
I am an unschooled dirt dwelling troglodyte with a deep interest in all things natural and scientific. I would like to add my two cents on the weighty cosmic matters being discussed here. I thought that years ago astronomers discovered possible planets around distant stars by the wobble of the star as it travelled through space. I can’t express myself mathematically like all you brilliant guys on this website…which I love to pieces (and I know Einstein’s God is a numbers guy). I remember them saying that this wobbling was evidence that something…perhaps a solar system like ours…was tugging it willy nilly all over creation like a drunken dog sled team. Maybe the gravitational tug of orbiting bodies might mess with the physical processes of the parent star. Somebody pointed out here that a tiny sun grazing comet seemed to trigger a solar prominence. The sun has been extremely moody as of late and the earth has had some wild weather extremes. My TV picture has been pixilating like crazy and my PC is possessed by imps and demons. Suffice it to say…something’s up. Doesn’t chaos theory say that a butterfly in Hong Kong can cause a hurricane in Dallas? Please don’t yell at me Leif.
Nicola Scafetta: I hope that Anthony reads and realizes that there are two guys arguing improperly thinking that they know everything:
On that I disagree with you, fwiw. There have been rather specific criticisms directed at the present paper, and you have an opportunity to rebut those criticisms. Some readers find some criticisms more important than others (other readers, other criticisms), but all of the criticisms deserve specific rebuttals, as far as I can see. In particular, the modeling has to produce actual model temperature values that can be compared to past temperature records (hindcasting) and future temperature values (forecasting, predicting, projecting) in order to test the accuracy of the model. I can not find (maybe I missed it and you can direct me to it) where your “generic units” have ever been converted/transformed to an actual model for temperatures.
Willis Eschenbach: I’m sorry, Nicola, but that’s totally unresponsive. You have cited a badly failed prediction as support for your claims.
Willis is correct. Dr Scafetta cited a paper, Willis checked the paper and found that, on the particular detail for which Dr Scafetta cited the paper, evidence after the paper was published showed the claim cited by Dr Scafetta to have been falsified. Something else in the paper may have been correct (as averred by Dr Scafetta in response to an earlier post by Willis Eschenbach), but the specific point for which Dr Scafetta cited the paper was not supported.
Terry Oldberg: You’ve erred. That’s not a “prediction” but rather is a “projection.”The two words reference distinct ideas.
Someone may attempt to refer to two distinct ideas, but practically (or “operationally”) there is no difference. Either the future observations are close enough to the modeled values that the theory can be taken seriously, or they are too discrepant. Whether the modeled values for the future values are called “projections”, “predictions”, or “forecasts”, if they are inaccurate enough then the theory behind the model fails the test.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler (March 23, 2012 at 11:16 am):
To conflate the idea that is referenced by “projection” with the idea that is referenced by “prediction” is to make the idea that is referenced by “projection” identical to the idea that is referenced by “prediction” and also not identical to it. A consequence is for Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction to be violated. Aristotle’s law is a true proposition. The negation of Aristotle’s law is a false proposition.
Through the use of the negated law as a false premise to an argument, one can lead people to a conclusion which they believe to be true when this conclusion is false or unproved. Thus, unless one’s purpose is to mislead, it is always best to maintain the distinction between the idea that is referenced by “projection” and the idea that is referenced by “prediction.” A consequence from maintenance of this distinction is for it to be revealed that predictions are falsifiable while projections are not. As you may know, falsifiability is the distinguishing feature of a theory that is “scientific” in nature. By conflating the two ideas one leads people to the conclusion that a theory is scientific when it is not.
Wayne Job: When new science is presented only those with a bias attack like bulldogs, being sceptical is fine but an open and inquiring mind is finer.
That is not normative in science. The scientist should expect criticism from all points of view, and be prepared to defend claims against the criticisms. It does not matter whether the bulldog-like attacks come from friends or enemies, people with or without bias — what matters is that the attacks be based on science and evidence, and they they be responded to with reference to science and evidence. Science is unique in emphasizing that a theory must be subjected to skeptical attack before it is given credence. Critical review, aka “attack” is a job for all who have open and inquiring minds.
My judgment after my review of the postings here is that (most of) the criticisms are on point and based on science (there are a few I can not evaluate, hence my qualification “most of”.)
Let me make one more comment. Nicola Scafetta, Please just ignore these criticisms appearing in a blog, and deal with any criticisms you get through journals. If someone is so convinced that your methodology and conclusions are wrong, they can try to publish their own papers to that effect. Today I finally checked on the background of two of your main critics, none of them have even a Masters degree from what I could find, or a formal training in an area related to climate science, meteorology, etc. But that did not seem to prevent some to endow Dr. designation to one, I guess because of the tone of certainty. I am somewhat amazed that work experience in coding and IT or construction management can give so much of self-assurance in climate science. These comments are all rather amusing to read, but I find it difficult to assign credibility to your critics from what I could find about their background. These criticisms clearly go beyond legitimate academic criticisms.
susan smith says: March 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm
“These criticisms clearly go beyond legitimate academic criticisms.”
Thank you, but it is not me that you need to convince. It is Anthony.
I just discovered some startling evidence which supports Scafetta’s tidal theory
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/the-sun-dances-the-soho-two-step/
Joachim Seifert:
The battle I’m waging is to maintain the distinction between the idea referenced by the term “prediction” and the idea referenced by the term “projection.” To substitute the term “forecast” for its synonym “prediction” does not win this battle.
susan smith says: March 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm
“These criticisms clearly go beyond legitimate academic criticisms.”
______________________________________________
Argument by authority Susan?
Since when did someone with a PhD attached to his name become god?
I have run into PhD’s who were dead wrong. Scientists do not have a monopoly on truth and sometimes someone from outside of a narrow discipline can blow them away. I know this because I have done so on at least two occasions, WITHOUT anything more than a B.S. and common sense.
Dr. Scafetta, I should have added that my comment to Susan Smith is no reflection on you. I hold you in high regard because you are willing to “run through the gauntlet” here at WUWT.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm
susan smith says: March 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm
“These criticisms clearly go beyond legitimate academic criticisms.”
Thank you, but it is not me that you need to convince. It is Anthony.
========================
You sent the paper to Anthony, knowing full well it would be closely examined.
Either the paper is convincing or it isn’t, any blame lies with the author not the publisher.
There was once a violinist who could tame any wild animal. At a circus, two of the three fierce lions immediately sat down and stopped roaring when they heard the violist. When the third lion was released, it ran up to the violinist and ate him.
The two other lions were very unhappy. “Why did you do that?” they asked the third lion.
“We were enjoying the music.”
The third lion puts its paw to its ear and said. “What?”
The book says; The third lion ate the violinist because it was deaf .
So, professor Scafetta, be very, very careful when playing your violin. 🙂
Terry Oldburg: By conflating the two ideas one leads people to the conclusion that a theory is scientific when it is not.
So tell us the procedures that you can use to distinguish one from the other. Lack of procedures for distinguishing this from that, or whether anything is true, is one of Aristotle’s weaknesses, usually pointed out by contrasting him with Galileo.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler March23, 2012 at 3:32 PM:
Good question! The relation from the complete set of predictions that are made by a study’s model to the set of independent events in this study’s statistical population is one-to-one. It is by drawing a sample from this population and comparing the relative frequencies of the predicted to the observed outcomes of the events that one falsifies or validates the model.In a model that makes projections, there is no population hence no possibility of falsifying or validating the model. If you were to search for the population underlying models referenced by the IPCC in AR4, you’d search in vain.
Susan Smith: I find it difficult to assign credibility to your critics from what I could find about their background.
Check the references that they cite.
@ Terry Oldberg, consider a typical biology textbook drawing of a cell. In most texts a schematised cell is presented that contains a nucleus, a cell membrane, mitochondria, a Golgi body, endoplasmic reticulum and so on. In a botany textbook the cell schematic will contain chloroplasts and an outer cell wall, while a zoology text will omit those items. The cell is a model in a large group of interrelated models that enable us to understand the operations of all cells. The model is not a nerve cell, nor is it a muscle cell, nor a pancreatic cell; it stands for all of these.
Many other models are presented in cell biology when one zooms in on the inside of the cell. For example, when energy transfer is considered, we look at a model of the mitochondrion. In the case of the cell there is no mathematical object; there are no equations describing it, and yet the schematic drawing is not of one particular cell; it is an idealised cell or model.
Here we find no prediction, nor projection, no mathematical equation standing for a theory. It seems that by your description as I understand it from your essay at Climate Etc (which I enjoyed BTW) our biological models are not scientific just because they are not mathematical.
Astronomy would also appear to be largely pseudoscience by your criterion of scientific theories and modelling and Popperian falsification.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler said @ March 23, 2012 at 3:32 pm
What on earth do you mean by this statement?
Thank you for canning me Willis, your constructal law is all very well but if you take away our solar system, including our sun, the outside influences disappear and we have no climate, we are just a big dead rock in the void. Thus we owe our existance to the outside influences.
Pompous, this time round I’m in agreement with you. Mathematics is a powerful tool in the scientists toolbox, but it is not the be all and end all.
I’m reminded of a philosophy prof who told us that he could prove mathematically that it was not possible to trisect an arbitrary angle with a straight edge and compass. I went to the next class armed with a big straight edge and compass and used the blackboard to demonstrate the geometrical solution I had developed. It was accurate to within a lot less than the thickness of the lines I drew.
Nonetheless, the prof told me he could prove it couldn’t be accurate, to which I responded that for the purposes a geometer might need to trisect and angle for, it was accurate enough. I then rubbed out my construction, handed him the chalk, and asked him to mathematically derive and compute the trisection of the arbitrary angle I left on the blackboard to within the same accuracy I had demonstrated.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 7:39 pm
You do not need other papers, just read mine.
Just for the record.
I have published a paper on August 14 in 2010 on solar tide functions and a main cycle of 913.5 years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/ghi_solar_s.pdf
About my discovery and the paper I have informed Dr. Nicola Scafetta in the same year 2010, but he never has replied to my E-mail. He has said to Dr. Sebastian Luening that he knows my paper.
Dr. Nicola has written his last papers knowing that I have discovered the cause of the complex 913.5 years solar tide function cycle, but has not refered my paper.
No comment because I’m a guest here!
Saying ”You do not need other papers, just read mine.” has space for speculations. Just read my paper.
I hate it all.
V.
Terry, the difference here is that we can accurately predict where the planets will be in 100 years time, and what interactions they will have been up to, whereas the IPCC has not a scooby’s what the co2 level will be doing between now and then.
tallbloke (March 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm):
What’s the relevance to my comment?
Terry
tallbloke says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:01 pm
I just discovered some startling evidence which supports Scafetta’s tidal theory
And herein lies the problem I think. If you are going to invoke a planetary influence you must calculate the mass effect from ALL the planets involved, not isolate those that make the numbers work.
The Pompous Git (March 23, 2012 at 3:58 pm):
Also, fashion models and model airplanes make neither predictions nor projections. This all goes to show that like many words in the English language, the word “model” makes ambiguous reference to the associated ideas. By generating violations of the law of non-contradiction, this ambiguity creates the possibility of composing specious proofs of falsehoods. In view of the risk of logical mayhem with this as its source, in scientific writing it is best to avoid the ambiguity.This can be accomplished through disambiguation of the terms in which one makes one’s arguments.
In the control of a system, one makes use of a kind of model that makes predictions. This type of model can be referenced unamgiguously by calling it a “predictive model.” A predictive model makes a conditional prediction or “predictive inference.” That it makes a kind of inference ties a predictive model to logic for logic contains the principles by which an inference is judged correct or incorrect.
An example of an algorithm for making a correct predictive inference follows:
Cloudy now implies rain in the next 24 hours
Cloudy now
Therefore, rain in the next 24 hours.
You’ll recognize this algorithm as an application of the classical inference rule Modus Ponens. Would you describe Modus Ponens as mathematical? I’d describe it as logical.
Modus Ponens is descriptive of a logical situation in which information for a deductive conclusion is not missing. In practice, information is missing. The apparatus for dealing with missing information was developed by mathematicians, using their jargon rather than that of the classical logicians. This, perhaps, gives the process for building a model under the principles of logical reasoning a mathematical aura for you. Notwithstanding this aura, the aim of the model building process can and should be the logical one of ensuring that all inferences made by a model are correct.
tallbloke (March 23, 2012 at 4:20 pm):
The mathematics in question serve the logical purpose of ensuring that all inferences made by a predictive model are correct. Models that make incorrect inferences misbehave, with consequences that include disease, death, unhappiness and loss of capital. Thus, it seems to me that it would be hard to argue for making decisions on the basis of models that make incorrect inferences.
tallbloke says:
March 23, 2012 at 4:20 pm
It’s nice to know that I might not be “a mine of disinformation” after all 🙂
Nice story BTW. Here’s one that the late Bo Leuf shared with me back in 2002 when we were discussing philosophy of science:
@ Terry Oldberg
Thanks for the disambiguation.
The PompousGit:
Thanks for the peer review!
susan smith said @ March 22, 2012 at 8:18 pm
OED says doctor:
Sounds like a reasonable description of Leif and Willis.
For Willis’ publications see:
W Eschenbach – Energy & Environment, 2004 DOI 10.1260/0958305041494701
W Eschenbach – Nature – DOI 10.1038/nature02689
Terry Oldberg said @ March 23, 2012 at 6:50 pm
ROFL! But I’m not qualified having not completed any of the three degrees I commenced (chemistry, philosophy of science & history), nor undertaken the offer of a doctorate in sustainable agriculture. Seriously, I will critique your thesis after I have absorbed Shannon. That must await the completion of my absorption of Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Mathematica. It’s been a bit of a slog, but it would be rather nice to become the 27th inhabitant of planet Earth to not merely own a copy, but understand it too 😉
susan smith said @ March 22, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Svalgaard, although I could not find any information to suggest that is true from the public information posted in Stanford – maybe he is, and it is not include at Stanford.
http://soi.stanford.edu/general/stanford.list.html
Leif, that lists you name, office phone number and email address it does not list your credentials.
Say Nicola, you should be honored,
Tamino and friends at assorted blogs, are writing volumes of information about your new paper under the heading “Mathturbation”.
Horatio Algernon, has even written a poem about your paper too.
I believe one of Tamino’s readers, went so far as to label your paper “Astrology”(his words not mine).
She said no such thing. What she did do was make a logical evaluation – something I did a long time ago. Far too much weight is given to certain vocal commentator’s opinions without understanding their background.
Obtaining a Ph.D. does represent a level of research education that has been achieved in a given discipline and someone who has one is often more qualified when commenting on a specific subject. This is of course not infallible with some exceptions being Freeman Dyson and Steve McIntyre who was offered a graduate scholarship to MIT. With this all being said Steve would be having an easier (though not easy) time of it if he had got that Ph.D. from MIT. I believe fighting against it is futile and a waste of energy because credentials matter.
Poptech says:
March 23, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Leif, that lists you name, office phone number and email address it does not list your credentials.
You will normally not find that kind of information in such lists.
You may want to consult
http://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/qualification/
http://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/5053/
http://www4.nso.edu/staff/apevtsov/IAU-Com12/main/organization.html
or perhaps more importantly my papers cited by other scientists:
http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=qFdb2fIAAAAJ&pagesize=100&view_op=list_works
susan smith:
Your various arguments provide examples of the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from illegitimate authority).
The Pompous Git (March 23, 2012 at 6:50 pm):
For the future, I wish you would hold the sarcasm (e.g. “ROFL”) as this distracts attention from the issue at hand to you, thus wasting everyone else’s time.
For those who believe that we should give any weight to authority:
More here.
A scientific work doesn’t have to be falsifiable to be scientific or legitimately publishable under peer review. It can be a report of observations. Or it can be a meta-theory that while not directly falsifiable itself, generates falsifiable hypotheses.
This Scafetta paper is an observation of a statistical fit between some calculations and some data/observations. The calculations, data, statistical inferences or the strength of the statistical inferences can be wrong. But they can be right without justifying all this fuss. Despite the planetary inspiration of the calculations, the hypothesized “link” to solar and climatic variation may ultimately found to be spurious. Future data, the next couple of cycles, may weaken the statistical link. Other periods within the solar system or a better understood solar dynamo may be shown to have a better statistical fit. A more physically based model may confirm the link or show how the such periods of statistical fit can occur yet be spurious.
The physical plausibility of an actual link is better supported by general relativity of extended bodies than by newtonian tides, although the scaling factors are the same, the masses and cubes of the distances. The quadrupole moments of the solar system, the sun, and the yet to be fleshed out extended internal structure of the solar dynamo are all details to be eventually considered. The relatively much weaker role of Saturn may separately turn out to be spurious and replaced by other statistical links and a better understanding of the dynamo/jupiter interactions.
The more massive exo-planets that Svalgaard proposes as counter examples may lack the relationship between orbital and dynamo periods that make coupling of the oscillators given well established examples involving far less wrenching forces. The orbital periods are all an order of magnitude shorter than that of our most familiar stellar dynamo. So the lack of confirmation outside the solar system given the short history and questionable comparability of the examples is hardly a refutation.
From Svalgaard’s slides, I can’t tell how the rotation and revolution descriptions were used. However, from past interactions and the use of the words “free fall”, I know that Svalgaard did not seem to appreciate (few do) the extended body implications of general relativity, that can be approximated by quadrupole and higher moments. However, the conceptual difference from newtonian gravity is easy to appreciate in a dynamic system, just with consideration of the implications of gravity propagating at the speed of light (or less) rather than being an instantanous field. Different components of an extended body will experience accelerations from self-structure and external bodies at different directions and points in time.
Scafettas paper remains an observation and related hypotheses. Ideally, at some point in the future we will have a model of the solar dynamo with convincing intrinsic periodicity and incorporating relativistic planetary influences (or at least gravity propagating at the speed of light) that either confirms of refutes the relationship.
Terry Oldberg said @ March 23, 2012 at 9:03 pm
I was genuinely amused by your remark! No sarcasm intended. Please accept my apologies.
Apologies to Leif Svalgaard and the community if my usage of “Dr.” has given an incorrect impression. I know in some cultures the term has been standardized and misuse of the term has even been criminalized. I merely intended it to express the respect I have for Dr. Svalgaard’s willingness to share his knowledge and insight that merit such consideration.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 23, 2012 at 9:11 pm
the extended body implications of general relativity
are too minute at the distances of the planets to matter and are not even taken into account in the most accurate astronomical ephemeris we have http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons although the general relativity has for decades been incorporated http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/8903/1/02-1476.pdf
None of that provides your credentials or cv such as your educational background (degrees obtained) and past work history. I am familiar with your publication history. If you had a page with this information it would reduce any confusion.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 23, 2012 at 9:11 pm
The more massive exo-planets that Svalgaard proposes as counter examples may lack the relationship between orbital and dynamo periods
My comments were directed to Scafetta’s notion that the influence in tidal. For such, the influence is direct and depends very much and simply on masses and distances.
From Svalgaard’s slides, I can’t tell how the rotation and revolution descriptions were used
There is an unfortunate conflation between tidal and ‘barycentric’ ideas. A good description of the rotation/revolution difference is here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRAS.pdf
Poptech says:
March 23, 2012 at 9:30 pm
If you had a page with this information it would reduce any confusion.
This might reduce your confusion: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Leif-cv.doc
Martin Lewitt (March 23, 2012 at 9:11 pm):
As you point out, it is not logically necessary for a scientific work to satisfy falsifiability of claims. However, it is necessary for a scientific theory to satisfy falsifiability. In this blog, Dr. Scafetta states: “Leif, get it. Your prejudices are not shared by everybody. To oppose a scientific theory it is not enough to say: I do not believe in it. You must propose an alternative theory that agrees better with the data. Do you have it or not?”
It sounds to me as though Dr. Scafetta is claiming his work to be a scientific theory. Wherein lies the falsifiability of the claims of this theory? It seems to me that the falsifiability lies nowhere.
I saw this in leif.org/resume.txt
Leif Svalgaard
I have developed system software for the past 45 years.
My work experience (according to testimonials) is equivalent to
1) a master’s degree in computer science
2) advanced graduate work leading to a doctoral dissertation
I have extensive experience with system level APIs for a great many systems
including AS/400, Unix, and PC.
I have implemented large networking systems for Lockheed used
by several telephone companies.
I have designed, implemented, and debugged system software and
CASE tool software at all levels. Including the historically important
RC4000 multiprogramming Operating System.
I have documented strong skills in design, implementation, and debugging
(ranging from high-level languages through assembler and ‘front-panel’
lights).
Below are a some transcripts of letters in my possession
regarding my computer experience.
…………………………………..
So I am not sure what this line means
“1968 PhD equivalent at University of Copenhagen in Geophysics.”
in http://www.leif.org/EOS/Leif-cv.doc
Not sure what equivalent is, and who decides?
Robert says:
March 23, 2012 at 11:01 pm
“1968 PhD equivalent at University of Copenhagen in Geophysics.”
in http://www.leif.org/EOS/Leif-cv.doc
Not sure what equivalent is, and who decides?
Magister Scientiarum Geophysics
The equivalence is based on number of years. The system has changed a bit since 1968. We didn’t have PhD back then.
I [as you can see] have had a dual career in two different fields. The cv was geared at the computer experience. I have not needed one for the geophysics/solar physics one for many years so didn’t have one handy.
Leif Svalgaard,
Standish indicates that the ephemeris calculations are based upon general relativity, it is which relativistic time frame to use that is being discussed. He argues the earth’s time frame works well and is less complicated and less risk of error than using barycentric coordinate time.
I don’t think we rule out transfers of angular momentum between Jupiter and the Sun involving much of the Sun’s volume, but less than 2% of the sun’s mass as a possible significant influence on the solar dynamo.
Terry Oldberg,
I don’t agree with Scafetta’s assertion that Svalgaard must propose an alternative theory. We can all await one. Scafetta’s explanation of his results is arguably a theory. Although his results are for a limited time series of data, the extension of those results outside those time frames is theoretical, and new data may falsify it. Even if new data is consistent with the theory, the theory may still be falsified by better mechanisms, a more physical or accurate basis for the periodicity for instance, perhaps a more credible replacement for Saturn’s hypothesized role.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:05 am
I don’t think we rule out transfers of angular momentum between Jupiter and the Sun involving much of the Sun’s volume, but less than 2% of the sun’s mass as a possible significant influence on the solar dynamo.
The effects of extended bodies in G.R. is thought not to be significant when the bodies are small compared to their distance. There may be effects in very close-in pulsars and such, but even there the gravitational wave loss for PSR1913+16 calculated without regard to the problem with extended bodies matches very well the observations. In addition, the barycenter crew invokes Uranus and Neptune which are even smaller and much farther away.
that Svalgaard must propose an alternative theory. We can all await one.
I actually showed in my referee report that one gets three peaks simply by having an amplitude modulation of the regular [dynamo] solar cycle and that therefore the proposed tidal mechanism was not needed. The unobserved tidal effect by several close-in massive planets [and also the barycentric effects, if any] makes the tidal hypothesis in the solar system look ineffective. My conclusion [and that of the other referees] was that the paper was just numerological curve fitting as so many other ‘cycle’ claims and that yet another one would advance the science.
Volker Doormann says:
March 23, 2012 at 4:43 pm
I have published a paper on August 14 in 2010 on solar tide functions and a main cycle of 913.5 years .
http://www.volker-doormann.org/ghi_solar_s.pdf
The topic of this thread is the scientific value of claims stated by Dr. N, Scafetta.
As it is discussed, he has taken sinusoid cycles of years out of FFT analysis of available 2ky temperature spectra and claims these cycles plus a solar tide function as new.
But these thoughts are long known to him from my above paper.
Taking the real astronomical functions and fitting the strength of the tide couples one can match mostly all known temperature proxies:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_jux2.gif
From this it shows, that the Newton law of gravity is not the cause of this phenomenon; this can be argued by the significant time coherence of the non sinusoid function of the main couple of Quaoar and Pluto, because of the great ellipticity of Pluto.
This shows also, that the work of Scafetta summing up < 5 pure sinusoid cycles in calendar years has no scientific value, because it explains not from which geometry the cycles are coming from. A year has no own value in science.
To identify the cause of the geometry in solar tide functions is science, because geometry is science.
That solar tide functions of Mercury and Earth have a geometric relation to the global sea level oscillations is significant and was show here many times:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_ solar_tide.gif
There is a new paper by Peter A. Sturrock, showing that solar functions are changing the radioactive decay rate of isotopes on Earth, but also the distance Sun/Earth does change the decay rate.
It was shown here that the Homestake neutrino measurement has shown similarities to the global Earth temperatures.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_snu_ghi8.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_sst_snu_ghi8.gif
Physics is not settled.
Remark. All philosophical entertainment and attacking persons by names here is OT and spam because it explains not the reality of solar tide function from distant objects in the solar system and from near objects. (L. Wittgenstein citat is known here.)
V.
susan smith says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Thank you for your comment, Susan, but why on earth would you concern yourself with the credibility of the critics? Forget the critics, you should be focusing on the credibility of the critics’ ideas. That’s all that counts. It doesn’t matter whether E=MC^2 was discovered by a faithful man or a philanderer (he was). All that matters is whether the idea is true.
In other words, it’s not about me. It’s about whether my ideas, or Dr. Scafetta’s ideas, or your ideas, can withstand the slings and arrows of the outrageous criticism and investigation and falsification that is the hallmark of science.
My best to you, welcome to the discussion,
w.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:31 am
that yet another one would NOT advance the science.
wayne Job says:
March 23, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Thanks, wayne. I agree. We can only understand the climate within the context of the whole. And as I have said before, I do think that fluctuations in the sun could be affecting the climate. I simply have never found an explanation of the sun’s fluctuations, either through my own extensive investigations, nor through reading the work of others. In particular, I greatly distrust the picking of arbitrary cycles and extending them. When closely examined, to date they all fall apart.
My watchword is, “Nature simply isn’t that simple”. Every time I think it is, it’s not.
Fortunately, we have things like the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Carnot Cycle and the Constructal Law to help us make sense of the planet-sized constantly evolving and changing heat engine that is the climate.
Unfortunately, a constantly evolving entropy-maximizing natural heat engine is not generally taken as the appropriate paradigm for the climate.
Instead, a bozo-simple linear connection between forcing and response is the current paradigm.
Go figure.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 21, 2012 at 10:19 am
“…you can still claim that the parameters have some real-world basis because they are supposedly “closely related” to one of the literally hundreds of possible astronomical cycles.”
This is a valid criticism. Given the full set of astronomical cycles, it is not unlikely that you can find some which are close to those which, when arbitrarily combined, can reproduce whatever cyclic behavior you are trying to reproduce.
That the climate exhibits quasi-cyclic behavior is not plausibly deniable, try as some do. But, I still believe it is more likely due to random excitation of natural resonances, particularly one with an associated period near 60 years, in the ocean/land/atmospheric system of the Earth.
Legatus says:
March 21, 2012 at 9:40 am
“… if it was purely a random variation of climate cycles not related to the sun, it would not be nearly so regular.”
Not so. Random excitation of high Q resonances can produce very stable-appearing oscillations over finite intervals.
Dave Worley says:
March 21, 2012 at 10:33 am
“perigee”
Perihelion.
Steve from Rockwood says:
March 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Many people in this thread seem to misunderstand this point, though others see it clearly. But, for the record, so far as the Sun is concerned, the maximum effect it “feels” from Jupiter is the difference between Jupiter’s gravitational tug at the closest and most distant points (a.k.a., the “tidal force”). Otherwise, the two bodies are in gravitational free fall with respect to one another, i.e., they do not “sense” their relative accelerations.
lgl says:
March 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm
“Then the rest of the object, the Sun, has to counter that acceleration.”
See above comment to Steve from Rockwood: there is no actual acceleration. The bodies are following geodesics in space. That is why astronauts in orbit feel weightless.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 21, 2012 at 4:00 pm
“…all astronomers know (“jerking in space”) except Leif….he urgently need some introductory lectures on astronomy…”
No, Leif is right about this. See above.
dscott says:
March 21, 2012 at 2:00 pm
” If so, is it not reasonable to expect that different angles of magnetosphere orientations have greater or lesser shielding values to galactic cosmic rays?”
Though I think it is a long shot, that is the best hope I see for there being a significant linkage – basically a small “signal” modulating a larger one, similar to the way a transistor works to “amplify” its input.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:05 am
Leif Svalgaard,
Standish indicates that the ephemeris calculations are based upon general relativity, it is which relativistic time frame to use that is being discussed. He argues the earth’s time frame works well and is less complicated and less risk of error than using barycentric coordinate time.
I don’t think we rule out transfers of angular momentum between Jupiter and the Sun involving much of the Sun’s volume, but less than 2% of the sun’s mass as a possible significant influence on the solar dynamo.
My thanks to Martin Lewitt for this and his other comments. I hope he might find the time to enlarge on this one, for the benefit of those like myself who would like to understand more about the way the JPL ephemeris is constructed and the conceptual basis underlying the frame of reference it operates from.
I am in full agreement with him regarding the possibility that future research may discover that the synchronicity of Saturn’s motion may be augmented by other planetary motions which match the observed periodicities in solar activity and terrestrial climate fluctuations. In fact my own research and that of others within the small community which studies solar system dynamics as it relates to the possibility of solar-planetary feedbacks has already found several possible candidates.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/breakthrough-major-discovery-on-planetary-solar-connection/
Venus has a ‘tidal’ power on the Sun approximately equal to that of Jupiter, and as I discovered last night from an old Stanford University news release, two of the Sun’s deeper layers exhibit a countervailing speeding up and slowing down of latitudinal circulation which would be most simply described as ebb and flow – a tidal phenomenon. The periodicity of 1.3 years involved matches that of the interaction of tides on the Sun produced by Jupiter and Venus, in combination with the synodic period of Earth and Venus, and Earth’s orbital period, which matches the periodicity of a similar ‘ebb and flow’ at higher solar latitudes.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/the-sun-dances-the-soho-two-step/
There is an interesting analogy between these latitudinally differentiated tidal frequencies and terrestrial tidal and storm cycles, which have a 60 year component in oceanic oscillations near the equator, and a 45 year component at high latitudes, evidenced by many thousands of years of the formation of beach ridges on eustatically rebounding Siberian and Canadian shorelines. 60 and 45 year cyclicities abound in the synchronicities discovered in planetary motion.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/further-terrestrial-evidence-of-planetary-cycles-affecting-climate/
There is more in Heaven and Earth Pachaurio
Than is dreamp’t of in your philosophy
Bart says:
March 24, 2012 at 1:37 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 21, 2012 at 10:19 am
“…you can still claim that the parameters have some real-world basis because they are supposedly “closely related” to one of the literally hundreds of possible astronomical cycles.”
This is a valid criticism. Given the full set of astronomical cycles, it is not unlikely that you can find some which are close to those which, when arbitrarily combined, can reproduce whatever cyclic behavior you are trying to reproduce.
Most of the people who are developing the theory are not so naive as to latch onto just any combination of planetary periods which happen to match the solar and terrestrial cycles observed in proxy records and the instrumental records. Logical considerations related to the theoretical ‘power’ of the several possible physical mechanisms (tides, other types of spin orbit coupling, electromagnetic feedback) inform decisions about the relative likelihood of the effectiveness of different planet’s possible contributions. This ‘narrows the field’ considerably.
In this paper, Nicola Scafetta considers the solar system’s two biggest planets, Jupiter and Saturn. You found periodicities in sunspot data which independently led to the identification of periods which closely match those of these two planet’s interaction.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/bart-modeling-the-historical-sunspot-record-from-planetary-periods/
Which then led to my article:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/
Schwentek and Elling, back in 1984 observed that
“The clearly dominant spectral band in sunspot number, the solar cycle of 10.8 years. is given by the configuration period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.859 yr) times the ratio of their distances from the Sun (0.545)”
Further proof that the orbital distances and periods are intimately linked with fundamental solar quantities is given by the fact that :
Orbital Period (Earth) 1 year
————————————————- = Average Spin Rate (Sun) 0.0843 years = 30.79 days
Orbital Period (Jupiter) 11.86 years
There also seems to be a relationship between the period of conjunction and opposition of Jupiter and Saturn (half the synodic period), Earth’s orbital period and the solar rotation rate near the solar poles.
1 year
—————- = 0.1 years = 36.78 days
9.93 years
Furthermore, the Solar equatorial rotation rate is given by
3* Earth orbital period
___________________________ = 0.07 years = 24.5 days
2* Jupiter – Saturn Synodic period
Given these intimate relationships, it seems obvious to me that the relationships you would expect to develop in the formation of the solar system have been maintained as it has evolved.
That requires feedback. That means the solar system really is a system.
Bart says:
March 24, 2012 at 1:37 am
Given the full set of astronomical cycles, it is not unlikely that you [No, you] can find some which are close to those which, when arbitrarily combined, can reproduce whatever cyclic behavior you are trying to reproduce.
Well, first, do it, show it. Without showing it, it is your theory and nothing more.
Second, please state, that explizit by name, who is a svindler, because his comparisons are faked by arbitrary combined cycles.
The following reproductions are made of only one or two known astronomical cycles:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_edwards_2b.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_ed_plus_Gonzales.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_eddy_cos.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_eddy_zorita_echo.gif
I would be glad if you show here by arbitrary combination of the full set of astronomical cycles a reproduction of the temperature proxies from Eddy, Bob Edwards, Gonzales/Zorita, and hatcrut3 data.
What exactly is ‘arbitrary’ in science? What excactly is ‘random’ in science?
V.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 2:53 am
Furthermore, the Solar equatorial rotation rate is given by
3* Earth orbital period
___________________________ = 0.07 years = 24.5 days
2* Jupiter – Saturn Synodic period
The numerology never stops. How about the height of the Cheops pyramid being one billionth of the distance to the Sun.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 2:53 am
Furthermore, the Solar equatorial rotation rate is given by
3* Earth orbital period
___________________________ = 0.07 years = 24.5 days
2* Jupiter – Saturn Synodic period
Furthermore the numerology is even wrong, it should have been
3* Earth orbital period SQUARED
___________________________ = 0.07 years = 24.5 days
2* Jupiter + Saturn Synodic period
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 6:16 am
The numerology never stops. How about the height of the Cheops pyramid being one billionth of the distance to the Sun.
3:2 resonances are fairly common in the solar system, you only have to go as far out from the Sun as the planet Mercury to confirm that. Mercury revolves three times on its axis for each two orbits it makes around the Sun. This too is due to tidal action.
The ‘numerology’ as you deprecatingly call it, is part of the way the solar system is self organised and interconnected such that it has stability. Whether this is due to ‘natural selection’ of planets in unsuitable orbits getting pulverised or ejected from the system or due to a higher order organising principle is a question which has been puzzling mathematicians beyond both our pay scales for a long time.
Here’s some more interesting ‘numerology’ for those who still have the spark of scientific enquiry in their souls, rather than believing as Leif does that:
“There are things not worth discussing.
All has already been said about this subject.”
During the time it takes for Jupiter to complete 2/3 of an orbit, Venus will go past Earth five times, as Earth makes eight orbits, while Venus makes thirteen, and Mercury will pass Venus twenty one times, as it completes thirty four orbits of the Sun.
2,3,5,8,13,21,34. These numbers are in a familiar series, the Fibonacci sequence.
2+3=5
3+5=8
5+8=13
8+13=21
13+21=34
This shows that the orbital distances of these planets (and hence by Kepler’s laws their orbital periods), are not what they are by random chance, but form part of the patterns of resonance which feed back to modulate solar activity, which in turn supports the stability of the orbits through the pressure of the solar wind.
Leif once agreed with me that in the earlier stages of the evolution of the solar system, there was indeed spin-orbit coupling between the Sun and planets via the solar wind, but now maintains that the relationship no longer exists. I think the ongoing self regulation of the solar system as exhibited in the timings and the correlations with solar activity variation we have discovered strongly intimates the likelihood that it does still exist.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/feedback-loops-in-the-solar-system/
Leif, Thanks! Just curious, were you the corresponding author in any of your publications?
@ Gail Combs @terry Oldberg @Willis Eschenbach @poptech
The fallacy with the argumentum ad verecundiam occurs only when improper authority (meaning the authority is legitimate in other areas but not in the area of discussion, see below an example) is used. That may apply to some of the comments here using opinions of non-climate specialists to justify climate related opinions. Using legitimate authority does not constitute a fallacy. In a court trial, expert opinions are taken from experts with proper background, not just from anyone, and jurors will look at the credibility of the witnesses as well. A medical opinion from a medical doctor with extensive experience and training has more authority than someone with a limited medical background, that is why they (and other professionals) with proper background get license to practice. It is not always what is said, sometimes, especially when the issue relates to topics beyond commonsense and highly specialized areas, it also matters who said it. I think Poptech is correct.
But I have to agree, when Nicola Scafetta send the paper for publication in this forum, he opened up the avenue for criticism.
Robert (March 24, 2012 at 7:35 am):
Argumentum ad verecundiam translates to “argument from illegitimate authority.” In the federal courts of the U.S. and in most of the state courts, what is meant by “illegitimate” is disambiguated under the Daubert standard.
The Daubert standard clarifies the circumstances under which testimony can be represented to be “scientific” in court. The word “science” is derived from the Latin word “scientia” meaning “demonstrable knowledge.” However, in the English language “science” has acquired the additional definition of “the process that is operated by people calling themselves ‘scientists’.” Prior to the Daubert standard, the courts were faced with the question of whether to accept as “scientific” testimony from a person who called himself a “scientist” but presented knowledge that was not demonstrable. This person could be, for example, a creation “scientist.”
The Daubert standard disambiguated the words “science,” “scientific” and “scientist” such that “science”is “demonstrable knowledge.” Thus, for these courts, the authority of a “scientist” is illegitimate even though he/she comes to court bearing a PhD degree in a scientific discipline, oodles of peer reviewed papers in scientific journals, a faculty position in a scientific discipline with a prestigeous university, etc. but offers to present knowledge that is not demonstrable.
The conclusion emerges from the disambiguation under the Daubert standard that the methodology of the inquiry into AGW that was presented by IPCC Working Group I in AR4 was not “scientific” though the IPCC claimed it to be “scientific.” That it appeared to many to be “scientific” was a consequence from the ambiguity of reference by “scientific” to the associated ideas.
In the context of climatology, the disambiguation of “science,” “scientist” and “scientific” that is produced by the Daubert standard helps to clarify whether an authority is or is not illegitimate. It is illegitimate if the knowledge being presented is not demonstrable. It is easy to show that the knowledge that is presented to us be climatological models that include the IPCC’s and Dr. Scafetta’s is not demonstrable. It is not demonstrable because none of these models reference the statistical population that would be sampled in either validating or falsifying them.
I once asked a lawyer whether conformity to the Daubert standard would be required of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in proceedings related to the EPA’s finding that CO2 emissions were an “endangerment” hence could be regulated by the federal government. He thought is was. In these proceedings, the EPA based its finding on supposedly “scientific” testimony that was not “scientific” under the Daubert standard. Thus, the EPA’s finding may have been illegal.
Example of Argumentum ad Verecundiam (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html )
William Jenkins, the recent Nobel Prize winner in physics, states uncategorically that the flu virus will be controlled in essentially all of its forms by the year 2,050. The opinion of such a great man cannot be disregarded.
The Pompous Git(March 23, 2012 at 9:13 pm):
No problem.
Robert says:
March 24, 2012 at 7:35 am
Leif, Thanks! Just curious, were you the corresponding author in any of your publications?
For the ones where I was first author for sure.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 7:29 am
This shows that the orbital distances of these planets (and hence by Kepler’s laws their orbital periods), are not what they are by random chance, but form part of the patterns of resonance which feed back to modulate solar activity, which in turn supports the stability of the orbits through the pressure of the solar wind.
And that is where you go wrong. Those subtle tidal forces do not modulate solar activity from year to year [are much too weak] and the pressure of the solar wind is so minute that it does nothing to help support stability or anything else for that matter.
Leif once agreed with me that in the earlier stages of the evolution of the solar system, there was indeed spin-orbit coupling between the Sun and planets via the solar wind, but now maintains that the relationship no longer exists.
The contracting solar nebula was a gas pervaded by a strong frozen-in magnetic field so could provide a coupling via ‘magnetic braking’ [note this is one way], but that does not happen anymore.
Bart
there is no actual acceleration
Of course there is. Earth and Venus accelerate every 19 months due to their interaction, and they are both accelerated even more every 11 years by Jupiter. http://virakkraft.com/EMB-AM.png
Because the Sun and the inner planets as a whole are countering Jupiters motion, the Sun is forced to accelerate as well.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 7:29 am
2,3,5,8,13,21,34. These numbers are in a familiar series, the Fibonacci sequence.
This shows that the orbital distances of these planets (and hence by Kepler’s laws their orbital periods), are not what they are by random chance, but form part of the patterns of resonance
But the sequence breaks down and doesn’t hold anymore as you go further out. That tidal influences modifies the orbits over millions of years [also the Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid belt and the gaps in Saturn’s ring] is, of course, not in doubt. This is not the same as short-term modulation of solar activity.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:35 am
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 7:29 am
“2,3,5,8,13,21,34. These numbers are in a familiar series, the Fibonacci sequence.
This shows that the orbital distances of these planets (and hence by Kepler’s laws their orbital periods), are not what they are by random chance, but form part of the patterns of resonance ”
But the sequence breaks down and doesn’t hold anymore as you go further out. That tidal influences modifies the orbits over millions of years
And I shouldn’t have used the word ‘tidal forces’, as they are not. ‘Gravitational perturbations’ would have been better. A tidal force arises because of a difference between the gravitational force on one side of a body and the other side, and that is what gives us the familiar lunar tides, the kneading and heating of Io, and such, but not the changes in orbits.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:35 am
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 7:29 am
2,3,5,8,13,21,34. These numbers are in a familiar series, the Fibonacci sequence.
This shows that the orbital distances of these planets (and hence by Kepler’s laws their orbital periods), are not what they are by random chance, but form part of the patterns of resonance
But the sequence breaks down and doesn’t hold anymore as you go further out.
There are more patterns which encompass the more distant planets. However, the linkage between Jupiter, Earth Venus and Mercury is a strong exemplar and the alternating patterns within the alignments they form are consistent with the alternating rhythm of successive Schwabe cycles forming the Hale cycle of alternating Solar electro-magnetic polarity.
The system is a bi-polar alternator.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 2:53 am
Furthermore, the Solar equatorial rotation rate is given by
[…] 24.5 days
The bulk of the Sun rotates with a 26.5 day rate, but more importantly, the rotation rate decreases with age. It was much faster in the early sun and will continue to slow as the Sun ages:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/saas_fee_39/SaasFee39_Handout_L9.pdf
So are you suggesting the Earth moves away from the Sun in just such a way to always satisfy your numerological relation?
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 9:03 am
However, the linkage between Jupiter, Earth Venus and Mercury is a strong exemplar and the alternating patterns within the alignments they form are consistent with the alternating rhythm of successive Schwabe cycles forming the Hale cycle of alternating Solar electro-magnetic polarity.
You are conflating the gravitational perturbations with tides which they are not. And you are not consistent. It is precisely the close-in mega planet systems that should show the largest gravitational couplings and those do not show any correlation with magnetic activity.
The system is a bi-polar alternator.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001924/
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:18 am
tallbloke says:
Leif once agreed with me that in the earlier stages of the evolution of the solar system, there was indeed spin-orbit coupling between the Sun and planets via the solar wind, but now maintains that the relationship no longer exists.
The contracting solar nebula was a gas pervaded by a strong frozen-in magnetic field so could provide a coupling via ‘magnetic braking’ [note this is one way], but that does not happen anymore.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The torquing effect of ‘magnetic braking’ will act as much on the Sun as the planets. Newton will be demonstrating a spin-orbit coupling with his grave again. You don’t seem to believe that the magnetic ‘field lines’ leaving the equator of the sun have to eventually connect back into it at the poles either, in defiance of all logic and everything we know about electromagnetism. See Vuk’s excellent diagrams linked earlier.
The simple numerical relationships I have highlighted clearly show that the evolving solar system has been through a continuous series of pulsations which have organised the matter and its location in space in a way which demonstrates the necessity of ongoing cybernetic feedback between planets and Sun. The pulsations have been diminishing in amplitude and shortening in wavelength as time has gone on, just like the way a bouncing ball gradually has lower more frequent bounces, but they are still operative as the maintenance of the currently extant harmonic relationships demonstrates.
Anyway it’s your creation myth and you’re entitled to it. However it doesn’t fit the facts and doesn’t have as much explanatory power as our group of hypotheses, so as Nicola Scafetta put it earlier:
To oppose a scientific theory it is not enough to say: I do not believe in it. You must propose an alternative theory that agrees better with the data. Do you have it or not?
It’s a rhetorical question from Nicola, because your desire to destroy what other people create instead of proposing a coherent hypothesis of your own shows very clearly you haven’t got a better alternative.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 9:57 am
The torquing effect of ‘magnetic braking’ will act as much on the Sun as the planets
That is how the magnetic braking of the sun occurs. The magnetic field transferred solar angular momentum to the planets, not the other way around, and this is a one way process.
You don’t seem to believe that the magnetic ‘field lines’ leaving the equator of the sun have to eventually connect back into it at the poles either, in defiance of all logic and everything we know about electromagnetism. See Vuk’s excellent diagrams linked earlier.
The open field lines at the equator do, indeed, not connect back to the poles. They merge into the interstellar field and are lost from the solar system.
cybernetic feedback between planets and Sun.
the maintenance of the currently extant harmonic relationships demonstrates
Once those are set early on, they do not need to be ‘maintained’
It’s a rhetorical question from Nicola, because your desire to destroy what other people create instead of proposing a coherent hypothesis of your own shows very clearly you haven’t got a better alternative.
Pointing out sand castles built in the sky for what they does not require construction of another such castle. To imply a ‘desire to destroy what other people create’ is inappropriate.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 9:27 am
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 2:53 am
Furthermore, the Solar equatorial rotation rate is given by
[…] 24.5 days
The bulk of the Sun rotates with a 26.5 day rate, but more importantly, the rotation rate decreases with age. It was much faster in the early sun and will continue to slow as the Sun ages:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/saas_fee_39/SaasFee39_Handout_L9.pdf
So are you suggesting the Earth moves away from the Sun in just such a way to always satisfy your numerological relation?
Good question. There are a couple of possible scenarios. In scenario one, during its evolution, the Solar System will have gone through various stages where the stability of the orbits will have broken down due to a gradual change in the solar output beyond the ability of the extant configuration of planetary orbits to modulate in order to keep it in a tenable state. This would lead to a more chaotic period where planet smashing events may have occurred. Such is the dynamic nature of the system. However, logic tells us that the system ‘recovers’ from these phases and the distribution of matter self reorganises in a way that once more is ‘in tune’ with the Sun and can modulate the solar output within a range which maintains relative stability over a long epoch.
I say ‘relative stability’ because according to some papers I have read, the mathematical models show that a many bodied system is unlikely to ever be completely stable. However, these models don’t include the feedback mechanism I propose, and so it may be the case that scenario two holds.
In that scenario, the type of planetary modulation of the Solar output proposed by Wolff and Patrone is sufficient to hold the solar variation within bounds in which the planetary configuration can remain pretty stable. Given that we don’t have more asteroid belts than planets, it seems that the planetary-solar feedback mechanism works pretty well. Plenty of imponderables make it impossible to be sure at this stage though.
Terry Oldberg: The relation from the complete set of predictions that are made by a study’s model to the set of independent events in this study’s statistical population is one-to-one. It is by drawing a sample from this population and comparing the relative frequencies of the predicted to the observed outcomes of the events that one falsifies or validates the model.In a model that makes projections, there is no population hence no possibility of falsifying or validating the model. If you were to search for the population underlying models referenced by the IPCC in AR4, you’d search in vain.
I don’t think it is as hard to test IPCC AR4 “projections” as you make it sound. Each model projection has computed values for the globally averaged mean temperature for each year for decades into the future. Meanwhile, globally averaged mean temperatures (the average of the readings of extant thermometers) will become available year by year; if the modeled values are sufficiently discrepant from the observed sequence, then the models will be judged to have failed. I think you might have found an unusually abstruse way of saying that the exact sampling distribution of (some function of) the disparities between the data and models can’t be known, but the exact sampling distributions are never known; for the temperature time series, an approximate distribution of something (say, the CUSUM) will be computed year-by-year, and it will be clear whether the model values are close to the obtained values or not.
So I come back to my earlier point/question: I do not think that there is an operational distinction among “projection”, “forecast”, “prediction”, “scenario” for the climate models. If the models make predictions that are not clearly accurate by sharable and describable criteria, then the models will be judged to have been false. Sooner or later, the models have to establish a track record of consistently being no worse than expected error under diverse sampling distributions.
For those readers still following the discussion of credentials, my PhD is in statistics, and I have experience fitting non-linear dynamic models to non-stationary multivariate time series. With that, it is my sense that the criticisms of the non-PhDs Willis Eschenbach and Leif Svalgaard are pertinent and sound. Dr Scafetta, though he may be correct, has done a poor job of countering those criticisms. What matters are the ideas and the science behind them, in this forum, not the academic degrees.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler (March 24, 2012 at 10:27 am):
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Now that I know you have a PhD in statistics, I can adapt my response to a guess about what you know and don’t know.
Academia has been remiss in teaching statistics students about 35 year old developments in information theory that make it possible for one to build a model without logical error. A consequence is for nearly all models that are used in practical decision making to contain logical errors. To conflate the idea that is referenced by “projection” with the idea that is referenced by “prediction” leads to some of these errors.
In building a model, decisions must be made upon the inferences that are made by this model. In making these decisions, model builders (including statisticians) generally employ intuitive rules of thumb; to give them a name, I’ll call these rules “heuristics.”
When an inference is made by a model, there usually are many candidates for being made. Thus, the model builder is faced with discrimination of the one correct inference from the many incorrect ones. In each case in which a particular heuristic identifies a particular inference as the one correct inference, a different heuristic identifies a different inference as the one correct inference. In this way, the method of heuristics negates Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction. This non-contradiction is a principle of logical reasoning.
The law of non-contradiction is a true proposition. The negated law is a false proposition. Using the negated law as a false premise to a specious argument it is possible for one to lead one’s dupes to believe that a conclusion is true when this conclusion is false or unproved. In an article published last year ( http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ ), I demonstrate that arguments having this character have been made by the IPCC in supporting its conclusion of CAGW from manmade CO2 emissions. One of these arguments relies upon conflation of the idea that is referenced by the term “projection” with the idea that is referenced by the term “prediction.” When the two terms are conflated in this way, a consequence is for the law of non-contradiction to be violated and for the IPCC’s unproved conclusion to appear to be true.
A study’s statistical population and a sample drawn from this population provide the sole basis for falsification of a model. The IPCC’s study doesn’t have one. Neither does Dr. Scafetta’s.
Using modern information theory, it is possible to build a model without logical error. Models that are built in this manner consistently outperform models that are built under the method of heuristics. Often, when models are built under the method of heuristics they fail when tested or in service.
An error-free model cannot be built in lieu of a statistical population for this population provides a portion of the information for the development of the model and all of the information for the testing of the model. Using the method of heuristics, one can bypass the requirement for a population but the resulting model will be failure prone, suboptimal and riddled with logical errors.
Error free models outperform because they are based upon all of the available information but no more. Heuristically based models underperform because they are based upon more than the available information or less than this information or more than the available information with respect to some inferences and less with respect to others.
tallbloke: It’s a rhetorical question from Nicola, because your desire to destroy what other people create instead of proposing a coherent hypothesis of your own shows very clearly you haven’t got a better alternative.
As I wrote earlier, criticism of proposals is one of the jobs of scientists, not something that follows from a desire to destroy — it follows from a desire to understand and know. If there is no really good alternative coherent hypothesis (as may be the case with respect to CO2 and other influences on climate fluctuations) that means that we are ignorant of important details. Any shame or embarrassment is not because of ignorance, but because of unwarranted claims to knowledge. In science, “unwarranted” includes claims made in defiance of criticisms without adequately countering the criticisms, without subjecting the claims to rigorous tests, or with accusations that critics act from bad faith.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 10:25 am
In that scenario, the type of planetary modulation of the Solar output proposed by Wolff and Patrone is sufficient to hold the solar variation within bounds in which the planetary configuration can remain pretty stable.
I have already told you why the Wolff-Padrone mechanism doesn’t work.
However, logic tells us that the system ‘recovers’ from these phases and the distribution of matter self reorganises in a way that once more is ‘in tune’ with the Sun and can modulate the solar output within a range which maintains relative stability over a long epoch.
This is teleology, not logic. And take a look at the variety of ‘solar systems’ displayed in my slide 19 at the top of this article. No Fibonacci numbers there.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 10:16 am
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 9:57 am
The torquing effect of ‘magnetic braking’ will act as much on the Sun as the planets
That is how the magnetic braking of the sun occurs. The magnetic field transferred solar angular momentum to the planets, not the other way around, and this is a one way process.
You missed a bit out Leif. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Speeding the planets up slows the Sun down. Step one in how the planets modulate solar activity levels.
The open field lines at the equator do, indeed, not connect back to the poles. They merge into the interstellar field and are lost from the solar system.
Recent NASA data shows otherwise. At least a proportion of of the solar wind veers off ‘sideways’ where it meets the heliopause, according to what Voyager data shows. It’s not too much of a step to think it might recycle back to the centre of the system.
cybernetic feedback between planets and Sun.
the maintenance of the currently extant harmonic relationships demonstrates….
Once those are set early on, they do not need to be ‘maintained’
Only if you believe in Newton’s ‘innate force of the planets’. Personally, since the discovery that space is not an empty vacuum, but teeming with particles and forces, I don’t.
It’s a rhetorical question from Nicola, because your desire to destroy what other people create instead of proposing a coherent hypothesis of your own shows very clearly you haven’t got a better alternative.
Pointing out sand castles built in the sky for what they [are] does not require construction of another such castle. To imply a ‘desire to destroy what other people create’ is inappropriate.
I’ll do you a deal. You refrain from saying inappropriate things and I will too.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 10:45 am
You missed a bit out Leif. Speeding the planets up slows the Sun down. Step one in how the planets modulate solar activity levels.
As I said, ‘magnetic braking’. That is how the sun got its slow rotation, but it is a one-way street, there is no step two. Same thing, BTW, with the Moon.
Recent NASA data shows otherwise. At least a proportion of of the solar wind veers off ‘sideways’ where it meets the heliopause, according to what Voyager data shows. It’s not too much of a step to think it might recycle back to the centre of the system.
Of course, sideways, but not backwards. And it is too much of a step to think otherwise as the solar wind is supersonic outwards.
Personally, since the discovery that space is not an empty vacuum, but teeming with particles and forces, I don’t.
Space is a better vacuum than we can make. It is not ‘teeming’ with anything [except on the quantum level – which doesn’t come in play here].
I’ll do you a deal. You refrain from saying inappropriate things and I will too.
Since your definition of ‘inappropriate’ seems very different from mine, this ‘deal’ will not work, but you can try, beginning now.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 11:04 am
It’s not too much of a step to think it might recycle back to the centre of the system.
In the outer solar system the equatorial field lines wrap around the Sun, and around, and around. Vuk’s picture is as wrong as it can be.
Can we try this with perigean spring tides ?
So the beat period of half the lunar synodic period and the anomalistic month is 32.28078 days !
And here is where the magic comes in, we average the half synodic period with the anomalistic month, and obtain further beat periods of 97.7738 days, and 49.7963 days !
How am I doing ?
lgl says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:34 am
“Earth and Venus accelerate every 19 months due to their interaction, and they are both accelerated even more every 11 years by Jupiter. http://virakkraft.com/EMB-AM.png
Because the Sun and the inner planets as a whole are countering Jupiters motion, the Sun is forced to accelerate as well.”
I was speaking at too high a level of abstraction. Let me try to make this elementary. When you are in a car and you make a sharp turn, you feel the acceleration. Why? Because the parts of your body which are in contact with the vehicle are being accelerated with the car, but the rest of your body isn’t. Because of this non-uniform application of acceleration, your nerves sense the stresses induced in your body to keep it all going in the same general direction as the vehicle.
But, a satellite e.g., in a gravity slingshot maneuver “feels” (or, would feel, if it were able) no stresses, because gravity, to the extent that it is uniform in the local reference frame, “pulls” on every particle of the body by the same amount. Where there is no differential stress, there is no effect on the body.
That is why tidal forces are the only things which can produce any net change in the body from mutual gravitation with other bodies, no matter what wild squiggles its center of mass appears to be carving out in an inertial reference frame.
The tidal acceleration of the Sun due to Jupiter is on the order of 2 X mu X D / R^3, where mu is Jupiter’s gravity parameter of 1.26X10^17 m^3/s^2. R is the distance from Jupiter to the Sun of 7.8X10^11 meters, and D is the mean diameter of the Sun of 1.4X10^9 meters. That works out to 0.74 nano-meters per second per second. This is a value which we engineers call “very small”.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 6:16 am
The numerology never stops. How about the height of the Cheops pyramid being one billionth of the distance to the Sun.
http://www.sectioaurea.com/sectioaurea/piram.gif
“But, a satellite e.g., in a gravity slingshot maneuver…”
I meant satellite in a colloquial sense there. A “satellite” is generally in a closed orbit around the main body. I should have said “space vehicle” or “spacecraft” or “rocket ship” or some such to be precise.
Michele Casati says:
March 24, 2012 at 11:40 am
“The numerology never stops. How about the height of the Cheops pyramid being one billionth of the distance to the Sun.”
http://www.sectioaurea.com/sectioaurea/piram.gif
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/cheops-pyramid-squaring-the-circle-pi-and-the-decimal-system/
Actually, i should have been a bit more precise: a one billionth of the distance to the barycenter at closest approach back 4572 years ago
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 2:53 am
Thanks, tallbloke. To date, Dr. Scafetta has attempted to convince us that climate can be explained by the following combinations of cycles:
First Post: 20 and 60 year cycles. These were supposed to be related to some astronomical cycles which were never made clear, but which might have been kind of close to one and three times the Jupiter/Saturn synodic cycles
Second Post: 9.1, 10-11, 20 and 60 year cycles. These were supposed to be related to:
9.1 years : this was justified as being sort of near to a calculation of (2X+Y)/4, where X and Y are lunar precession cycles,
“10-11″ years: he never said where he got this one, or why it’s so vague.
20 years: supposedly close to an average of the sun’s barycentric velocity period.
60 years: kinda like three times the synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn. Why not four times? Who knows.
Third Post: (this paper). 9.98, 10.9, and 11.86 year cycles. These are claimed to be
9.98 years: slightly different from a long-term average of the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn.
10.87 years: may be related to a quasi 11-year solar cycle … or not.
11.86 years: Jupiter’s sidereal period.
So while it may certainly be true, as you say, that ” Most of the people who are developing the theory are not so naive as to latch onto just any combination of planetary periods”, Dr. Scafetta is clearly not one of the “most of the people” you are talking about …
Even in this paper, he justifies his choice of cycles by reference to Figure 3a, which shows peaks at “5-6”, “8-8.5”, “~ 9.98”, “~ 10.90”, “~ 11.86”, “~ 14.83”, “~ 21.20”, and “~ 28.63”.
Why has he chosen just three of those? Why not four? Why not two? What happened to the 20 year cycles he was so passionately defending in his last two forays into this question?
And more to the point, why are two of his choices exactly the numbers given in his Figure 3a, while the third number (10.87 years) is slightly different? Do you truly believe that if the actual number (10.9 years) had worked he would not have used that?
He has chosen these numbers, and not the other numbers from Figure 3a, because those didn’t happen to give him the answer he wants. This is curve fitting, pure and simple.
Finally, as I said above, you should be very, very careful about beat frequencies between closely related cycle lengths. The problem is that when the cycle lengths are very close, the location of the beats is critically related to the exact length of the periods. When you change one even the slightest amount, you get very different locations for your beats. Yes, you can replicate a given signal this way … but you’re just adjusting parameters to give the desired answer.
For example, consider the synodic period, not of Jupiter and Saturn, but of Scafetta’s frequencies. The synodic period of two of his chosen frequencies, 9.98 and 10.87 years, is 121.89 years. Over the 2,000 years he considers, we get about 17 of those cycles, for a total of ~ 2072 years.
But if we use the actual numbers from Figure 3a, 9.98 and 10.9 years, the synodic period is only 118.24 years. As a result, 17 synodic cycles is a full 60 years shorter, at ~2010 years.
Do you begin to see why Scafetta is rarely using actual astronomical cycles, but instead only carefully chosen numbers that are kind of close to actual cycles? Because the actual cycles don’t give him the results he wants, so he goes for the ‘it’s close to (2X + Y)/4 lunar cycles’ nonsense instead. If the actual numbers gave him the results he wanted, he’d have used 10.9 years.
He gets away with it because most folks don’t realize that a tiny change in close cycle lengths makes a huge change in the beat frequencies. As a result, people think “10.9 or 10.87, what’s the difference?”, when in fact there’s a large difference.
And then people want to bust me, saying I’m nitpicking and I shouldn’t pay attention to these small details, insisting that the small decimals don’t matter … yes, they do matter, they make a very large difference.
All the best,
w.
The tragedy with people who think they must shield and protect their holy science from revolutionary thoughts is as long as mankind has stated quotes in scriptures. But this behaviour is not science, it is religion. The fallacy which is used from these people is known as Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion. If there are new insights on facts in nature, it is a fallacy to counter these science with irrelevant arguments, or that bad NO statement from an authority. Naturally it would be possible to bring stronger arguments to the given revolutionary arguments, but this is not to be done; the new thoughts are refuted by authority and irrelevant conclusions sometimes added with ad hominam arguments.
This behaviour is not limited to new insights in physics, but also if one takes simple things used in physics in question, like time, space, velocity, or resonance, all never proved as physical forces. It is stated that the effect of gravitational force is delayed by c, because Einstein say so, but the truth is that in every resonance process there is no delay; the objects follow ever immediately the geometrical law of I. Kepler, also if the bodies have distances from the sun of 900 AU like Sedna.
Scientists who are have look on the whole nature, physics is only a special part of science, more important is logic, algebra, the laws of harmony like the scales of music Pythagoras has formulated, and each child know as true.
There is also the causality claim that in physics an effect has to follow a cause, but if it should be true that each cause is connected to an prior effect, it can be shown that causality has no beginning, which is nonsense. Moreover all moving objects in the Milky Way moving perpetual after I. Kepler without any input and output energy .
To the tragedy of this era of physics of power monopole in the science community it is the decline of arguing in general, like all the dark age power people in the governments do.
In the non settled physics, there is an effect, that the fine structure constant seems not to be constant, but depends on the distance Earth/Sun. Moreover it is shown that the sizes oscillations of the Sun measured by Mt. Wilson can be shown in the decay rates of radioactive isotopes
http://volker-doormann.org/images/radium_decay.jpg
“This article presents a power-spectrum analysis of 2,350 measurements of the 90Sr/90Y decay process acquired over the interval 4 August 2002 to 6 February 2009 at the LomonosovMoscow State University (LMSU). As we have found for other long sequences of decay measurements, the power spectrum is dominated by a very strong annual oscillation. However, we also find a set of lowfrequency peaks, ranging from 0.26 year−1 to 3.98 year−1, which are very similar to an array of peaks in a power spectrum formed from Mt Wilson solar diameter measurements. The Mt Wilson measurements have been interpreted in terms of r-mode oscillations in a region where the sidereal rotation frequency is 12.08 year−1. We find that the LMSU measurements may also be attributed to the same type of r-mode oscillations in a solar region with the same sidereal rotation frequency. We propose that these oscillations occur in an inner tachocline that separates the radiative zone from a more slowly rotating solar core. Analyses of decay rates of radioactive elements acquired at Time Nature Explorations at the Lomonosov Moscow State University (LMSU) have revealed evidence for variability, specifically oscillations with periods of one year and of approximately one month [1]. We have noted [2] that an annual periodicity is also exhibited by data acquired at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) [3] and by data acquired at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) [4]. Power spectrum analysis of the BNL and PTB datasets also reveals a modulation with a period of order one month, which may be due to solar rotation [5–7]. It is also probable that the modifications of decay rates of radioactive nuclides are influenced by the relic neutrino flux [8]. … Concerning internal rotation rates, it is interesting to review the results of power spectrum analyses of the Super-Kamiokande solar neutrino data [23]. The most prominent peak in a power spectrum analysis of Super-Kamiokande data (in 5-day bins) is found at 9.43 year−1 [20]. If this peak is attributed to rotational modulation, it indicates that the Sun contains a region with a sidereal rotation rate of 10.43 year−1, which is suggestive of a slowly rotating core „ ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.3107v2.pdf )
To the decline of arguing by the science security army count the fact that the gravitation is decreasing prior and after a solar eclipse, although this is forbidden by Sir Newton.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/gravimeter_big.gif
These protectors of holy science make intense use of irrelevant conclusions but they never ever have shown anything what they can prove in nature, and this – sorry – includes the science journalists and most regulars in so called science blogs. But if some is arguing scientifically by reason, there seems to be wisdom by these nonlinear characters to know all what is to be recognized in science. But nonlinearity is not a method of science; it is a method of power hierarchy, and an abuse of holy science.
Whatever N. Scafetta has argued in his papers, it is the freedom of each magazine to filter manuscripts because of their own rules, but it is not in their power to discredit the author as person.
I have given up here to discuss on the level of the art of controversy which other have called mindf***ing like in the McCarthy era, when a physician from Russia was refuted by a power man with the given reason that his work in physics cannot have any scientific value because he is a communist. BTW. I have done 38 years in physical research and about 50 years in the science of astrology [do not reply on it].
Physicians make free use of logic, but they cannot show what the nature of logic IS. They claim to be able to discriminate true from false, but are unable to give prove of the used reference.
It is very easy to claim all talk as a personal point of view, and it is most difficult until impossible to argue the order of nature with words. Science is only true in every present of a living consciousness. If people holding up their textbooks like the **** conditioned people, there is science not possible.
An easy argument is that more than one orders of nature are impossible because they must contradict each other. Reading all arguments given by conditioned scientists, it seems that there are millions of orders of nature.
However, I have given two years ago as first a link to solve the terrestrial climate for 6000 years, 5000 years back in time and 1000 years ahead.
Take it or not.
V.
Terry Oldberg
“The Daubert standard disambiguated the words “science,” “scientific” and “scientist” such that “science”is “demonstrable knowledge.” Thus, for these courts, the authority of a “scientist” is illegitimate even though he/she comes to court bearing a PhD degree in a scientific discipline, oodles of peer reviewed papers in scientific journals, a faculty position in a scientific discipline with a prestigeous university, etc. but offers to present knowledge that is not demonstrable.”
We are not looking at the definition of science, but who qualifies to be an expert witness in a field (it could be economics or art preservation). Demonstrable or not, a person with “a PhD degree in a scientific [or other directly relevant] discipline, oodles of peer reviewed papers in scientific journals, a faculty position in a scientific [or the relevant] discipline with a prestigeous university, etc.” is more of an authority in that discipline than a person without some of those qualifications. Just like the example I gave for a medical doctor, we assign more credibility to the ones with more credentials in that relevant area. There are no fallacies here.
On the other part, knowledge is most often demonstrable (knowledge is composed of facts, information, description, etc which can be reiterated again). So if “science” is “demonstrable knowledge”, then most everything will fall within it. But if it requires knowledge of demonstrable events, then it is an entirely different matter – and if we accept demonstrable events as the Danbert standard, then we cannot call a number of scientific areas as a part of science, evolution, big bang, a large part of archeology, … a long list that we cannot demonstrate. Questions on evolution had come up few times in the court, with expert testimony from both side (almost all of those experts fall into our general classification of a scientist with certain qualification).
Robert (March 24, 2012 at 12:30):
You say that “Demonstrable or nMarch 24, 2012 at 12:30:ot, a person with “a PhD degree in a scientific [or other directly relevant] discipline, oodles of peer reviewed papers in scientific journals, a faculty position in a scientific [or the relevant] discipline with a prestigeous university, etc.” is more of an authority in that discipline than a person without some of those qualifications.” Under the Daubert standard, your “authority” is not a legitimate authority unless his claims are falsifiable. This rule prevents dogmatists posing as scientists from giving “scientific” testimony.
Volker Doormann says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Not.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:33 pm
“Volker Doormann says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Take it or not.”
Not.
w.
qed
V.
@terry oldberg,
I am not supporting dogmatists posing as scientist, but scientists who provides rational explanations. Most concepts are falsifiable using aspects of our present knowledge – it may not be using a direct empirical date, but other components like commonly accepted logic, inference, etc. I am not even sure whether I am aware of a real unfalsifiable concept. Can you please give an example (not God related, which I consider to be philosophy and religion). But the question still remains as who is a legitimate authority even in such a case? I think a person with more credentials is more qualified than one without that.
Robert (March 24, 2012 at 12:30):
The IPCC’s contention that the magnitude of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS) is about 3 Celsius per CO2 doubling is an example of a non-falsifiable theory. Supposedly, TECS is the proportionality constant in a linear mathematical function that maps any change in the logarithm (to the base 2) of the atmospheric CO2 concentration to the change in Earth’s equilibrium global average surface air temperature. As the equilibrium temperature is not observable, the IPCC’s contention is insusceptible to being falsified. Those climatologists who assert the existence of TECS are examples of dogmatists posing as scientists.
More generally, any theory that fails to reference the associated statistical population is insusceptible to being falsified for its the statistically independent events that are the elements of such a population that would be observed in falsifying the theory. Interestingly, the IPCC’s theory of CAGW references no statistical population thus being insusceptible to falsification. Thus, the list of dogmatists posing as scientists can be extended to include the members of the IPCC “consensus.” This list can be further extended to include a number of so-called “skeptics.” A number of supposedly distinguished scientific journals regularly publish the theories of climatological dogmatists.
To Willis:
Nitpicking is another word for obstructionism: Like the little old ladies: Always some
complaint., never content, I guess the hormones………
What we talk about here is the, see title “New attempts to link climate change…..etc”,
which is the grand HEURISTIC ROAD for calculating global warming /climate change
with stone solid figures, and throwing nonsense-CO2 out once and for all….
The grand road to Rom exists: Nick did the first part of rediscovering/cleaning the road
from underbrush and dead wood. Now we are able so visualize it. Many stretches still
remain overgrown…. and the effect of nitpicking is throwing ADDITIONAL dead wood
and stones onto the RIGHT TRACK…..
A real Warmist would now jump up and invent out of the blue: “There is no road to
Rome or if there were one, it is the CO2-road….”…. we all know today, this is pure BS:
Why:
because (1) there always existed steady, harmonic historical “global warming/cooling
cycles on CENTENNIAL scale” (not just since 1850-2000 and the hockey stick…..as
Warmist invent), and those were
(2) already known to the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks, in 600 BC:
see Fernand Braudel, the historian of all historians in “Memories and the
Mediterranian”, quoting back in 1969 the “Conversations of Solon with the
Pharao”…..
These steady centennial cycles, ancient knowledge of mankind, are, to me,
to be humble, ASTRONOMICAL cycles and NOT man-made CO2-cycles, as
Warmists all invent……
Let me conclude: We have to join forces to clean the right road to Rome
following the good exemple of Nick Scafetta and everybody should do some
of road cleaning according to his capabilities…….
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
March 24, 2012 at 1:09 pm
You try to insult me by comparing me to a hormonal woman? That’s hilarious, Joachim, this is the 21st century. Clearly you don’t realize that you just cancelled your vote with half of the people on the planet … but I digress.
I made a number of valid points, and supported them.
You have not addressed any of that. Your response is to try to insult me, and then to claim that we should all jump in to help further Scafetta’s work. Your idea that it is wrong somehow to point out the glaring flaws and parameter fitting in what he has done.
I gotta shake my head. I don’t get it. Science proceeds by falsification. A scientist presents an idea. Other scientists try to poke holes in the logic or the data or the code or the math or the procedures used by the first scientist. If they can show that the conclusions are false, then the idea bites the dust.
In return, the first scientist (and others who believe in his work like yourself) try to defend his original claims in the same manner. They do that by falsifying the claims of those opposed to the first scientist’s work.
That’s science. Ideas become accepted, but not because we can prove they are true. They are accepted because no one opposed to the ideas could falsify them. Science is not rainbows and friends clearing the road to Rome.
Science is an adversarial process that only works by disagreement. There have to be disbelievers to make science proceed.
You, on the other hand, think that when Scafetta makes his claims we should ALL be his friends and try to further his work. In your words:
I understand that you think that. I, on the other hand, think that Scafetta is doing trivial curve-fitting using, of all things, three cycles with only slightly differing periods. I have shown how this allows for large changes in the results from tiny (hundredths of a year) adjustments in the parameters. This allows for what might be called stealth fitting, because it allows for a wide range of results from cycles that are “close to” astronomical cycles.
I think Scafetta’s drilling dry holes. I’ve seen him argue that one cycle is set by the long-term average of (2X + Y)/4, where X and Y are lunar cycles, and I’m afraid I call that lunacy.
So why on earth would you expect me to be his friend and advance his ideas? I’m the necessary opposition. Get used to it and stop complaining that I’m doing my job, I’m not going to Rome to praise Caesar, I’m with the burial detail.
In friendship,
w.
PS—regarding the ragged appearance of your text above, it is due to the carriage return that you (or perhaps the word processor you are working in) are adding to each line.
The problem is that WUWT uses a very thin columnar form, thinner than the “Leave a Reply” box where I’m typing this reply. So it can look just fine when you are composing it, but when it is published, you end up with the jagged and confusing result shown by your comment above.
You only need a carriage return at the end of a paragraph. Some word processors add them by default, so if you are composing offline, that may be the problem.
To Willis: (1) There is the distinct line between saying (even to autorities):
“You remind me of…..X Y Z- bad” and “You ARE ….X Y Z- bad”, the
latter being the insult, the first is not….(there is no insult saying as well: “I
only think you are a X Y Z-bad but I am NOT telling you so….). So much
to the little old ladies…..
(2) Thank you for your comment about my rugged comment appearance,
it bothered me for months already…..I have to make my comment lines
shorter, which I do already, but It seems I miss the right spacing…..
(3) AGW is pure nonsense/BS and the global warming/cooling
mechanism including for over 40,000 years of paleotime scales has
already been detected (ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4 on German Amazon.de)
and meticulously and transparently calculated for everyone….
What is only missing in this CENTENNIAL cyclic warming/cooling of (3) is
the CYCLIC (medium term) APPEARANCE of this (longterm) centennial
mechanism, and this is the achievement of Nick Scafetta to point it out….
I have left this medium term cycle in the booklet as being (probably) caused
by polar cyclic melting…
Now, even this medium term term cycle is ASTRONOMICAl as well….no
cyclic melting….. and another blow to ATMOSPHERIC physicists…due to
.another cycle astronomic (the 60 year cycle) …not atmospheric….
There remain only a few minor SHORT TIMERS as atmospheric such as
ENSO, AMO, Volcanoes, wind flow patterns left as atmospheric CAUSES….
(4) Since this is what we are talking about in climate in (3), the question is
whether any critizism is a CONSTRUCTIVE critizism or only a
DECONSTRUCTIVe critizism.(AIMED at what? Derailing what for?….
A constructive critizism carries human understanding forward,
(progress in science)….only debunking AGW is not enough, we have to
stride forward with our astronomic cycles …..but deconstructive critizism
for the sake of critizism is not a scientific progress cleaning our road
to Rome from AGW weeds, stones and underbrush…..
The contributer Terry is the semantics guy who could explain (4) in detail,
I believe…..Cheers
JS
Terry Oldberg: Error free models outperform because they are based upon all of the available information but no more. Heuristically based models underperform because they are based upon more than the available information or less than this information or more than the available information with respect to some inferences and less with respect to others.
You have examples of that? Can you proffer even one “error free” model of empirical phenomena?
Mathematical modeling of empirical phenomena and statistical testing (and estimation of parameters) is always about heuristics, and it almost never (as far as I know: never) perfectly logical.
I am puzzled that you think Scafetta’s model and the IPCC AR4 models can’t be disconfirmed. Leif Svalgaard gave a reason above to support a claim that Scafetta’s model has already been disconfirmed; and I outlined procedures by which Scafetta’s model and all the IPCC models might be disconfirmed if the data turn out far from the model.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler (March 24, 2012 at
Citations to models not built throught the use of heuristics but rather under the principles of logical reasoning are available in the bibliography at my company Web site. The URL is http://www.knowledgetothemax.com. Some were built by the team that I once managed for the Electric Power Research Institute. The papers entitled “Entropy Minimax Multivariate Statistical Modeling-I Theory (Int J. General Systems, 1985, Vol. 11 pp. 231-277) and “Entropy Minimax Multivariate Statistical Modeling-II Applications (Int. J. General Systems, 1986, Vol. 12,227-305) provide introductions to the theory and applications of it. The author of both papers is Ronald Christensen; he invented the theory in 1963 and was a factor in many of the applications. It might be helpful to you to know that through the use of information theory is is possible to extract a model from sources of information that include observed events, natural laws and mechanistic models without the assumption of a parametric form. There is a single empirically determined parameter whose task is to establish the level of the missing information in the various information sources. Christensen’s insight stems from the realization that a model (aka theory) can be construed to be the algorithm for an optimal decoder of a “message” consisting of the the unobserved outcomes in a sequence of independent events. The rules for the construction of this algorithm are the principles of logical reasoning.
I’ve not taken a look at your argument for disconfirmation of Nicola’s model or at Leif’s so can’t comment on the validity of these arguments.
Willis Eschenbach (March 24, 2012 at 2:02 pm):
Thank you for pointing out the essential role of falsifiability in the scientific method. This is to add that the house of cards known as AGW and the house of cards known as CAGW are both brought down by the requirement for falsifiability. It is a study’s statistical population that supplies the falsifiability. Neither AGW nor CAGW has one.
Leif Svalgaard says:
In the outer solar system the equatorial field lines wrap around the Sun, and around, and around. Vuk’s picture is as wrong as it can be.
Vuk’s picture is a cross section not a plan view
Anyway, from your description it doesn’t sound like this magnetic flux is in too much of a hurry to rush off to join the intersteller flux and be lost to the solar system.
What do you think the heliopause is made out of Leif? Nylon?
E.M.Smith says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:16 am
“…FWIW, folks really ought to keep in mind that the solar system is dominated by Orbital Resonances and all sorts of things happen at similar times for no good reason other than that they have balanced their energy over millions of years via small nudges. This paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full….
….So please do not disparage the folks who ‘wiggle match’ to planetary positions. It might well be that the planets are not causal of the event, yet causal of the Orbital Resonance that actually drives the (as yet undiscovered) agent of the event.”
Getting close EMS, I think. The sun has 98% of the solar system mass and, I would guess, even more of the solar system EM charge field – this simply because the sun is hotter. In addition, the sun also has a variable solar wind and is prone to sudden energetic events like CME’s. Therefore, I think it likely that the observed cyclic correlations between planetary orbits and levels of solar activity are of solar origin, otherwise the tail would be wagging the dog.
Rather it is more likely that planetary orbits have been entrained to the regular varying levels of solar activity over very long time scales. If we fully understood and could quantify the exact mechanism that caused this entrainment, it could be possible in the future to forecast solar activity level using planetary data. Providing we could also do the same for factors which alter planetary orbits which are external to the solar system.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 11:04 am
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 10:45 am
You missed a bit out Leif. Speeding the planets up slows the Sun down. Step one in how the planets modulate solar activity levels.
As I said, ‘magnetic braking’. That is how the sun got its slow rotation, but it is a one-way street, there is no step two. Same thing, BTW, with the Moon.
No, it’s completely different thing with the Moon. That’s because the Sun is generating lots of energy whereas Earth isn’t.
Recent NASA data shows otherwise. At least a proportion of of the solar wind veers off ‘sideways’ where it meets the heliopause, according to what Voyager data shows. It’s not too much of a step to think it might recycle back to the centre of the system.
Of course, sideways, but not backwards. And it is too much of a step to think otherwise as the solar wind is supersonic outwards.
Until it slows down and hits the heliopause, where it spreads sideways in all directions, forming the sheath of the heliopause, and then cycling back to the centre of the system via the azimuth and nadir, completing the magnetic circuit, as it must. Just like the arcing flares we observe on the solar surface. Open ended ‘field lines’ flapping around in space are a fiction. Magnetism doesn’t work that way. Ever.
Personally, since the discovery that space is not an empty vacuum, but teeming with particles and forces, I don’t.
Space is a better vacuum than we can make.
What does that have to do with the price of fish?
It is not ‘teeming’ with anything [except on the quantum level – which doesn’t come in play here].
What about all the protons (AKA hydrogen ions) and electrons in the solar wind? They have mass. And the interplanetary magnetic field, and the gravitational fields, and local interstellar clouds. You think planets carry the same momentum through that roiling medium for billions of years. I don’t buy it. They need to be supplied with outward directed energy to maintain their orbits against gravity as they lose energy to friction and so lose momentum.
Perfect billiard balls in a perfect vacuum suffering no losses of energy only exist in computer models.
Terry Oldberg: “The IPCC’s contention that the magnitude of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS) is about 3 Celsius per CO2 doubling is an example of a non-falsifiable theory……..Earth’s equilibrium global average surface air temperature. As the equilibrium temperature is not observable, the IPCC’s contention is insusceptible to being falsified.”
I do not know much on the details of IPCC predictions. But if I take what you wrote, I think it is falsifiable for the same conditions assumed by IPCC. Meaning whatever that IPCC calls equilibrium may be quasi-equilibrium, but for the same quasi-equilibrium system if one can show that the rise in temperature is only one degree, then it is falsifiable. I assume what IPCC is using is the rise in average surface temperature. Just because an absolute equilibrium does not exist does not mean that one cannot show that the rise in average surface temperature is 1 deg C rather than 3 deg C. I think it is falsifiable, if one has the data.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 24, 2012 at 3:23 pm
I despise this kind of vague attribution. I’m not fool enough to root through a bibliography looking for something you’ve waved your hand at.
If you have a model in mind, point to that model and nothing else. I’m not doing your work for you, and I’m damned if I’m going on a snipe hunt so that when I come back you can tell me no, sorry, I guessed the wrong model, try again.
Cite chapter and verse, point to the exact page and no other, or don’t bother citing at all.
w.
To Terry Oldberg:
Since you are our competent semantics specialist, I would ask for a litte
but terrific favour of training Willis on the difference between a constructive and
a deconstructive criticism, the notion of criticism for the sake of criticism ….
“because there has to be criticism” and that “”somebody MUST be the devil’s
advocate…. ” and to be a Judas Iskarios to advance the destined cruzification……
JS
I wasn’t confused as I did simply did not know. That comment was in relation to others here. You should make a bio available on your website that includes your education and career details. I would recommend listing your education as,
Leif Svalgaard, Mag. Scient. [Ph.D.] Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (1968)
When you state “Ph.D. equivalent” it just leads to more unnecessary speculation, people will falsely believe you are trying to massage your credentials. As stated above it lists your actual degree and it’s equivalent so anyone who doubts it can research “Mag. Scient.” for themselves.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 24, 2012 at 4:00 pm
I’m happy to be schooled by anyone, Terry or otherwise, as long as are putting out good ideas.
However, again you misunderstand. Falsification is falsification. It is neither constructive nor deconstructive.
If someone could prove that E ≠ MC^2, that would be neither good nor bad, neither constructive nor deconstructive. It would just be another step in the long scientific path.
You seem to think I should offer Dr. Scafetta constructive criticism. Again you misunderstand. I think his work is garbage dressed up as science, and I have specified exactly why. My constructive criticism would be for him to return to his area of expertise, the modeling of physiological systems for diagnosing hypoxia and hyperoxia risk patients.
For me, it’s not an issue which way it comes out. Either he can support his ideas or not. Either they stand or they fall, and science advances either way. I see either as constructive.
Joachim, I put my ideas out on the public scientific chopping block just like Dr. Scafetta has. If someone can disprove my ideas, that’s great. I don’t like it, but that’s how we proceed. But I’m not whining about someone trying to disprove my ideas in a deconstructive manner. That’s what I expect, for them to try to tear my ideas apart and savage them however they can. I don’t expect constructive criticism.
Either they can disprove my ideas or they can’t. As a result, their style and manner is completely unimportant and immaterial, be it supportive, dismissive, supercilious, arrogant, submissive, or whatever it might be.
Regards,
w.
To Willis: Fine, you claim that all your comments as [positive] constructive,
no matter in which direction the argument goes….
Since Terry is frequently in the discussion, let us hear what he thinks
about engaging in constructive/deconstructive criticism…. He has a background
including Aristotl, which he recently mentioned….and the falsification theme….
But at this point we should not get too philosophical if an argument REALLY
were constructive or [opinion} SEEMS to be (not/yes) constructive….
….. Clear is, that the road to Rome also has bents and junctions, some of which
lead into nothing……no problem, then we go back until we hit solid ground
again from which to take the second junction choice…..[[this is called: spiritual
flexibility of the Climate Skeptics, whereas Warmists are obstinate and not willing
to go back beyond the time of CO2-hype…..]]
Criticism has to set in, once the covering brushes are getting TOO thick….
then better turn back and try another road…. healthy criticism should NOT
help either the Warmists nor the Defeatists…. Why prolong the time of the
dinosaurs when their time is obviously up? A constructive criticism instead
is looking for an/the enlighteded path (not religious, but in the
sense of 18 Cty enlightenment see works of Adam Smith….) and not only
mumbeling about too much undergrowth and rocks which obscure the road…
Regards JS
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 9:50 am
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 9:03 am
However, the linkage between Jupiter, Earth Venus and Mercury is a strong exemplar and the alternating patterns within the alignments they form are consistent with the alternating rhythm of successive Schwabe cycles forming the Hale cycle of alternating Solar electro-magnetic polarity.
You are conflating the gravitational perturbations with tides which they are not.
Actually, I’m leaving the question of the causative force open. I found that the alignment index model I used gave the best result when the alignments were calculated along the Parker spiral and solar wind speed adjusted. This indicates an electromagnetic relationship. However, that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the tides do some of the work and the E/M effect puts the final shape to the solar activity profile.
And you are not consistent. It is precisely the close-in mega planet systems that should show the largest gravitational couplings and those do not show any correlation with magnetic activity.
This is a spurious argument for several reasons. Firstly, we can’t observe the surface of stars with mega planets closely enough to see what is happening, because they are many light years away. Secondly, it’s the interaction of two or more planets which is affecting the Sun. Thirdly, Mega planets close to stars orbit very quickly, and so may not resonate within a suitable range with the parent body.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 24, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Let me try again to explain my position, which is not at all what you claim above.
I say it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether falsification is constructive or not. It’s still falsification.
I say I don’t care a bit whether someone falsifies one of my claims with a smile or with a snarl. If my claim is falsified, it’s falsified.
Science is about falsification, not about the manner or style of the falsification. That doesn’t matter one bit.
w.
@Vukcevic: …Sunspots (as the solar activity in general) in the origin and the consequence are essentially of the electro and magnetic nature, where the gravitational effects are negligible.
If we were to live in a world run only by gravity, we would be living in a Flintstones´ world. Fortunately nature it is not discriminatory and the spectrum has no divisions, we imagine those water tight compartments.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 3:10 pm
No, it’s completely different thing with the Moon. That’s because the Sun is generating lots of energy whereas Earth isn’t.
The thing that is the same is that it is a one-way street. Only goes one way: the central body slowing down.
and then cycling back to the centre of the system via the azimuth and nadir, completing the magnetic circuit, as it must. Just like the arcing flares we observe on the solar surface. Open ended ‘field lines’ flapping around in space are a fiction. Magnetism doesn’t work that way. Ever.
There is no magnetic circuit in the heliosphere to complete. The field lines close by connecting to the interstellar magnetic field and are lost to the sun, but are closed elsewhere way out in the Galaxy.
What about all the protons (AKA hydrogen ions) and electrons in the solar wind? They have mass. And the interplanetary magnetic field, and the gravitational fields, and local interstellar clouds.
Near the Earth there are five of those per cubic centimeter. which does not constitute a retarding medium. At Jupiter there is 1 per 5 cubic centimeter.
You think planets carry the same momentum through that roiling medium for billions of years. I don’t buy it. They need to be supplied with outward directed energy to maintain their orbits against gravity as they lose energy to friction and so lose momentum.
There is no friction to speak of. The mass of the solar wind hitting the Earth in a year is about 3000 tons, compared to the 30,000 tons of interplanetary dust and meteorites that hits the Earth per year. It is not the solar wind that props up the planets and prevent them from crashing into the Sun.
Poptech says:
March 24, 2012 at 4:27 pm
I wasn’t confused as I did simply did not know.
No problem.
make a bio available on your website that includes your education and career details.
Such out of date details do not bring anything to the table. What is important is the actual work I have done since and what I’m doing now, and there is a [long] list of publications relevant to the topic on the site. I also do not mention that I’m on the NASA/NOAA expert panel for prediction of the solar cycle and member of the International Astronomical Union “As a rule, Individual Membership in the IAU is open to scientists with a PhD or equivalent in a branch of astrophysics”, and was a Senior Research Scientist at Stanford, etc. All of this appeal to ‘authority’ is not needed and should not be an important factor. My arguments must stand on their own merit
[Italics corrected —w.]
Leif said, “Actually, i should have been a bit more precise: a one billionth of the distance to the barycenter at closest approach back 4572 years ago.”
Well there you go. The explanation for global warming. The tip of the pyramid is further (or is it closer) now! I am surprised no one has picked up on this up-until-now unknown correlation.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm
This is a spurious argument for several reasons. Firstly, we can’t observe the surface of stars with mega planets closely enough to see what is happening, because they are many light years away.
Yes we can, here is a picture: http://jumk.de/astronomie/special-stars/hd-12545.shtml
Secondly, it’s the interaction of two or more planets which is affecting the Sun.
The star systems I’m talking about [see e.g. slide 19 at top of this article] have many planets.
Thirdly, Mega planets close to stars orbit very quickly, and so may not resonate within a suitable range with the parent body.
The lack of correlation is seen both for close-in and far-out planet systems. And Tidal effects are direct, not a resonance. But, apparently, you are making so ‘special pleading’ that the solar system is unique. This I don’t buy.
To Willis: There are many readers out there and lets not bore them whether
falsification has an inheritant value in itself…. we should leave it with this,
because most points have been said…..
To sum up: Scafettas road cleaning to new scientifc knowledge on climate is
the right direction and my humble booklet indicates the light at its end …..
Therefore, all staying on the sidelines and trying to falsify the direction with
arguments that there were too many difficulties and imponderabilities and all
efforts to advance are condemned to be futile: too many cycles, too
much underbrush, fuzzyness, rocks in the data….etc. pp. is not useful.
A useful constructive criticism would have been suggestions of getting
bigger road clearing equipment in, using some slash/ burn and swamp
crossing methods in particularly concerning the AGW swamp, pointing out
new road consolidation technology…….
instead of sipping coke, trying to falfify the direction and “already knowing”
that the road is a dead end anyway…..
Lets give it a couple more months by then the astronomic orbit cycle road
will be in better visibility and we can resume the argument with enhanced
knowledge….
And I believe we could agree on that…..cheers
JS
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Joachim Seifert says:
March 24, 2012 at 5:05 pm
To Willis: Fine, you claim that all your comments as [positive] constructive,
no matter in which direction the argument goes….
Let me try again to explain my position, which is not at all what you claim above.
I say it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether falsification is constructive or not. It’s still falsification.
I say I don’t care a bit whether someone falsifies one of my claims with a smile or with a snarl. If my claim is falsified, it’s falsified.
Science is about falsification, not about the manner or style of the falsification. That doesn’t matter one bit.
w.
=====
Except of course when you don’t understand that your claim has been falsified: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/argo-and-the-ocean-temperature-maximum/#comment-896997
They bring to the table what your education and experience is. It is common practice for scientists to have a webpage with their CV. Having these easily available on your webpage or at Stanford allows people to learn this information. It is not meant to be used in place of a scientific argument. Failure to provide this will limit the number of people who will listen to your arguments. It also comes across incorrectly that either you do not have the credentials or are intentionally hiding them. This is easily avoidable and unnecessary. If credentials did not matter then they would never be asked for when you applied for a job. Having these easily available eliminates unnecessary speculation and will keep the discussion on your arguments as you prefer.
adolfogiurfa says:
March 24, 2012 at 5:37 pm
If we were to live in a world run only by gravity, we would be living in a Flintstones
Actually, gravity is the ultimate cause of almost everything: the sun wouldn’t shine [and we wouldn’t be here] if the protosun had not been compressed to high temperature by gravity, there would be no solar activity if the sun didn’t have a convection zone [controlled by gravity], the solar wind would not be accelerated to supersonic speed without the influence of gravity [being slowly removed because of diminution with height – removing a constriction as in a deLaval nozzle].
Myrrh says:
March 24, 2012 at 6:11 pm
If my claim is falsified, it’s falsified.
Please provide a list of all your claims that have been falsified…
Actually Leif Svalgaard’s CVs from various sources were confusing to me – he was at Stanford for a decade publishing a lot long ago, then went for computer related jobs and almost disappeared from the scientific area, with almost no publications for a while. That was confusing, why leave an area, that from all accounts, he passionately likes. But on your comment that ”All of this appeal to ‘authority’ is not needed and should not be an important factor. My arguments must stand on their own merit”, there are so many people and so many opinions, it is difficult to pay attention to each and every opinion – so authority in the area helps for people to pay more attention.
I think Willis Eschenbach’s view (Science is an adversarial process that only works by disagreement. ) is rather unusual. Science consists of new discoveries, inventions, theories, knowledge, etc., which should be verifiable through actual experiments, thought experiments, etc. Other scientists try to verify them before building on it. But being adversarial and taking the responsibility to poke holes in someone’s theory are not a mainstream pattern – probably some would do that. Most often scientist try to build on other scientific advances rather than spending a disproportionate amount of time trying to see whether one can destroy that theory with all available means.
The mathematical connections of our solar system in particular the fibonacci series give no doubt that over arching rules govern the planetary position of orbits. This can only mean that they are all in some way controlled and connected or the maths would be all over the place.
To reject maths as astrology because it is applied to the heavens is very poor science, the sinodic nature of the long term climate record cannot be explained by the Earths tilt and wobble, nor the precession.
Some thing causes our long term climate fluctuations on a series of overlapping long and short term sine waves. Looking to the heavens to find the causes is prudent as it is harmonics and sine waves all the way down.
Nicola and others are searching, and mathematics and observations are the only weapons, this research may gain more than an insight into our long term climate, but may also find the answers to some of the mysteries that have eluded us about planetary mechanics.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Myrrh says:
March 24, 2012 at 6:11 pm
If my claim is falsified, it’s falsified.
Please provide a list of all your claims that have been falsified…
==========
Myrrh didn’t say that.
This paper presents a mathematical formulation that is connected with the orbital parameters of the two most massive planets and with the sun’s intrinsic inertial properties. It seems to capture the behavior of solar activity in general on the millennial, centennial and even decadal scales, so it may be useful if it continues to make useful predictions. It is best to keep it simple for now, as Dr Scafetta has done.
Some tweaks suggest themselves. The equations do not exhibit the Gnevyshev-Ohl rule (odd cycles usually stronger than the succeeding even cycles). When it is desired to connect the mechanics behind these solar activity cycles with earth temperatures, temperature lag times and solar/lunar tidal effects will have to be considered.
In my opinion Dr Scafetta has bravely gone where no man has gone before (since Kepler) in publishing on solar activity as related to planetary orbital mechanics using modern mathematical analysis. He does this in the face of an entrenched establishment with vested interests in AGW and which really doesn’t want to know. It is hoped that others will join him.
Robert says:
“…being adversarial and taking the responsibility to poke holes in someone’s theory are not a mainstream pattern – probably some would do that. Most often scientist try to build on other scientific advances rather than spending a disproportionate amount of time trying to see whether one can destroy that theory with all available means.”
It is that way because the entrenched, ossified clique that does its best to control peer reviewed journals can make life hell for anyone questioning their opinions – even with good reason. For example:
http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/upload/2009/08/how_to_publish_a_scientific_co/How%20to%20Publish%20a%20Comment.pdf
Would there be a better match in these cycles if the year was 360 days long from around 5,000 years back?
pochas says:
March 24, 2012 at 6:52 pm
In my opinion Dr Scafetta has bravely gone where no man has gone before (since Kepler) in publishing on solar activity as related to planetary orbital mechanics using modern mathematical analysis.
There are hundreds of papers that have gone there since Kepler…
He does this in the face of an entrenched establishment with vested interests in AGW and which really doesn’t want to know.
You have this completely backwards. Every solar physicist would wish there really were a viable connection between solar activity and climate/weather. It would do wonders for funding and support and prestige of the field. Hoyt & Schatten lists 1908 papers on this published between 1850 and 1992 alone.
I compiled what I could based on what was available,
Leif Svalgaard, Mag. Scient. [Ph.D.] Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (1968); Research Assistant, Danish Meteorological Institute, Denmark (1964-1967); Teaching Assistant, Institute for Numerical Analysis, Universtity of Copenhagen, Denmark (1964-1967); Observer, ‘Inge Lehmann’ Geomagnetic Observatory, Greenland (1967); System Programmer, Regnecentralen A/S, Denmark (1968-1971); Senior Research Physicist, Institute for Plasma Physics, Stanford University (1972-1978); U.S. Special Representative, Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection with the U.S.S.R. (1976); Chief Programmer, Lockheed (1979-1984); Developer, SEMA Group, Belgium (1984-1991); Chief Programmer, Quixx Corporation (1992-1993); Director of Development, T.O.S.C. International (1994-1998); Senior Developer, PentaSafe Security Technologies (1999-2000); Visiting Professor, Solar Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, University of Nagoya, Japan (2004); Member, International Astronomical Union; Member, Division II Commission 12 WG Coordination of Synoptic Observations of the Sun, International Astronomical Union; Member, Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel, NOAA, NASA, ISES (2006-Present); Team Member, Solar Observatories Group, Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory (HEPL), Stanford University (2009-Present)
I completely agree. To use an extreme example, I do not believe Leif would want his scientific opinion buried with those of the local plumber.
Smokey says:
March 24, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Robert says: “Most often scientist try to build on other scientific advances…”
One problem with the planetary stuff [including Scafetta’s papers] is and has always been that the claimants do not build on each other’s ‘advances’. Of course, they all claim that they are the only ones who have seen this or that, that their own papers are dynamite, and everybody else is a moron. Yeah, there is the usual lip service to the literature, but with no real substance. They have not seem farther because ‘they are standing on the shoulders of giants’ [to use Newton’s mocking phrase], but rather that they themselves are the giants, blazing a trail into a new field of science.
Robert says:
March 24, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Thanks, Robert. Actually my view is not unusual at all. It’s the standard view of science these days, and has been since it was proposed by Karl Popper. He pointed out that you can never prove anything, but only falsify something. Or as Einstein is supposed to have said,
And of course, for that to happen, someone has to disbelieve Einstein and design an experiment to prove his theory wrong … in other words, an adversarial process.
w.
Poptech says:
March 24, 2012 at 7:13 pm
To use an extreme example, I do not believe Leif would want his scientific opinion buried with those of the local plumber
If the local plumber has a good, cogent, valid, and significant comment, onion, or question then I would be proud to stand with him.
“If the local plumber has a good, cogent, valid, and significant comment, onion, or question then I would be proud to stand with him.”
Even opinion [‘onion’ was courtesy of the spellchecker 🙂 ]
@willis eschenbach. Unfortunately I find it difficult to agree with Popper. He attacked psychoanalysis saying it is not falsifiable . Thomas Kuhn said that falsification would make science impossible and science works as a sequence of paradigms, not based on falsification. John Gary made arguments that Evolution and Relativity would have suffered a sudden death if Popper’s falsification path was in effect for defining science – those theories were completely at odds with conventional wisdom and enough supporting evidence were not available for a while. etc. There are plenty of criticisms out there about Popper’s view.
I understand one experiment can show a theory is wrong. But I also think that, if we wait for that possibility, we cannot call anything to be science, since there is always a potential for a theory to be proven wrong.
Robert,
Popper was more interested in testability than falsifiability. A hypothesis must be testable. If it is not, it is simply conjecture.
@Smokey “It is that way because the entrenched, ossified clique that does its best to control peer reviewed journals can make life hell for anyone questioning their opinions – even with good reason. For example…….:”
There are many many journals out there, one can publish a new paper (not necessarily a comment) that shows the shortcomings (or errors) of another paper from another journal. I do not believe in the account from that professor, it is not that involved. Besides, one wrong paper is not going to change the foundation of a legitimate scientific theory. Such wrong papers will eventually be proven wrong. Linus Pauling, the powerful two time Nobel Laureate who had almost a total following in the American Chemical Society, used to make fun of Dan Shechtman on his work with quasi-crystals, saying that there are only quasi-scientists, not quasi-crystals. At the end, evidence mounted to show that Pauling was wrong and Shechtman was correct – and Shechtman got his Nobel Prize last year in Chemistry – in Pauling’s own discipline. No matter how powerful one person is opposing a true scientific discovery, eventually true science will prevail itself with mounting evidence.
Smokey says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:16 pm
A hypothesis must be testable. If it is not, it is simply conjecture.
Just waiting around to add a few more data points to the correlation is not really a test. A real test would be to see how the hypothesis fares if applied to systems other than the one hinting at the correlation. For Scafetta’s tidal hypothesis that would be to check other planetary systems with widely varying properties and see how they support the hypothesis. The special pleading that the solar system is somehow unique or unusual is simply to avoid the test.
Leif Svalgaard (March 24, 2012 at 8:26 pm):
To be more specific, to test Dr. Scafetta’s conjecture, one would need observed events. Scafetta’s events cannot be observed because he has yet tell us what they are.
@smokey, “Robert, Popper was more interested in testability than falsifiability. A hypothesis must be testable. If it is not, it is simply conjecture.”
No, I believe he was into falsifiability as Willis Eschenbach wrote earlier – I am fairly sure on that. Please check.
@Ranger Joe:
Lief’s complaint is that total solar output doesn’t change enough to be the cause (and he is right).
OTOH, the spectrum shifts something awful and the UV plunges (that causes odd things to happen high in the air where that UV was being absorbed, and the atmospheric height shortens). Then there are all the other effects you observed. ( I’ve been plagued by some electronic daemons too…)
There is the argument that gravity acts uniformly on all the mass of the sun, so orbiting planets can’t do anything much (which is true) other than raising trivial tides.
Yet the whole sun wobbles and when you have a wobbling bucket of fluid, I have to suspect that “things change”…
Then there’s that annoying bit about angular momentum. An ‘odd bit’ about angular momentum is that the further away the object is from the center of rotation, the more angular momentum there is. So while the sun has most of the mass, most of the angular momentum is in the outer planets.
At this point things go a bit flaky. My physics ability is not up to sorting it out (or, rather, my sloth is too high to put in the effort and I’ve never really liked angular momentum problems…) The assertion is that somehow angular momentum changes cause a disruption of the flows inside the solar mass as the center of rotation moves inside, vs outside, of the surface. I suspect that the conservation of AM is going to interact with the change of rotation point, but at the same time understand that the whole solar mass is influenced by the combined gravity, so ought not to react.
At the sub atomic level, we have “spin orbital coupling” and it seems to me that it ought to also happen at the macro scale (and if it does, would cause solar spin to change with AM changes which would be enough to change solar dynamics) yet I’ve not found any decent reference for a macro level spin orbital coupling. So at this point we reach the end of where my investigation took me (where my interest level dropped below the work needed to go forward).
Because folks tend to sort into the “It Can’t – see the gravity and tidal limits” vs the “It must, see the wiggle matches and angular momentum changes” with both sides not bothering to see the other side, nor “do the math” to prove no AM spin orbital couple: it results in a lot of bickering and little wisdom.
Folks get tired of the bickering, so that’s why the topic gets shelved. It gets old…
Frankly, while I find the cyclomania / wiggle match compelling, I’m stuck on an inability to see any physical mechanism by which angular momentum gets turned into spin coupling and thus solar diameter changes. (There have been observations of solar diameter changes). Perhaps it is, as Lief says, simply one way outbound, and the solar variations drive the other changes that end up in a harmonic relationship after a few billion years of nudges.
Unfortunately, solving the “Three Body Problem” is incredibly hard and even then often called a ‘restricted three body problem’. Make it 4, 8, or even 9 planets 😉 and it’s effectively impossible. Toss in the Trojan Asteroids, Oort cloud, and KBOs and it’s just pointless.
The solar system does what it does, and we don’t know why. But it’s worth looking…
Yes, yes I understand this but you are missing my point. It is not possible to listen to everyone’s argument so credentials are used to filter through arguments to ones more likely to be correct. If credentials are not presented or found then those arguments are more likely to be filtered out before being considered.
E.M.Smith says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Unfortunately, solving the “Three Body Problem” is incredibly hard and even then often called a ‘restricted three body problem’. Make it 4, 8, or even 9 planets 😉 and it’s effectively impossible. Toss in the Trojan Asteroids, Oort cloud, and KBOs and it’s just pointless.
We cannot solved the three- [or n-] body problem in exact, analytically, closed form, but we can [and do, routinely] solve it numerically to any desired degree of accuracy.
Terry Oldberg: Christensen’s insight stems from the realization that a model (aka theory) can be construed to be the algorithm for an optimal decoder of a “message” consisting of the the unobserved outcomes in a sequence of independent events.
That, of course, is a heuristic. I am sure it works well, as well as the machine learning heuristics described in “The Elements of Statistical Learning” by Hastie, Tibshirani and Friedman, at least in some situations. Could you use it to discover the Periodic Table of the Elements given the information available to Mendeleev, or develop the theories of special and general relativity with the knowledge available to Poincare, Einstein et al? Einstein used the common heuristic of expanding a Taylor series and truncating it after the quadratic term (this is described in “Subtle is the Lord”, by Abraham Pais.)
Could you display even 1 error-free model?
I recommend “Statistics and Chance” by Lawrence Sklar, for a survey of probability in statistical mechanics before Jaynes and Shannon. He reviews measure theory and the necessity for its incorporation into probability, and the development of the concept of ergodic process.
You have persuaded me that you are a serious scholar. I just don’t think your comments here are apt. As I wrote above, they are abstruse, and do not justify your claim that Scafetta’s model is intrinsically non-falsifiable.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler (March 24, 2012 at 8:49):
Thanks for taking the time to respond and for the stimulating discussion! Contrary to your understanding, the notion that a model can be construed to be the algorithm for an optimal decoder is not a heuristic but rather is the basis for principles of logical reasoning that include Aristotle’s laws of thought.
The situation that motivates this conclusion is the one in which several inferences are possibilities for being made by a model that is under construction. The model builder is faced with the necessity for discriminating the one correct inference from among the many possibilities. In this discrimination, it is pertinent that a measure of an inference exists and is unique. This measure is the missing information in the inference for a deductive conclusion, the so-called “entropy” of the inference.
In view of the existence and uniqueness of the measure of an inference, the question of which of the many inferences that are possibilities for being made by a model is the one correct inference has a solution in the notion of optimization. The one correct inference minimizes the conditional entropy of this inference or (dependent upon the type of inference) maximizes the entropy of this inference under constraints expressing the available information.Thus,the principles of logical reasoning are to minimize the entropy of one kind of inference that is made by a model or to maximize the entropy of a different kind of inference, under constraints expressing the available information. Among the fruits of this line of reasoning are thermodynamics, the theory of fair gambling devides and modern electronic forms of communication.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler ( March 24, 2012 at 8:49 pm)
A model that is free from logical error follows:
{Cloudy now implies rain in the next 24 hours.
Cloudy now.
Therefore, rain in the next 24 hours.}
The freedom from logical error follows from the fact that the inference that is made by this model is of the form of Modus Ponens. For brevity, I have omitted specification of the statistical population that would have to be supplied in order for this model to be made falsifiable.
Robert,
Yes, Popper wrote that falsification was ideal:
Once again: if a hypothesis is not testable, it is only a conjecture. Laws are testable [falsifiable]. Theories are testable. Hypotheses are testable. But Conjectures are only the first step in the scientific method. They are educated opinions, nothing more. For example, AGW is a conjecture, because it is not testable.
Fascinating.
I’ve been reading and reading, and while I have come no closer to understanding the science, I have regained my confidence in my bullshit-meter which flashes and hoots at the obscurantist smoke of pseudoscience. And it’s been going, bwaa-bwaa-bwaa-bwaa!.
The alarms with the flashing and hooting occur during the following: When critiques are interpreted as personal challenges which somehow damage the entire field or the dignity of the author. When we are told to think on a presumably higher plane, or r scolded for not beingimaginative or poetic. When exceptions are paraded as evidence, as in, “well, look at Galileo, Lister….etc.” When we are urged to provide support, kindness and good thoughts, in lieu of critiques (which presumably generate bad energy?). When the argument from authority rears its stupid head in the middle of a debate and some people, quite selectively, are suddenly asked to supply credentials. And, when such crap takes hijacks the discussion, while challenges and questions regarding substantive issues in the claim are left unaddressed.
Just noticed this one in Dr. Scafetta’s paper …
It reminds me of a Nasruddin story. Nasruddin took his shoes to the cobbler to be repaired. He asked when they would be done. “Inshallah (if God wills it) they will be done on the 15th of the month.”
So Nasruddin comes back and they’re not done. “How long until they are finished?” he asks. “Inshallah, by the 21st of the month” says the cobbler.
But when Nasruddin comes back a third time, they’re still not done. “How long this time?” he asks. “Inshallah, they will be finished on the 25th.”
“And how long will it take to finish them if you leave God out of it and fix them yourself?”
So I have to ask … how long is the tidal spring period if we leave circular orbits out of it?
Well, of course it varies all over the place. Dr. Scafetta waves his hand and vaguely says:
An “estimate of the spring period”? Why not an accurate calculation? And I don’t believe that it averages 9.93 years over that short period, that would be too much of a coincidence.
Next, since the actual value swings by half a year each way … why not use the actual tides? Why should the average tide mean anything? If you go down to the ocean, all that matters is the actual tide, not the average tide. That’s a mathematical abstraction, it has no reality.
If the astronomical cycles actually rule, seems to me you need to use the actual cycles, not some number that is somewhere near the long-term average.
Finally, if the calculated tidal spring period of Jupiter/Saturn is 9.93 years, then why is Scafetta using 9.98 years? As I have shown above, that size of an adjustment shifts the beat frequencies by dozens of years in two centuries … if climate is tied to astronomical cycle, it should be tied to the real deal, not some nearby number that Dr. Scafetta happens to find convenient.
w.
PS—I just used the JPL HORIZONS ephemerides system to calculate the times of conjunction and opposition of Jupiter and Saturn. First, the system said it couldn’t calculate Jupiter or Saturn prior to 1800 … OK, so I looked from then until now.
In contrast to Dr. Scafetta’s claims that it gives “a value oscillating between 9.5 and 10.5 years”, the minimum value was between 1981-Apr-28 and 1990-Jul-07,at 9.19 years. The maximum value was between 1821-Sep-27 and 1832-Jun-25, at 10.73 years … so once again I am unable to verify Dr. Scafetta’s claims.
Robert says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Thanks, Robert. Of course there is that potential that they’ll be proven wrong, that’s the point. All scientific “truths” are provisional, and assuredly many of them will be proven wrong in future. But until they are falsified, we use them because it’s the best we have.
w.
In case Dr. Scafetta or others are running short of astronomical cycles for their parameters to be “closely related to” or “associated to”, I’ve prepared this handy list to prevent the feared cycle scarcity:
1 Year + 1.8 days : Neptune’s Synodic year
1 Year + 12 to 14 days : Saturn’s Synodic year
1 Year + 30 to 38 days : Jupiter’s Synodic year
1 Year + 4.5 days : Uranus’ Synodic year
1 Year 6 months + 5 to 41 days : Venus’ Synodic year
1.881 Years : Mars’ Sidereal year
2 Years + 0 to 1 Day : Moon’s phases
2 Years + 1 to 2.5 Months : Mars’ Synodic year
3.5 to 13 Years : Mercury’s Transit
5 Years + 3 to 6 months to 10 Years + 3 to 6 months : Spica’s Occultation season
7 Years 11 months 30 days 7 hours 2 min 39 sec : Venus’ Elongation
7 Years 3 months to 8 Years 7 months : Regulus’ Occultation season
8 Years – 2 to 3 days to 121 Years 6 months + 2 to 3 days : Venus’ Transits
8 Years + 1 to 2 days : Moon’s Phases
8.85 Years : Moon’s Perigee
9 Years + 5.5 days : Half SAROS Cycle
11 Years 3 months + 10 to 13 days : Jupiter-Graffias Conjunctions
11.862 Years : Jupiter’s Sidereal year
12 Years 4 Months to 13 Years : Jupiter-Neptune Conjunctions
12 Years 10 months to 15 Years 6.5 months : Saturn’s Rings on Edge
13 Years 5.5 to 6.5 month : Antares Occultation-season
13 Years + 2 to 3 days : Mercury’s Elongation
13 Years 2.5 months to 14 Years 3 months : Jupiter-Uranus Conjunctions
13 Years 11 months : Pleiades Occultation-season
14 Years 11.5 months to 15 Years 4 months : Aldebaran Occultation-season
15 to 17 Years : Mars’ Perihelion Oppositions
17 Years-0 to 2 days : Moon’s Phases
18 Years 10 months to 20 Years 7.5 months : Jupiter-Saturn Conjunctions
18 Year + 10.32 or 11.32 days : SAROS Cycle Eclipse Cycle
18.61 Years : Moon’s Nutation Cycle
19 Years + 0 to 2 days : Moon’s Metonic Cycle
21 Years +/- 1 day : Moon’s Phases
27 Years : Mercury’s Synodic Multiple
29 Years – 20.1 days : Inex Eclipse Cycle
29 years 1 month + 11 to 30 days : Saturn-Regulus Conjunctions
29.457 Years : Saturn’s Sidereal year
30 Years : Moon’s Librations Approximately
32 Years + 0.5 to 4.5 days : Venus-Mars 32 Year Cycle
33 Years – 2 to 3 days : Mercury’s Elongation
35 Years 3 months to 36 Years 4 months : Saturn-Neptune Conjunctions
42 Years 10 months to 46 Years 10 months : Saturn-Uranus Conjunctions
46 Years + a fraction of day) : Mercury’s Elongation
47 Years + 3 days : Mars’ Synodic Multiple
47 Years – 17 days : Mercury-Mars-Jupiter Conjunctions
54 Years + 34 days : Exeligmos Eclipse Cycle
58 Years – 40.1 to – 42.1 days : Eclipse Cycle
59 Years : Saturn’s Synodic Multiple
65 Years + 0 to 3 days : Lunar-Solar Eclipse Cycle
79 Years + 3 days : Mars’ Perihelion Oppositions
83 Years : Jupiter’s Synodic Multiple
83 Year 2 months + 12 to 18 days : Uranus-Regulus Conjunctions
84.02 Years : Uranus’ Sidereal year
87 years – 61 days : Three Inex Eclipse Cycles
163 Years 3 months 19 to 30 days and 164 Years 1 month 11 to 18 days : Neptune-Regulus Conjunctions
164.786 Years : Neptune’s Sidereal year
170 Years 3.5 to 5.0 months to 171 Years to +3 months : Uranus-Neptune Conjunctions
217 Years) : Mercury’s Transits
284 Years + 2.5 days : Mars’ Oppositions
410 Years : Solar Totality
521 Years +/- 1 or 2 days : 18 Inex Eclipse Cycles
800 Years : Lunar Eclipse Regulus Occultations
Of course, Dr. Scafetta also includes halves of those cycles, which gives us another whole range of possibilities. He also said one of his cycles was related to (2X + Y)/4, where X is the Moon’s Perigee and Y is the Moons Nutation Cycle, so I guess anything’s possible.
Details here and here …
w.
Smokey said @ March 24, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Thanks Smokey 🙂 However, what is being missed here is that Popper was not a naive falsificationist (naive here is a term of art). While Einstein is frequently quoted as saying a single experiment would suffice to bring down his relativity theory, this is far from the case.
The example I usually use is that of the orbit of the planet Neptune. It stolidly refused to follow its allotted Newtonian path. Newtonian physics was not instantly rejected, after all it had served well for 200 years. Instead, it was hypothesised that there was an outer planet affecting the orbit of Neptune. Newtonian physics was saved by the hypothetical planet that was later discovered where it needed to be to do the saving and named Pluto.
Popper’s main effort was attempting to create a demarcation between science and pseudo-science. A theory that explains everything, such as astrology, or psychoanalysis, is inherently unfalsifiable. Whatever happens, the theory is sufficiently ad hoc to explain the event.
Kuhn’s contribution to our understanding of the progress of science is that saving the theory by ad hoc explanation is what he calls “normal science”. The theory determines what is legitimate research. Research that might call a theory into question is not legitimate science. Just about every generally accepted theory so far eventually falls under the accumulated weight of ad hoc explanations for anomalous observations precipitating a paradigm shift.
There’s a tendency among philosophers of science to support either Popper, or Kuhn. I find much of value in the work of both. And there’s lots of what we consider to be legitimate science that falls outside of Popper’s falsifiability criterion as I attempt to point out from time to time.
And following Willis’ example:
Nasrudin was ferrying a traveler across a lake. As they spoke on various subjects, Nasrudin made a minor grammatical error.
The traveler remarked, “You who wears a turban and calls himself a Mulla-have you ever studied grammar?”
“No,” Nasrudin admitted, “I have not covered that subject in depth.”
“Well then,” the traveler replied,” you have wasted half of your life!“
Several minutes later, Nasrudin turned to the traveler and asked, “Have you ever learned how to swim?”
“No,” the traveler responded.
“Well then,” Nasrudin replied, “you have wasted all your life; there is a hole in the boat, and we are sinking!“
E.M.Smith says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:32 pm
“So while the sun has most of the mass, most of the angular momentum is in the outer planets.”
Mmm-mm. You have to compute the angular momentum with respect to an inertial reference. Do it with respect to the solar system barycenter and see what you get.
“…I’ve not found any decent reference for a macro level spin orbital coupling.”
The only coupling possible, besides terrifically small relativistic effects is from interaction with tidal bulges and other deviations from a spherical mass distribution. Much effort has been put into detecting a significant quadrupole moment (the lowest term in spherical harmonic expansion indicating deviation from a spherical distribution) of the Sun . Investigations continue, but the vast majority have not found anything noteworthy. Most physicists accept that, if there is such a deviation, it is limited by the experimental error in predicting and measuring the general relativistic precession of the perihelion of Mercury.
The Pompous Git says:
March 25, 2012 at 12:09 am
Git and Smokey, thanks.
Einstein is frequently quoted as saying a single experiment would suffice to bring down his relativity theory. This is in fact the case, because Einstein obviously meant an experiment that no one could falsify.
Neptune appeared to falsify Newtonian physics. Consider what would have happened if despite our best efforts, to this day we had not found any other planetary body outside Neptune’s orbit. That would have undermined Newton’s Laws. But the claim that there were no other planets was falsified, and Newtonian physics stands.
You go on to say:
Seems like you are saying we notice anomalies. We attempt to explain them using modifications or alternate interpretations of our current theories. You say sometimes that works (Neptune), sometimes it doesn’t.
If that is what Kuhn said, I don’t see what that has to do with falsification. I mean it’s important, but it seems like a very different subject.
My point is simple. Science is not about proof, because you can’t prove a dang thing. It’s about disproof, which you can certainly do.
w.
Willis Eschenbach said @ March 25, 2012 at 12:44 am
[1] Yep! There seems to be no sure-fire do-it-by-numbers way of predetermining the outcome. Terry Oldberg claims to have solved the induction problem, but as you correctly point out, he’s only sharing the how-to specifically with people who are willing to pay him for the training, or follow an unspecified path through a long reading list.
[2] Correct. Kuhn’s explanation of science is more sociological than philosophical. It’s orthogonal to Popper, rather than opposed. Critics of both seem to somewhat willfully misinterpret the one they oppose.
[3] I agree except that a lot of what is included in science, bench biology for example, is not amenable to disproof; it’s more akin to map-making. Darwin’s work on barnacles was description, not attempting to make a prediction about some future state of barnacles. Many physics theories seem to be disproved by incongruence with another theory, or theories, rather than by falsification.
I am also deeply suspicious of the concept that the behaviour of a system can be understood in terms of its parts. Bridges for example can consist of wires, logs, ropes, steel, concrete or in the case of a tunnel, nothing. This has nothing to do with our imagination: ants and termites are great bridge and tunnel builders.
Heck it’s fun thinking about science 🙂
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 24, 2012 at 11:41 pm
The list might be more useful if you could whittle it down to those with at least minimal significance. E.g., Mercury’s Elongation surely has no effect on the Earth’s climate. If it doesn’t involve the Moon, Jupiter, or possibly Saturn, it is of no interest (really, I very much doubt any but the Moon actually are). I would pare your list to at least the following:
1 Year + 12 to 14 days : Saturn’s Synodic year
1 Year + 30 to 38 days : Jupiter’s Synodic year
2 Years + 0 to 1 Day : Moon’s phases
8 Years + 1 to 2 days : Moon’s Phases
8.85 Years : Moon’s Perigee
9 Years + 5.5 days : Half SAROS Cycle
11.862 Years : Jupiter’s Sidereal year
17 Years-0 to 2 days : Moon’s Phases
18 Years 10 months to 20 Years 7.5 months : Jupiter-Saturn Conjunctions
18 Year + 10.32 or 11.32 days : SAROS Cycle Eclipse Cycle
18.61 Years : Moon’s Nutation Cycle
19 Years + 0 to 2 days : Moon’s Metonic Cycle
21 Years +/- 1 day : Moon’s Phases
29 Years – 20.1 days : Inex Eclipse Cycle
29.457 Years : Saturn’s Sidereal year
30 Years : Moon’s Librations Approximately
47 Years + 3 days : Mars’ Synodic Multiple
54 Years + 34 days : Exeligmos Eclipse Cycle
58 Years – 40.1 to – 42.1 days : Eclipse Cycle
59 Years : Saturn’s Synodic Multiple
65 Years + 0 to 3 days : Lunar-Solar Eclipse Cycle
83 Years : Jupiter’s Synodic Multiple
87 years – 61 days : Three Inex Eclipse Cycles
410 Years : Solar Totality
521 Years +/- 1 or 2 days : 18 Inex Eclipse Cycles
This is a problem you are having of your own making in convincing people: you appear hostile, and it appears you are trying to obfuscate as much as clarify. This is a tactic usually observed on the warmist side, so you should not wonder that people here are put off by it.
But, IMHO, the point is still valid: with so many cycles to choose from, it does not appear extremely surprising that some subset can be made to match climate observations on a superficial level.
I’m banned from Tamino’s blog for mopery on the skyways, aka asking inconvenient questions. However, like many AGW supporters, he’s a smart guy. I rarely go there because I’m banned, but I’d heard he had commented on Scafetta’s paper, so I took a look. He brought up an interesting point.
Scafetta claims a bimodal distribution for the sunspot cycles. Here’s his Figure 2.
ORIGINAL CAPTION (emphasis mine) Fig. 2. Probability distributions of the sunspot number cycle length (SCL) using Table 1 and Eq. (2). Note the double-belled distribution pattern (solid curve) centered close to 10 and 12 years. There appears to be a gap between 10.55 and 11.25 years in the SCL record.
Tamino’s point was that there are mathematical tests to determine if a dataset is not a normal distribution. Note that once again we are discussing falsification. The Shapiro-Wilk test rejects the hypothesis that the data is normal. This is because it is not possible to prove that a given dataset is normal, only to falsify the hypothesis of normality. Typically, a “p-value” of less than 0.05 is taken as a rejection of the hypothesis of normality.
Tamino says the Shapiro-Wilk test gives a p-value of 0.67. I get slightly less, 0.65, but both of us show there’s not a trace of non-normality about the dataset at all.
In order to sustain the claim that the data has a “double-belled distribution”, Dr. Scafetta first needs to show that the data is not normally distributed. But the Shapiro-Wilk test shows he can’t even establish that simpler case.
Finally, I also use the Jarque-Bera test for normality. That test, which also rejects the assumption of normality, gives me a result of 0.67. This again doesn’t show any evidence for a non-normal distribution.
So Dr. Scafetta’s claim of a “double-belled distribution pattern centered close to 10 and 12 years is falsified. He has not presented evidence rejecting a normal distribution.
w.
APPENDIX: R code for the calculations
require(tseries) scaf=c(11.25, 9.00, 9.25, 13.67, 12.58, 12.42, 10.50, 9.67, 12.42, 11.25, 11.75, 11.25, 11.92, 11.50, 10.00, 10.08, 10.42, 10.17, 10.50, 11.67, 10.25, 9.67, 12.58) #length of solar cycles from paper shapiro.test(scaf) # Shapiro-Wilk normality test # #data: scaf #W = 0.9685, p-value = 0.6535 jarque.bera.test(scaf) # Jarque Bera Test # #data: scaf #X-squared = 0.7931, df = 2, p-value = 0.6726Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:20 am
Thanks, Bart, but since I think that there is no ex-ante way to determine if any of them have significance, much less which ones it might be, such whittling is suspect.
Also, rather than hostility it was an obviously unsuccessful attempt at humor. I find it hilarious to watch the random picking and choosing of cycles. That’s why I talked about averting a possible cycle shortage, because at the rate Scafetta is going through them he might run out soon … a joke, don’tcha know …
w.
The Pompous Git says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:07 am
Appreciated, Git. I was with you up until the last. Much of science is map-making, and it progresses in the usual way, through falsification of the map. Consider the story about the number of human chromosomes.
And description is falsifiable as well. If Darwin had said that barnacles attach onto the rocks with suction cups, that description can be falsified. And indeed it is falsified by the observation that they glue themselves to the rock, which is the correct description.
w.
Another oddity. The cycle lengths of the minima of the sunspots is what is used by Scafetta. But he offers no justification for using the distances between minima instead of the distances between sunspot maxima. And they are quite different.
Here is the violinplot of the two distributions:
Why would the climate follow one and not the other?
w.
APPENDIX: R code
require(vioplot) scaf=c(11.25, 9.00, 9.25, 13.67, 12.58, 12.42, 10.50, 9.67, 12.42, 11.25, 11.75, 11.25, 11.92, 11.50, 10.00, 10.08, 10.42, 10.17, 10.50, 11.67, 10.25, 9.67, 12.58) #length of minimums of solar cycles from paper scafmax=c(8.25, 8.67, 9.42, 16.33, 12.25, 14.17, 6.67, 10.92, 12.00, 10.50, 13.33, 10.08, 12.08, 11.50, 10.67, 9.00, 10.08, 10.83, 10.67, 11.08, 9.58, 10.75)#length of maximums of solar cycles from paper par(mgp=c(2.2,1,0)) vioplot(scaf,scafmax,names=c("Years bet. Min.","Years bet. Max.")) title(main="Sunspot Cycle Lengths")The Pompous Git says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:07 am
I will say that one area where science does progress without falsification is through simplification. The epicycle theory is a perfectly valid geocentric view and explanation of the movements of the planets. However, the heliocentric view is much, much simpler, and prevailed for that reason among others.
w.
I’ve put up a new post which I hope will put a few of the criticisms into perspective here.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/the-key-signatures-in-the-music-of-the-spheres/
It’s not exhaustive, no-one would read an article that long, but it attempts to outline the main interactions which support the contention that the solar system is not a collection of randomly placed masses, but a coherent organised system which must have feedback within it in order to maintain that coherence.
Willis,
Being unable to reject a normal distribution doesn’t falsify a bimodal distribution. Since the process in nonlinear, the presumption should probably be a poisson distribution anyway. I suspect peak picking software would pick two peaks there.
Leif Svalgaard,
I doubt the sample of exoplanets with orbital periods close to their stellar dynamo periods is large enough to support your argument. You seem to be assuming this isn’t relevant.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:31 am
I doubt the sample of exoplanets with orbital periods close to their stellar dynamo periods is large enough to support your argument. You seem to be assuming this isn’t relevant.
My argument is that this is where to look [and the sample increases almost as we speak]. So far we haven’t found any correlation, but the argument from the planetary enthusiasts is that the solar system is so unique that we won’t find any and that therefore the exoplanets cannot be used as a test vehicle. Turning this around, I’m pretty sure that if a strong correlation had been found that the cries that only the solar system would exhibit planetary influences would subside considerably.
A second element is whether the planets largely create the activity or only cause a minor perturbation on an intrinsic dynamo that has nothing the do with the planets, but is determined by properties of the star itself. If the planets drive the dynamo, then exoplanets are a good test because the dynamo period should be set by the planets. Even if the planets only weakly modulate an existing dynamo, that modulation should still be visible and may be teased from the stellar data within a time much shorter than the centuries we would have to wait for statistics to build up.
Although Scafetta is rather vague about it, it seems that he also thinks that the climate perhaps is directly controlled [at least partly] by planetary action on the Earth, rather than via the Sun [c.f. his lunar ideas].
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:26 am
Scafetta claims a bimodal distribution for the sunspot cycles.
The claim as stated hides an inconvenient fact, namely that the cycle length has changed over time [rather than being bimodal in any subset of the data]. The cycle was longer in the first half of the sunspot series than in the last half. Your argument about how to measure cycle length is well taken. An important parameter for the dynamo is the solar polar fields and they change sign at solar maximum. Yet another proposal is to use the times when the sunspot number during the rise of the cycle reaches the average for the cycle.
Willis Eschenbach said @ March 25, 2012 at 1:38 am
Happily, Darwin, being the impeccable observer he was made no such assertion and gave us a body of information about barnacles that made his scientific reputation as it was intended to do. But it seems I have not explained myself clearly. Let’s take a description of barnacles as analogous to a theory in physics.
“A barnacle is a type of arthropod belonging to infraclass Cirripedia in the subphylum Crustacea, and is hence related to crabs and lobsters. Barnacles are exclusively marine, and tend to live in shallow and tidal waters, typically in erosive settings. They are sessile (non-motile) suspension feeders, and have two nektonic (active swimming) larval stages.”
So when some smart-arse comes along and says: “what about members of the genus Sacculina that are parasitic and dwell within crabs?” is my original description falsified? Not at all; the description of barnacle habits is broadened and gains some new named species. It’s possible that there are one or more neotonous species that never becomes sessile. Should they be found, the original description is not falsified, but new members are added to that group of creatures we call barnacles.
Popper based his arguments on scientific disciplines that have scientific laws. I would argue that biology arguably has no genuine laws of its own, though all the usual laws of science apply to biological systems. Unfortunately, those laws mostly are of little use in understanding those systems at this time.
This is not to say that biology is devoid of mathematical aspects; Ian Stewart’s The Mathematics of Life is one of my favourite books. One imagines that this conversation would be quite different in a hundred years time.
The Pompous Git(March 25, 2012 at 6:40 am):
Like all of the other sciences, biology has a falsifiable theoretical structure. This structure provides us with information about the outcomes of biological events. Information about the outcomes of events is the functional equivalent of “scientia,” the Latin word for demonstrable knowledge that gave rise to the English word “science.”
Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:20 am
This is a problem you [i.e., Willis] are having of your own making in convincing people: you appear hostile, and it appears you are trying to obfuscate as much as clarify. This is a tactic usually observed on the warmist side, so you should not wonder that people here are put off by it.
———————————
On the face of it, you’re right, Bart, and my former marketing persona would certainly agree. Some very, very smart people here I couldn’t shine a light to are indeed put off. Folks like Messrs Seifert and Doormann, to mention but a few. That is sad and disconcerting, for we need certain amount of solidarity, given the forces arrayed against us. But then, with my Sunday morning coffee, something nagged at me and I posed a question to myself, what would I think if Anthony welcomed Dr Scafetta’s paper with open arms and warm comments befitting someone on “our side”? If Willis, Leif and others held back their “attacks,” as some would see them, and waffled politely and incomprehensibly, tiptoeing around not to offend a brilliant academic friend, a rare addition to “our cause”? I realized that I’d be flying out of this site like a singed bat out of a blazing Hell. No great loss, perhaps, but I’m sure that I wouldn’t be the only one.
Why? Because even those, like me, who may not understand the specifics of the science behind the disputes here, may well understand that a false proposition (CAGW) should not be replaced with just about anything, especially when created by someone on the “friendly” side. A lack of coherent and spirited objections which best crystallize difficult points and an absence of curmudgeons to act as “predators,” would be a clear sign to me that this site is primarily interested in group politics and is sliding towards quackery. The inevitable has finally happened; as CAGW skepticism grows in stature and moves towards the mainstream, it becomes a crank-magnet, a potentially friendly host for the pseudosciences to latch onto for their ride into the sunlight. And if you think on it, it’s not the hostility of the Warmies that is problematic, but exactly the opposite; their closed-circle bonhomie, their, circle-jerk faux peer-reviews, their tendency to cover for each other and to defend publicly defend friends even in the face of behind-the-scenes disagreements. This is why Warmism always was and will remain, to its bitter end, the junk science scam par excellence of the Modern Era.
Peter Kovachev ( March 25, 2012 at 6:46 am ):
CAGW isn’t a false proposition. It can’t be falsified because the IPCC has not identified the events that would be observed in an attempt at falsifying it. The IPCC’s fault does not lie in the falsity of the proposition but rather in the non-falsifiability of this proposition and misrepresentation when it says that its study of global warming was scientific.
Willis Eschenbach said @ March 25, 2012 at 2:26 am
Copernicus’ heliocentric system required the same number of epicycles as the Ptolemaic system for no significant gain in accuracy, or ease of use, which was why it was never widely adopted. The real revolution in astronomy came when Kepler published Epitome astronomiae Copernicanae though Galileo refused to read the copy Kepler sent him and continued to champion the Copernican epicycle model of the solar system. René Descartes also refused to accept Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. These laws weren’t a simplification, but a completely new way of understanding planetary motion and Epitome became the most widely read book on astronomy in Europe.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 25, 2012 at 6:18 am
An important parameter for the dynamo is the solar polar fields and they change sign at solar maximum.
For which Vukcevic has an R^2 correlation of over .9 with his planetary based equation which uses the orbital period of Jupiter and the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn, just as Scafetta does in his paper.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Nice foot shooting there Leif. 🙂
Oh, and by the way Leif, your claim that 10.8 years is peculiar to the solar dynamo is incorrect. As well as being one of the harmonic periods of the interaction of the Jupiter-Saturn tidal period and the orbital period off Jupiter, it is also the Jupiter-Saturn synodic period multiplied by the ratio of their distances from the Sun.
All just coincidences? I think not.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:31 am
I doubt the sample of exoplanets with orbital periods close to their stellar dynamo periods is large enough to support your argument.
There is the [wrong] notion that somehow the sun [or stars with star spots] are ‘oscillators’ in some sense, and that the planets hit the ‘natural frequencies’ of the stars, etc. This is not so. The natural frequencies of solar-like stars are of the order of minutes to hours. The solar dynamo is not an ‘oscillator’, but results from and interplay between differential rotation [‘winds’ basically in the solar atmosphere] and a meridional circulation [much like Hadley cells in the Earth’s atmosphere and also thermally driven]. The speed of the latter [about 20 meters/second] basically sets the cycle length, but is somewhat variable and some argue that that variation is instrumental in determining the variation in activity from one cycle to the next. The basic point is that the sun does not seem to be a tightly controlled oscillatory system, but rather a messy place with most things being pretty random [‘stochastic’ to use a fancy words]. For example, the polar fields [which are thought to control the size of the next cycle] are the result of a magnetic flux from decaying sunspots slowly being transported and diffused in to the polar regions. The magnetic flux at the poles corresponds to the flux from only a handful of sunspot regions compared to the ~3000 such regions that are generated in each solar cycle. One can actually see where the flux comes from: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/torsional.html shows the blue and red ‘tongues’ [of opposite polarities] of flux streaming up from the sunspot latitudes and first reversing the old flux in the polar regions, and then building up the new, opposite polarity, flux.
@Leif Svalgaard: Actually, gravity is the ultimate cause of almost everything: the sun wouldn’t shine [and we wouldn’t be here] if the protosun had not been compressed to high temperature by gravity
Was it the Sun lit by smashing one flint to another?
How does comet Lovejoy manages to cross the Sun from one side to the other?
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 7:19 am
“An important parameter for the dynamo is the solar polar fields and they change sign at solar maximum.”
For which Vukcevic has an R^2 correlation of over .9 with his planetary based equation
In calculation of R^2 one must take into account [he does not] the very high auto-correlation of the polar fields which reduces the number of degrees of freedom to a lot fewer than he thinks.
And his formula fails going back in time before ~1975, which is like a head shot.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 7:28 am
Oh, and by the way Leif, your claim that 10.8 years is peculiar to the solar dynamo is incorrect.
Never said such a thing, the length varies by several years over time.
As well as being one of the harmonic periods of the interaction of the Jupiter-Saturn tidal period and the orbital period off Jupiter, it is also the Jupiter-Saturn synodic period multiplied by the ratio of their distances from the Sun.
more numerology; perhaps you can fit the height of the pyramids in there too.
Here is some more numerology for your compendium:
Back in the 1880s, Wolf calculated the solar cycle period to be 11.295 years based on the 10 cycles he had reconstructed. Charles Harrison at the time noticed that if you insert the periods p, masses m, and distances from the Sun d for the eight planets in the formula
P = sum (p*m/d^2)/sum(m/d^2) you also get 11.295 years. Unfortunately the formula fails for the last ~100 years where the solar cycle period has averaged 10.6 years [but hey that is the fate of numerology]. One can use Keppler’s third law to eliminate either p or d from Harrison’s formula, to make it [d in AU and p in years to get units right]
P = sum(m/d^(1/2))/sum(m/d^(4/2)) or P = sum(m/p^(1/3))/sum(m/p^(4/3))
One can go one step further: P = sum(A)/sum(A/p) where A is the angular momentum.
One last trick. It can be written 1/P = sum(A/p)/sum(A) or F = sum(A*f)/sum(A), so:
frequency of cycle = angular momentum weigthed average frequency of the planets.
Numerology is great fun. Like watching the clowns in a circus.
adolfogiurfa says:
March 25, 2012 at 8:14 am
Was it the Sun lit by smashing one flint to another?
It was lit by gravity compressing it to such a high temperature that some protons began to move so fast that they could overcome the mutual repulsion and fuse to form helium.
How does comet Lovejoy manages to cross the Sun from one side to the other?
Almost all comets manage that. If they pass really close, the smallest ones will not make it, but the bigger ones will, and Lovejoy was clearly big enough.
Robert (March 24, 2012 at 3:23 pm):
Three comments:
1) If the IPCC’s theories made predictions, these theories would be falsifiable. However they make no predictions; instead, they make projections. Though people often confuse predictions with projections, the two words reference different concepts.
2) By definition, the equilibrium temperature is the temperature that would be attained if all of the heat fluxes were held constant for an infinite amount of time. As the heat fluxes cannot be held constant and one cannot wait for an infinite amount of time the numerical value of an equilibrium temperature is not observable.
3) If your background is in engineering, it would be helpful for you to know that the climatological term “equilibrium temperature” translates to the engineering term “steady-state temperature.”
Terry Oldberg,
How is a projection not a prediction? If I “project” having $128 surplus at the end of the month based on my spending, what difference would it make if instead I “predict” that I will have $128 based on my spending? And you could correctly replace either word with “forecast”. They are all conclusions regarding the future, based on current data.
In “Climate Misconceptions”, Dr Roy Spencer writes: …climate projections and climate predictions are the same thing. This means that the climate projections need to be compared with real world data in the same manner as a prediction. Kevin [Trenberth] is not correct when he writes that “the IPCC does not do forecasts“. They most certainly do.
[Also please note in your point #1 that the IPCC is not discussing scientific theories, it is making scientific conjectures. Big difference.]
Smokey (March 25, 2012 at 9:11 am ):
Dr. Spencer is laboring under a misconception. In statistics, a prediction does not exist in isolation but rather as an element of a set of predictions. The relation from this set to a set of statistically independent events is one-to-one. The latter set is an example of a statistical population. A subset of a statistical population in which the events have been observed is an example of a statistical sample. In statistically testing a predictive model one compares the predicted to the observed relative frequencies of the various possible outcomes of the events. If the difference between the predicted and observed relative frequencies of one or more outcomes is too great to have resulted from sampling error, the model is falsified.
“Projection” is a term from the field of ensemble forecasting. In particular, a projection is an element of a statistical ensemble. The use of this idea in climatology is based upon the recognition that in a chaotic system such as the climate, small uncertainties in the starting state grow into larger and larger uncertainties in the current state as time progresses. Thus, runs are made of a general circulation model with variations in the starting state that that are within the ranges of uncertainty on the various state variables. An output from a single run such as the global average surface air temperature feeds into the specification of a single projection. The computer output is timewise discrete but a projection is timewise continuous. In generating a projection from the computer, climatologists use some type of interpolation; I think it is linear interpolation.
In meteorology, ensemble forecasting is used (with a degree of success) in making predictions. In climatology, a log of folks have gotten the cockeyed idea that a projection IS a prediction and in doing so they have neglected the necessity for identifying the statistical populations for their studies. This has had the effect of rendering the conjectures of these climatologists non-falsifiable and thus unscientific.
Joachim Seifert (March 24, 2012 at 4:00 pm):
The decorum that is required of a person who is in a debate such as the one we are having is an interesting and important topic. However, I shall pass on the opportunity to comment on it in this particular thread as it is off the topic of this thread.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 25, 2012 at 6:18 am
So far we haven’t found any correlation, but the argument from the planetary enthusiasts is that the solar system is so unique that we won’t find any and that therefore the exoplanets cannot be used as a test vehicle.
You are stretching the point big time. So far we have not seen a solar system like ours, but it is early days. Show me something even close to our 4 gas planet controlled system that comes close.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:23 am
I’ve put up a new post which I hope will put a few of the criticisms into perspective here.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/the-key-signatures-in-the-music-of-the-spheres/. It’s not exhaustive, no-one would read an article that long, but it attempts to outline the main interactions which support the contention that the solar system is not a collection of randomly placed masses, but a coherent organised system which must have feedback within it in order to maintain that coherence.
——————————
Well, it does put some of the criticism in perspective here, alas not in a way our good friend, Tall Bloke means. I’ll leave it to others to chew on the important particulars, but three things…apart from the hopefully tongue-in-cheek “music of the spheres bit… struck me as worrisome.
First, the straw man argument which claims that potential critics of “coherent organized system” view the Solar system as a “collection of randomly placed masses.”
The second is the claim that our Solar system is a “coherent organised system.” This strikes me as a statement based on faith rather than objective observation. Disclaimer: I’m religiously observant and believe in Intelligent Design. However, that is a position I base entirely on faith and tradition. I know of no convincing scientifichypothesis that confirms my beliefs, nor do I require one. I’m not philosophically troubled by this, as I know that science and religion are different systems of knowledge; I’m more troubled by annoying attempts by some theologians and even scientists within my religious community to cherry-pick scientific claims in a decidedly unscientific manner.
Thirdly, I’m uncomfortable about Tall Bloke’s seemingly reflexive defense of contrarian or alternate sciences. Opposition to CAGW is based on that conjecture’s failure and fraudulent politicking and rent-seeking. This does not require skeptics to come up with alternate explanations on the fly, nor to hold hands with everyone who is being snubbed by the mainstream scientific establishment. In the comments section, where Tall Bloke participates, the usual and tiring comparisons with Galileo are made. Tall Bloke says, “Halton Arp was denied further telescope time after publishing his anomalous red shift data…At least they didn’t put him under house arrest to make sure he couldn’t spread his heresy like the Catholic Cardinals did with Galileo.” Now, a quick look at Halton Arp’s case and his site confirms that the man was indeed unfairly hounded and that he makes many a good point. However, his work also appears to have been falsified, or at least credibly challenged, by new equipment and discoveries and Dr Arp’s angry and strident persistence in hanging onto his claims and his beatification as a Galilean martyr are questionable, though, and one of the markers of crank-hood.
Personally, I wish that Tall Bloke would describe his boundaries explicitly and clearly. As I mentioned before, some of his blog friends and guests stray to the margins of science, such as crop circle research, astrology, psychics, UFOs and I’m curious on what basis he includes or excludes certain ideas from the margins of established science. Once again I worry about CAGW skepticism reaching beyond its aims and getting dragged down by opportunistic pseudoscientists. Just a thought.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 7:19 am
For which Vukcevic has an R^2 correlation of over .9 with his planetary based equation which uses the orbital period of Jupiter and the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.
Time to wake up Rog, Vuk’s equation is nonsense and has no scientific base. I remember in the old days he was predicting a high cycle SC24 and changed his formula when the writing was on the wall. Basically numerology and cyclomania is just pure crap, the solar system is a natural structure of nature that refuses to conform to our need to force the universe into perfect pigeon holes. The mainly non repeating format of the planet positions gives us the variation of solar activity over the Holocene, which will only give us glimpses via FFT type analysis.
Your blog spends a lot of time on perfect cycles and repeating numbers. This concept will ultimately be proven wrong, the variation in each cycle is the key.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:26 am
Show me something even close to our 4 gas planet controlled system that comes close.
So you are saying that it will only happen in systems just like ours. If the planets in general have an influence it should be felt in all systems to degrees depending on the particulars. You want special pleading for the sun, go ahead.
Peter Kovachev says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:35 am
As I mentioned before, some of his blog friends and guests stray to the margins of science, such as crop circle research, astrology, psychics, UFOs and I’m curious on what basis he includes or excludes certain ideas from the margins of established science.
I think those cranky ideas fit very well with the rest of his stuff, and do not find it particularly strange that they are included.
Terry Oldberg: Thus,the principles of logical reasoning are to minimize the entropy of one kind of inference that is made by a model or to maximize the entropy of a different kind of inference, under constraints expressing the available information. Among the fruits of this line of reasoning are thermodynamics, the theory of fair gambling devides and modern electronic forms of communication.
I’d be happier if you would display one error-free model and operationalize the distinction you are trying to make between prediction and projection. Scafetta’s model outputs will be compared to future data; if they are close, his model survives, if not it gets discarded. Why you think it is intrinsically untestable remains a mystery to me. But I think we have worked this vein as far as we can. Some of the references on your web page are already on my reading list.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler ( March 25, 2012 at 10:11 am ):
I forwarded an error-free model to you via an earlier comment. Scafetta’s model is not falsifiable because it makes no predictions and identifies no statistical population.
Scafetta’s model does make projections. Conflation of predictions with projections makes it seem to many that predictions are made but this conflation is inconsistent with the actual absense of a statistical population. For a disambiguation of the idea of a “prediction” and the idea of a “projection” please see my recent response to Smoky once it passes moderation.
The series of three articles that I published a year ago might be of interest in light of your interest in logic and climatology. The URLs are: http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/22/principles-of-reasoning-part-i-abstraction/ , http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/25/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-ii-solving-the-problem-of-induction/ and http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ . If you read the articles and have comments, I’d like to hear them. There is a place for comments in the associated blog.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:26 am
Show me something even close to our 4 gas planet controlled system that comes close.
This thread is specifically about Scafetta and his ideas and he does not rely on ‘our 4 gas planets’. Your stuff has other [much more fundamental] problems.
@terry Oldberg says:(March 25, 2012 at 8:50 am):
Unfortunately I think you are giving too much importance to semantics than content. To me, predictions and projections are almost the same – projection probably involves some participation and control from a group, prediction probably does not include that. In either way, they give parameters related to a future state of affairs.
Sure, I am aware of equilibrium and ensembles, steady state etc. Earth is not an adiabatic or isolated system, so we have to work with what we can parametrize – lack of equilibrium does not prevent us from dealing with the average surface temperature. So I do not see any logical or scientific inconsistencies in predicting rise in average temperature from the information we currently have. It is falsifiable with additional pertinent information or modified more accurate parameters or methodology.
Robert ( March 25, 2012 at 10:19 am ):
To pass this off as a mere semantic problem is to trivialize a linguistically borne subterfuge with consequences that may include the permanent loss of 100 trillion U.S. dollars in capital.
Robert says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:23 pm
“I do not believe in the account from that professor, it is not that involved.”
Prof Trebino has stated unequivocally that the problems described regarding his journal Comment are accurate: “This ridiculous scenario actually occurred as written; I didn’t make it up… Those events all happened exactly as I’ve described them.” You are calling Prof Trebino dishonest with no legitimate reason. You should read this about climate journal politics:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
Prof Trebino makes clear [#59] that his Comment corrected a paper on global warming. You should also read A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion to see how thoroughly corrupted the climate journal industry has become. Climate alarmism papers are greenlighted by climate journals, while reasonable criticism such as Trebino describes is given one roadblock after another.
Recently it was discussed here that MIT’s eminent climatologist Prof Richard Lindzen could not get a paper published in less than a year, while another paper by Michael Mann was fast tracked to publication in less than a month.
If you have climate related papers recently published, I would like to read about your experiences. But if you are simply presuming that “it is not that involved”, I suggest you read the book. It is even worse than Prof Trebino describes. Much worse. Read the book. It will open your eyes.
Smokey,
“How is a projection not a prediction? ”
The distinction is made to acknowledge that they cannot yet simulate or predict multidecadal climate modes or vulcanism, so their projections can be “wrong” and not falsified by just a few decades of data.
Martin,
Please see Climatologist Roy Spencer’s comment @March 25, 2012 at 9:11 am above.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:12 am
To be more specific, to test Dr. Scafetta’s conjecture, one would need observed events. Scafetta’s events cannot be observed because he has yet tell us what they are.
i think that he implicitly [deduced from his various papers] would consider the occurrence of a sunspot maximum or a conjunction of two planets as ‘events’. Those can be observed, but I do agree that without a mechanism [other than the vague ‘tidal’ waving] it is hard to tell what he means. In other papers he argues that finding the same cycle periods in some time series establishes causation and opens to road to new science for us all to follow. Again, it is hard to pin this down to testable ‘events’. His basic [newest] claim is that within ‘errors bars’ his ‘model’ sees no variation in climate the next several decades and if that happens IPCC is wrong [which they would be] and that therefore his hypothesis is correct. The latter does not follow. Just because someone else is wrong does not prove that he’s right.
Peter Kovachev says:
March 25, 2012 at 6:46 am
You have a valid point, Peter, and my wording was regrettably imprecise, though not with the same intent or intensity of MM’s rather egregious faux pas. Perhaps I should have said “those who align themselves with The Cause“. IMHO, Willis has taken up a lot of space on this thread with mostly useless verbiage and one useful observation, which I have pointed out. One need not be nasty to disagree. That only widens the gulf and results in people choosing sides, if only in order to keep valid trails of inquiry open. Willis has most probably heard of the aphorism “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”, but apparently wants no truck with it.
In a later comment you say:
Indeed. I have tried to articulate this point several times on earlier threads related to this matter, but you do it well here.
There is an approximately 60 year quasi-cyclic phenomenon evident in the global average temperature metric over the past 100+ years. The 30 year interval from 1910 to 1940 shows almost precisely the same run up in the metric as observed in the interval 1970 to 2000. The presence of this phenomenon accounts purely naturally for the greater part of, perhaps the entire, run up in the metric which the AGW advocates point to as indicating anthropogenic forcing of the climate. We are almost surely in for a cooling spell (decades long decline in the metric) which will last until the 2030’s, as we have just recently passed the peak of the quasi-cycle.
Getting wrapped up in conjectural arguments as to the cause of the phenomenon merely provides ammunition for the AGW advocates to dismiss the entire matter out of hand, whereas focusing on the existence of the phenomenon itself forces them into handwaving and advancing implausible arguments.
Terry Oldberg,
Thanks for that. The accepted dictionary definitions and the thesaurus similes from my handy desktop dictionary:
Dictionary
prediction noun. a thing predicted; a forecast : a prediction that the Greeks would destroy the Persian empire.
Thesarus
projection: noun. augury, conjecture, forecast, prediction, prophecy, prognosis, prognostication, projection.
But I will accept your distinctions if you begin to refer to the various parts of the scientific method in their correct context [not saying you don’t]: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law. Both CAGW and AGW are conjectures. I get as peeved as you do over prediction/projection when I see people referring to the “IPCC’s theory”. There is no such thing using proper scientific terminology. In IPCC land, it’s conjectures all the way down.
Smokey (March 25, 2012 at 11:45 am):
Terms in the English language such as “prediction” make ambiguous reference to the associated ideas. In the hands of tricksters, this ambiguity can be put to the task of leading people to conclusions that seem true but that are false or unproved. This is the mechanism by which the IPCC has lead a large fraction of the populace to the conclusion we’ll soon be fried if we don’t spend 100 trillion dollars on renewable energy projects.
Regarding the terminological issue, in this thread I’ve already signified my complete agreement with you on the issue of whether IPCC propositions such as CAGW are conjectures, hypotheses or scientific theories. As you rightly point out, they are mere conjectures.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 24, 2012 at 11:41 pm
In case Dr. Scafetta or others are running short of astronomical cycles for their parameters to be “closely related to” or “associated to”, I’ve prepared this handy list to prevent the feared cycle scarcity:
…
Of course, Dr. Scafetta also includes halves of those cycles, which gives us another whole range of possibilities.”
Can you please stop this posting of numbers; it has no relevance to post possibilities.
I have told you several times fruitless that it makes no scientific sense to deal with sinusoid cycles in years.
Because of i.) the non sinusoid function of the synodic Jupiter / Saturn movement and because of ii.) the double frequency of a tide function the function contains not only the main frequency, but more frequencies as the FFT analyses shows.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/fft_jusa_june1.gif
To make it clear again the n. time, what the differences is between my GHI simulation of the temperature proxies and the method of Scafatta, I try it:
The GHI takes the true heliocentric positions on the ecliptic in increments of years, month or days, and builds the absolute angle between two planets and then folded at 90°. This manner gives low values for 90° tide angles and high values for 0° and 180° values corresponding to cold resp.warm global temperatures.
Dr. Scafetta takes some few single (sine) frequencies out of FFT analyzed known available temperature reconstructions from the literature and fits these sine functions in phase by hand in a formula, and because he has a (correct) feeling that solar tide functions from planets are involved, he call this strange work ‘astronomical based’.
If there comes something out, what is near to the origin makes no wonder, because the summing of the FFT elements reconstruct bad the (old) temperature spectra.
I do argue since two years that the climate has a relation to heliocentric tide functions of the planets, and all people have ignored it. I have done maybe 500 comparison graphs, and the people have called me a tragic character of an old man.
Now, adding the real solar tide function of Jupiter and Saturn plus the real solar tide function of Jupiter and Neptune (three planets involved) you get a function which can be compared with p.e. the high frequency temperature reconstruction of A. Moberg.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/moberg_vs_st2.gif
Because these are only two functions is takes no wonder that there are not always matches, but adding 9 more real solar tide function, there is a better match:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif
Because it is no secret that the sea level is connected to the global temperature it can be shown with significance that the solar tide functions of the high frequency bodies corresponds with the global sea level.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_solar_tides_d1.gif
If in this thread the role of the planets are discussed, then these comparisons are relevant.
I have argued here that a ‘NO’ is not a valid argument in science, but a personal claim of skepticism. You can verify the astronomical calculations or not, but please avoid it to try to refute results with irrelevant conclusions.
V.
Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:18 am
Getting wrapped up in conjectural arguments as to the cause of the phenomenon merely provides ammunition for the AGW advocates to dismiss the entire matter out of hand, whereas focusing on the existence of the phenomenon itself forces them into handwaving and advancing implausible arguments.
Let the chips fall where they may, I leave the politicking to others on the whole. I want to find out what drives things like the 45 year, 90 year and 180 year cycles in the formation of the beach ridges in Northern Siberia and Canada, and the 1.3 year tidal action at the Sun’s tachocline.
You and others here just blithely walk past these cycles as if they don;t exist.
I am interested in the solar system dynamics which causes them.
If Mr Kovachev makes his judgement about me and my site and the people who post there based on a brief inspection of one thread, his attention span and rush to judgement matches that of the critics here who demonstrate that they didn’t bother to read and understand Nicola Scaffeta’s paper.
they don’t seem to mind wasting several days blethering their lack of comprehension all over this thread though.
Anthony Watts says:
March 22, 2012 at 11:12 am
I’m reopening comments now.
Argue the issue/science, not the persons. Otherwise I’ll close this thread permanently
Moderators, snip comments that cross this line.
Mr Kovachev seems to have crossed the line. He has nothing to say about the scientific facts presented in the post he looked at on my site, but plenty of ad homs to toss in my direction.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:52 am
[…..]
Greetings and thank you for your reply, Leif. Apart from the time when Tall Bloke had a spot of trouble with the local constabulary…a clear case of legalized persecution, if I ever saw one…and recently, with Mr Michele Casati’s and Dr Scaffeta’s article, I haven’t spent any time on Tall Bloke’s blog. This is because his topics are way over my head. Your opinion is that Tall Bloke has strayed into pseudoscience. Perhaps…apart from my dissatisfaction with his Music of the Spheres post, I’m not equipped to arrive at an opinion about his claims alone. I wish mainly that he do what Anthony has done, namely to list a number of topics he doesn’t want to see on his blog.
________________________________________
Terry Oldberg says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:28 am
CAGW isn’t a false proposition. It can’t be falsified because the IPCC has not identified the events that would be observed in an attempt at falsifying it. The IPCC’s fault does not lie in the falsity of the proposition but rather in the non-falsifiability of this proposition and misrepresentation when it says that its study of global warming was scientific.
Thank you, I stand corrected. Your second sentence, especially, clarifies it beautifully; a light went on somewhere in my head.
________________________________________
Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:18 am
[…]
Thank you for your reply, Bart. First, onto the Abominable Willis. Yes, it would be nice if he were a little more diplomatic at times and that he didn’t always piss-off about two thirds of the congregants here, but I think…as I opined elsewhere…that diplomacy is vastly overrated, that we must be prepared to have our ideas taken apart, in part to prevent them from becoming cherished pets. Besides, I think Willis simply wouldn’t work as Willis if he tried diplomacy. When Willis arrives at the scene with his mace a-swinging, it’s a good time to step back from the arc, but he gets the point across. I find his explanations are clear to me, and regarding this post, I do get the impression that he has contributed a whole bunch of specific critiques, most of which have yet to be addressed.
Thank you for your compliments on my attempt to articulate the problems with “big tent” chumminess. In turn, you have crafted the following well-put observation which I’ll try to remember:
Getting wrapped up in conjectural arguments as to the cause of the phenomenon merely provides ammunition for the AGW advocates to dismiss the entire matter out of hand, whereas focusing on the existence of the phenomenon itself forces them into hand-waving and advancing implausible arguments.
In any event, all this is fun and games for now, until Tall Bloke appears to hand me my arse on a plate.
PS: Is anyone else having trouble with this page hanging and taking a long time to refresh
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler (March 24, 2012 at 8:49 pm):
Contrary to your understanding, it is not a heuristic but rather is an optimization. That it is an optimization explains the consistent outperformance over models built by heuristic methods.
Mr Tall Bloke,
I saw your post only now. First of all, I have tremendous respect for your stand on the climate debate and admire your courage for bearing under pressure when recently confronted unfairly by the authorities. I truly have no That I will not take away. However, I’m saddened to think that you have interpreted my critiques as a personal attack. This was not my intent, and if I appear somewhere to have done so, I will readily clarify and if wrong, apologize.
My critique is limited to two posts of yours. I can only take such discussions as these as philosophies of science, methodology and issues on the ways of knowing. I believe that there divisions between science and pseudoscience and that they are often clear. I don’t imagine many are impressed with my lack of technical knowledge or understanding of the physical sciences, but layman, even a not-too-bright layman such as myself, still needs to be able to navigate through the various disciplines and is entitled to express objections on issues of philosophy. I note, as well, that while you have objected to my criticism and called for my snipping, you have not bothered to state a position on the substance of my critique.
Bart
The point is Jupiter is external to the Sun-Ea-Ve system so when Ju is accelerating Ea and Ve the rotation of the Sun-Ea-Ve system changes and thereby the rotation of the Sun.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 7:19 am
tallbloke, you really don’t understand the concept of curve fitting with free parameters. Any fool can fit two cycles of a cyclical phenomenon with five free parameters, which is all that vukcevic has done. It is a trivial exercise, and thus meaningless. Even the form of his equation is a joke, viz:
“t – 1940.5 -3”?? Why not "t – 1937.5"? In addition, he appears to be missing parentheses on the right, the term presumably should be
Also, what does the " ± " in front of the equation mean?
Once you simplify all of his complexities, and ignoring the ” ± “,you get:
For matching a mere two cycles of a cyclical phenomenon, using five tunable parameters and free choice of equations, that’s shooting fish in a barrel.
I begin to despair of you ever seeing through bozo-simple parameter fitting, tallbloke. What Vukcevic has done is a mathematical joke, and you are the one with the bullet hole through your foot.
w.
@terry Oldberg (March 25, 2012 at 11:57) “To pass this off as a mere semantic problem is to trivialize a linguistically borne subterfuge with consequences that may include the permanent loss of 100 trillion U.S. dollars in capital.”
How one wants to respond to the projections or predictions is a different issue, I think. I do not think the content is going to be any different for any practical purpose whether we use prediction or projection. I am really fascinated by the objection (I have seen this somewhere else, although I never paid much attention at that time) that we cannot even define an average surface temperature since earth’s atmosphere is not in equilibrium. But looking at your detailed explanation of the difference between prediction and projection (and some professor from UPenn, I believe, said, it is actually a forecast), do you have any reference for that – would be interesting to read the semantic explanation they give.
Robert ( March 25, 2012 at 1:02 ):
It sounds as though you are thinking of the paper by Green, Armstrong and Soon. The URL is http://kestencgreen.com/gas-2009-validity.pdf .
@ Peter Kovachev
Well said. As soon as I read something like: “At least they didn’t put him under house arrest to make sure he couldn’t spread his heresy like the Catholic Cardinals did with Galileo” I know I’m reading tosh. Galileo was never convicted of heresy; the Inquisition’s finding was that he was “vehemently suspected of heresy”. If Galileo had been seriously suspected of heresy, he would have been tortured prior to the trial, as would the publisher of his book who like Galileo remained untortured. It’s also significant that Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems had been approved by the Inquisition prior to the controversy. This approval was dependent on certain changes that Galileo had dutifully implemented.
Galileo’s trial was intended to demonstrate that Galileo had erred in ridiculing the pope in his book (which had remained unnoticed by the Inquisition and the Pope), and in his vicious attack on Fr Grassi for observing that comets moved between the sun and the planets (G. maintained they were atmospheric phenomena). Hitherto, the Jesuits had supported Galileo against the enemies he was rather insistent on making. Both Pope Urban and Cardinal Bellarmine were friends of Galileo and he was widely admired for his sermons and piety.
So, whenever I read about Galileo the Heretic I know I can reasonably assume the rest of what is written is probably also balderdash.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:17 am
Terry, having read a bunch of your claims about “projection” and “prediction”, I find I must object. “Projection” was used to mean a forecast before there was even a field called ensemble forecasting. Fifty years ago people were saying things like “Our projections for next years profits are that they will exceed this years profits by 25%” and the like. Your claim about “ensemble forecasting” simply won’t wash.
I find your insistence that we perforce must agree to your highly idiosyncratic definitions to be curious. As far as the way the terms are ACTUALLY USED, both in and out of science, there is no significant difference between a projection, a prediction, and a forecast. Here’s some scientific uses of “projection”, from the titles of scientific papers:
I could find hundreds more, but I’m sure you see the problem. They are all using “projection” to mean “forecast of the future”.
All three words, projection, prediction, and forecast, mean essentially the same thing—using what we know to make an informed guess about the future. And while there are slight differences in meaning, generally they are used interchangeably, both in and out of science.
For example, if I look at the way that interest rates have gone in the past and I say that interest rates are going to fall next year, is that a prediction, a forecast, or a projection? Ask ten people and you’ll get ten answers. I say it’s any of them.
So I find your continued insistence on your particular definitions of the words to be running in the face of how they are actually used, either in science or out.. You may certainly claim that the words should be used the way you say …
… but they aren’t, they are used pretty much interchangeably, and you’re gonna have to get used to that.
w.
Willis Eschenbach (March 25, 2012 at 1:30 pm):
You seem to think this is a semantic problem but it is a logical problem.
To understand what this is about, assume that there are two different ideas. Lets label one of these ideas by the made-up term “XXX” and the other by the made-up term “YYY.” If XXX and YYY are used as synonyms Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction is negated. Aristotle’s law is a true proposition. The negation of Aristotle’s law is a false proposition. Through the use of the negation of Aristotle’s law as a false proposition to a specious argument, one can lead one’s dupes to believe that a conclusion to an argument is true when this conclusion is false is unproved.
It is by this subterfuge that the IPCC has led its dupes to the conclusion of CAGW. This can be seen if and only if the terminology that is used in discussing this phenomenon is disambiguated. It can be disambiguated, for example, by implementing a policy in which XXX references one of the two ideas and YYY references the other. By your recent remarks you have in effect refused to abide by this policy thus supporting the IPCC’s subterfuge. I don’t think this is what you want to do.
If you wish to follow up, please carefully read the article at http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ plus all of my postings in this thread. If after doing this reading you remain unclear about what it is that is at issue or dubious about my conclusion perhaps I can help you.
@smokey,
No, I do not publish papers in AGW or any environmental area -thank God for that. Also, if I happen to be in one of those areas, I would have moved out quickly. Too many people taking it upon themselves to poke holes, rather than working together constructively, with this extreme view that science to be science has to be adversarial by necessity. One can do a lot more constructive work with that time than getting bogged down with responding to all those criticisms, most of which are trivial, some of them even goes into the political realm. But in my own area, if I find something is wrong in someone’s work, I might contact him/her to tell him/her first about it – and I might make a reference on the misgivings of that paper when I refer to it in my next paper, if that mistake was critical. The rest of the scientific community can make their own decision – all those people in science are not stupid, those scientists working in that particular area are at least as capable and knowledgeable as me and most bloggers digging into that area – they can and they will eventually figure out such mistakes when they use that mistaken theory for their work, so I find it to be a misuse of time to write to an editor to get a critical comment in the journal. In summary, I have difficulty in understanding what that professor from georgia tech is saying, it seems to me an exaggeration. It is to the interest of the author to make sure that everything is correct, knowing that publishing a mistaken paper is a disaster for one’s reputation in the long run. In climate science, I guess everyone is so used to such harsh criticisms from both sides, nothing new, but sometime in the future one side is going to win and the scientists in that side will gain reputation. The other side, and their members will look silly. So, I think it is to the interest of the scientist to be honest to himself/herself when they write such publications, because most scientists value their work. Bloggers do not have such a risk on their reputation.
Oh, right, I forgot the code for the simplification of Vukcevic’s equation. This one is in Mathematica, not R;
In[14]:= x = A (Cos[Pi/3 + 2 Pi (t - 1940.5 - 3)/(2*11.862)] + Cos[2 Pi (t - 1940.5 - 3)/19.859]) Out[14]= -152 (Cos[0.316 (-1.94*10^3 + t)] + Sin[Pi/6 - 0.265 (-1.94*10^3 + t)]) In[2]:= A = -152 Out[2]= -152 In[15]:= Simplify[x] Out[15]= -152 (Cos[615. - 0.316 t] + Cos[514. - 0.265 t])w.
Robert says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:38 pm
You are right that anonymous blog commenters such as yourself have no risk at all.
I, on the other hand, have all of the risk that any scientist has when I put my name to a post about some scientific ideas. In some ways it is a greater risk, because if I fall my fall is much more public than some paper in some obscure journal.
So it is greatly in my interest to be as scrupulously honest as I can, and I do so.
w.
Terry Oldberg said @ March 25, 2012 at 8:25 am
For differing opinions, you might want to read:
Popper, falsifiability, and evolutionary biology by David N. Stamos in Biology and Philosophy Volume 11, Number 2, 161-191, DOI: 10.1007/BF00128918
Falsifiability of theories in the biological sciences by MCM Iqbal in Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences) doi: 10.4038/cjsbs.v36i2.487
Are ecological and evolutionary theories scientific? by Murray BG Jr. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2001 May;76(2):255-89. PMID:11396849
Peter Kovachev says:
March 25, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Mr Tall Bloke,
I’m saddened to think that you have interpreted my critiques as a personal attack. This was not my intent, and if I appear somewhere to have done so, I will readily clarify and if wrong, apologize.
Thank you.
I believe that there divisions between science and pseudoscience and that they are often clear. .. I note, as well, that while you have objected to my criticism and called for my snipping, you have not bothered to state a position on the substance of my critique.
On the first point, I note that Nicola Scafetta has provided a model based on known planetary frequencies, which does quite a good job – as Anthony puts it, of fitting to the reconstructed climate data going back thousands of years. We will see how it pans out going forward. In the meantime, maybe you should call on the master of dynamology to also provide a model, based on his understanding of the processes inside the Sun, that can perform a similar feat. If you read back in the thread, and elsewhere, you’ll find that he claims that the 10.8 year component and the ~122 year harmonic are internal to the Sun, and these control the dynamo, and the 9.93 year and 11.86 year sideband frequencies arise as a necessary result of these fundamental periods. In other words, he proposes an identical model to Nicola Scafetta’s, but claims that the 9.93 year component and the 11.86 year component only happen to match the tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn and Jupiters orbital period by pure coincidence.
When he flippantly referred to my point above that 10.8 years is another Jupiter Saturn related number which is the product of the Jupiter-Saturn Synodic period and the ratio of their distances from the Sun, as “numerology”, it became clear to me that he understands so little about solar system dynamics that he is now calling Copernicus and Kepler numerologists.
So much for pseudo-science. The Dynamologists have offered no model which accounts for the 1.3 year countervailing speeding and slowing of the two layers near the solar tachocline, and can’t predict solar activity or hindcast it with any model dynamo.
There are undoubtedly strong electromagnetic forces at work in the Sun, and in my view there is little doubt that they are modulated by the Solar System as a whole, shot through as it is with interconnected harmonic relationships such as those outlined in the post you visited on my site.
Which brings me to your second point, asking for a critique of your assessment of me, my site and the people who contribute to it.
I am not the thought police, and so I have no idea which contributor to my site you have discovered to have an interest in UFO’s, and I don’t want to know either. I’m merely grateful that they don’t propound any such views when they are at my place. We do like to have a laugh though, so I might ask for a ‘hands up’ when I go back over there this evening.
So, onto your preamble and your ‘three points’
three things…apart from the hopefully tongue-in-cheek “music of the spheres bit… struck me as worrisome.
The music of the sphere’s was written by Kepler. See further down the comment from Roger Andrews. Blimey, I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition.
“Nooooo-one epects the Spanish Inquisition! You are accused of heresy on two counts:”
First, the straw man argument which claims that potential critics of “coherent organized system” view the Solar system as a “collection of randomly placed masses.”
It’s implicit in the view that the planets were simply following the paths they were formed in at the birth of the solar system, then perturbed by each other gravitational forces.
The second is the claim that our Solar system is a “coherent organised system.” This strikes me as a statement based on faith rather than objective observation.
It’s implicit in the fact that the planets exhibit the harmonic relationships outlined in my post you visited despite the chaotic perturbations they have undergone during the evolution of the system. If they were not participating in controlling feedback mechanisms, there is no way they could be in such a harmonic arrangement. I don’t expect anyone to understand this on the spur of the moment, but some deep reflection will hopefully allow others to see that it is true. You’d have to read a lot more of the published literature on the many body problem, cybernetic control loops and chaos theory before you would see it maybe.
Three counts! Three counts of heresy you are accused of!
Thirdly, I’m uncomfortable about Tall Bloke’s seemingly reflexive defense of contrarian or alternate sciences. … I’m curious on what basis he includes or excludes certain ideas from the margins of established science.
I use something called my own judgement. I often allow posts which express views I don’t myself agree with, if there promises to be a useful debate. The current one by Doug Cotton being a case in point. ‘Alternate sciences’: Planetology – yes. Electric Universe – occasionally. UFO’s – no. My website is more adventurous and less afraid of ridicule than most, and we don’t mind getting speculative and kicking new ideas around. We don’t in general ‘make claims’, until we’re sure of something. In the present discussions, we are sure the planets are modulating solar activity, but we don’t yet know which or how many of the possible the physical mechanisms are doing what. It’s a new area of study, and we’re getting a lot of fun and interest working on it. Some troubadour-provocateurs like Adolfo like to throw curve balls into the ring. That’s fine, and all part of the banter that goes on amidst the more serious attempts to discover new and interesting things about the solar system and how it ticks.
Once again I worry about CAGW skepticism reaching beyond its aims and getting dragged down by opportunistic pseudoscientists. Just a thought.
Don’t you worry your eminence, I’ll keep an eye on them. 😉
And another thought about Popperian falsifiability from Elliott Sober’s Philosophy of Biology (1993)
Note that I quote from Sober because I do not yet own a copy of Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery. I would not recommend Sober’s book as a general introduction to philosophy of biology since it is focussed on evolutionary theory, rather than general biological issues. Better is Sterelny & Griffiths’ Sex and Death (1999). The physical resemblance between Kim Sterelny and the Git is purely coincidental and not to be construed.
The Pompous Git (March 25, 2012 at 2:31 pm ):
To cite the ideas of Popper in an argument against falsifiability as the criterion that discriminates scientific from dogmatic assertions makes Popper the strawman in a strawman argument. In modern information theory, falsifiability is preserved by a strategy that focuses on the limiting relative frequency of events. The limiting relative frequency of events of a particular kind (e.g., events in which “heads” is the outcome) is the relative frequency of these events in the limit of observations of infinite number. The model does not assert that the limiting relative frequency has a point value such as 0.5 but rather that it has a particular probability density function. This assertion is falsifiable.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm
“You and others here just blithely walk past these cycles as if they don;t exist.”
Firstly, I want to second Peter’s thought:
Also, you have kindly posted some of my inputs on your site and I do appreciate it. But, on the cycles… there are really infinitely many cyclical processes going on in the universe, but that does not mean those with the same or nearly the same period have anything to do with one another. I have tried to point out that the possible linkages through gravitational effects are exceedingly small. I do not believe there is any possibility of a connection there. Even the possibility of a resonance response fails for me because I have concluded that resonance would be primarily driven by more powerful effectively random forcing, not the tiny gravitational effects.The only way out I see left is the possibility of modulation, e.g., that the celestial variations in position and aspect could modulate cosmic ray forcings or some such. But, the likelihood of that appears small to me.
I think few people here have the experience I do of routinely observing the oscillations of randomly driven characteristic modes of systems described by partial differential equations constrained at the boundaries. I routinely design control loops which interact with flexible structures. These high Q resonances can interact with my control system and can cause it to exhibit undesirable limit cycles or even spiral out of control if I do not make sure that they get attenuated or adequately phase shifted within the loop. To me, it is completely unremarkable that a natural system should exhibit characteristic oscillations which can appear very coherent over several cycles but exhibit random amplitude and phase modulation over the long term. I see it practically every day.
This is so commonplace that I feel confident in asserting that there is most likely an oscillatory mode of the Earth’s ocean/land/atmospheric system which resonates with an associated period of ~60 years, and is driven by random forcing.
lgl says:
March 25, 2012 at 12:54 pm
These things are not magic. There has to be a cause and effect relationship. If there is no significant bulge or inhomogeneity of the Sun, then there is no classical avenue for spin/orbit coupling. Even if there were, the only possible forcing is from tidal acceleration, and tidal acceleration at the Sun from Jupiter et al. is, as I have shown, very small, being more than 3 orders of magnitude less than the tidal acceleration at the Earth due to its moon. Given the much greater gravitational attraction of the Sun at the photosphere compared to Earth’s gravity at its surface (by a factor of about 28), tidal effects on the Sun from the outer planets are negligible.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:00 pm
“tallbloke, you really don’t understand the concept of curve fitting with free parameters. Any fool can fit two cycles of a cyclical phenomenon with five free parameters, which is all that vukcevic has done.”
Try fitting two cycles of a sinusoid with however many even-powered polynomial terms and tell me that. To get a good fit, your functional basis must adequately span the space of the image of your function. And, given the ubiquity of sinusoidal processes in nature, there are good reasons to employ a functional base of sinusoids.
You are overreaching. It suffices to say that fitting the curve and finding periods which are similar to those found elsewhere does not necessarily, or even generally, causally connect the two processes.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:31 am
I agree completely, Martin. But the shoe is on the other foot.
It is not my job to falsify a bimodal distribution. It is Scafetta’s job to falsify the null hypothesis, which is a normal distribution.
Finally, he makes much of the gap in the distribution from 10.5 years to 11 or so. But no such gap exists in the length of the cycles of the maxima.
w.
Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:32 pm
+10
In addition to natural oscillatory modes, you also highlight an important issue. Cycles come up and look to be very real … until you try to use them to predict the future. Then you find that they are dying out and being replaced by a different cycle with a different phase and frequency, or that the frequency is the same but the phase has totally changed, or …
w.
Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Thanks, Bart. You may have missed the part where I said (emphasis added):
Given free choice, of course I’ll use sine waves to fit a cyclical function. Why wouldn’t I? But beyond that, I can use one or more sine waves, I can add or multiply them, there’s no limit, I have free choice of any equations I like to fit the two measly cycles … easy money.
It’s a curse. I’m working on it.
Couldn’t agree more, particularly when you’re only trying to fit two cycles. Yet tallbloke finds it highly significant, enough to say that it shows that Leif has shot himself in the foot. Someone’s overreaching …
In any case, for me it was interesting to see that Vukcevic’s formula reduces to
Amplitude * ( Sin( Phase1 + t * Frequency1 ) + Sin( Phase2 + t * Frequency2 ) )
It clarified exactly what he is doing.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:42 pm
“Cycles come up and look to be very real … until you try to use them to predict the future.”
Yes, and no. The coherence of such a process is tied to how quickly energy is incoming to, and how quickly energy can dissipate from, the mode. As long as those fluxes are fairly steady, and they often are, then successful predictions can be made using tools such as the Kalman Filter. A very high Q oscillatory mode will generally maintain substantial coherence over many cycles, and such systems can be adequately projected forward for fairly long timelines using simple techniques such as curve fitting of steady state sinusoids.
Anyway, I’ve said all I can really say here. The points I have tried to make are:
1) it is unlikely that there is a causal connection between the motion of the outer planets and solar cycles affecting the climate of the Earth. There is no plausible connection with inter-gravitational phenomena. I think it is possible that there could be a correlation tracing back to the birth of the solar system, or a modulation effect due to cosmic rays, but there appears to be little basis to believe in either at this time.
2) There is a ~60 year quasi-cyclical component in the global average temperature metric (GATM). We are almost surely currently facing a 20-30 year decline in the GATM.
3) Such quasi-cyclical behavior could easily be the effect of a resonance in the Earth’s ocean/land/atmospheric system.
I think Dr. Scafetta is right about the Earth’s near term climate future, but for the wrong reasons, and I look forward to seeing how his predictions for the future pan out.
Willis Eschenbach says: “I, on the other hand, have all of the risk that any scientist has when I put my name to a post about some scientific ideas. In some ways it is a greater risk, because if I fall my fall is much more public than some paper in some obscure journal.”
Bloggers write their opinions usually, they do not publish their original research in blogs. So, they are not held to the same standards as scientists going through the review process to publish papers that are permanently available. In case AGE turns out to be true, this entire blog and content can be deleted – Tamino might do the same if his/her side turns out be wrong. That is not possible with a published paper, so the risk and responsibility is lower for bloggers. If your nature paper is shown to be wrong, then you have a problem.
But you are correct, you have a higher risk than anonymous posters. And I should stop posting here, since I do not know much about climate science and have no particular interest in learning it like you, carefully reading all such papers like the one by Scafetta.
@terry Oldberg, Yes, that is the paper – by Armstrong. Thank you! I had a feeling I read something like that long ago.
Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:32 pm
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm
“You and others here just blithely walk past these cycles as if they don;t exist.”
Firstly, I want to second Peter’s thought:
I have tremendous respect for your stand on the climate debate and admire your courage for bearing under pressure when recently confronted unfairly by the authorities.
Also, you have kindly posted some of my inputs on your site and I do appreciate it. But, on the cycles… there are really infinitely many cyclical processes going on in the universe, but that does not mean those with the same or nearly the same period have anything to do with one another.
Bart: Thanks for the kind words and I hope you’ll contribute more in the future too.
I do understand what you are saying, but I’d really appreciate it if you’d take a look at the post anyway, because the 45 year and associated harmonic periodicities are fundamental to the entire solar system scheme. The 45 year beach ridges are extra high every 360 years, and even higher every ~500 years. These beach ridges go back thousands of years with regularity on the evenly glacially rebounding substrate. This is not an centenially appearing and disappearing 3 x 60 year PDO/AMO flash in the pan. Please take the time to read the text accompanying this image: http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/oliver-page252.jpg
Willis Eschenbach says: “You are right that anonymous blog commenters such as yourself have no risk at all. I, on the other hand, have all of the risk that any scientist has when I put my name to a post about some scientific ideas. In some ways it is a greater risk, because if I fall my fall is much more public than some paper in some obscure journal. So it is greatly in my interest to be as scrupulously honest as I can, and I do so. ”
Since bloggers are generally expressing their opinion mainly based on other original research, the risk is pretty minimum. We do not hold them responsible for their opinions to same level. If you publish original research, go through the review process, and get a published paper that will be cited over and over again on how wrong the prediction was, then that is a different matter. In other words, if your nature paper is wrong, then you have problems. Such publications are permanent while blogs can be deleted or removed at a later date.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:24 pm
My friend, with all due respect, I fear that makes no sense at all. Please restate it with actual ideas. When I try that, I suppose that idea XXXX is “mammals”, and idea YYYY is “creatures with hair who lactate and give birth to live young”.
You say that if I use those two ideas as synonyms, that “Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction is negated”.
Huh?
There are so many assumptions in that sentence I’m not sure where to start. The “IPCC” doesn’t lead anything, it just issues reports full of hand-waving and unfalsifiable claims. Who are the “dupes” of the IPCC? How did it “dupe” them? What “subterfuge” are you talking about? Did someone clandestinely break Aristotle’s Law and not get arrested for it? How do you distinguish CAGW from AGW?
“Implementing a policy”? Who is doing the “implementing”? Who will enforce the policy? What will be the consequences of violating such a policy?
So I’m guilty of “refusing to abide” by some policy that I didn’t know existed, put in place by … someone, somewhere? I suppose that next you’re going to tell me “Ignorance of the policy is no excuse, citizen!”.
I thought you were the logician. How can I possibly “refuse to abide by” (a conscious act) some vague policy I’ve never heard of?
I went over and tried to read your paper at Judiths, which is my second attempt to scale that particular mountain. I tried before when you first posted it. I failed to attain the summit both times. I lost the trail to the top, it was so shrouded in a fog of philosophy and you spent so much time disambiguating one trail from another that I ended up totally ambiguated myself.
If you are willing to give me the elevator speech about why calling a forecast a prediction is a serious violation of some policy, bring it on, I’m interested in the underlying thoughts. But not more than three or four paragraphs that clearly lay out the issues and ideas. I’m more than willing to listen to that, the length of a speech you can give in an average elevator ride. If you can’t pack your ideas up like that, if you can’t give the elevator speech for your own ideas, you’ll find it very hard to get much traction in this world.
Because I fear I just can’t wade through your incredibly convoluted prose. Perhaps that kind of thing convinces professors. It doesn’t work for me at all.
In friendship,
w.
[SNIP: Terry, please address the thread topic and refrain from abusing other commenters. -REP]
Robert says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:33 pm
I see the problem. You think I was talking about bloggers in general, but if you re-read the part you have quoted, you’ll see I did not discuss bloggers at all. I was comparing an anonymous commenter with my own personal position.
I have published and continue to publish a host of original research here at WUWT. I’ve also published a couple of pieces directly in the journals. Finally, a couple of pieces I first published on WUWT have subsequently appeared in peer-reviewed journals. I do not see the journals and the web in opposition, but as complementary. The web is a marvelous place to expose new ideas, because of the immediacy of the feedback and sometimes falsification. I’ve been totally blown out of the water on some posts, and it wasn’t pretty, I hate being wrong as much as the next man.
But that’s how science moves forwards and how I learn, through my mistakes. They all have been totally visible, no hiding up in some ivory tower protected by tenure. I put my scientific ideas on the public chopping block and hand around the axes. Don’t you think I’d rather be wrong in some obscure journal? But then I’d never get the feedback, I’d never learn a thing.
I’m not interested in how I will look to history. I’m interested in affecting the current scientific discussion and debate. I would strongly argue that the real climate science discussion has moved from the journals to the responsible science blogs. The journals still do what they always did. But the issues are hammered out on the blogs.
I let the grandkids worry about the future, I want to be a force in the present.
Best regards,
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Terry Oldberg says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:17 am
… “Projection” is a term from the field of ensemble forecasting.
Terry, having read a bunch of your claims about “projection” and “prediction”, I find I must object. “Projection” was used to mean a forecast before there was even a field called ensemble forecasting. Fifty years ago people were saying things like “Our projections for next years profits are that they will exceed this years profits by 25%” and the like. Your claim about “ensemble forecasting” simply won’t wash.
I find your insistence that we perforce must agree to your highly idiosyncratic definitions to be curious. As far as the way the terms are ACTUALLY USED, both in and out of science, there is no significant difference between a projection, a prediction, and a forecast. Here’s some scientific uses of “projection”, from the titles of scientific papers: …
I could find hundreds more, but I’m sure you see the problem. They are all using “projection” to mean “forecast of the future”.
All three words, projection, prediction, and forecast, mean essentially the same thing—using what we know to make an informed guess about the future. And while there are slight differences in meaning, generally they are used interchangeably, both in and out of science.
For example, if I look at the way that interest rates have gone in the past and I say that interest rates are going to fall next year, is that a prediction, a forecast, or a projection? Ask ten people and you’ll get ten answers. I say it’s any of them.
So I find your continued insistence on your particular definitions of the words to be running in the face of how they are actually used, either in science or out.. You may certainly claim that the words should be used the way you say …
… but they aren’t, they are used pretty much interchangeably, and you’re gonna have to get used to that.
===================
You’re assuming they’re being used interchangeably…
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS
VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS
by
Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong
ABSTRACT
“In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group One, a
panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the
United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report.
The Report included predictions of dramatic increases in average world
temperatures over the next 92 years and serious harm resulting from the predicted
temperature increases. Using forecasting principles as our guide we asked: Are
these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? Our answer is “no”.
To provide forecasts of climate change that are useful for policy-making, one
would need to forecast (1) global temperature, (2) the effects of any temperature
changes, and (3) the effects of feasible alternative policies. Proper forecasts of all
three are necessary for rational policy making.
The IPCC WG1 Report was regarded as providing the most credible long-term
forecasts of global average temperatures by 31 of the 51 scientists and others involved
in forecasting climate change who responded to our survey. We found no references
in the 1056-page Report to the primary sources of information on forecasting methods
despite the fact these are conveniently available in books, articles, and websites. We
audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report
to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found
enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting
principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles.
Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical.
The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In
effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and
obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’
predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We
have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that
the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.”
When the IPCC stops saying that its modelling is “scientific” and can give probabilities/possibilities of 100% which it says is prediction justifying the models’ claim that AGW is real and trillions of dollars of taxpayers money well spent and restrictions on personal freedoms required because of it, then they can use the word in any general way they want.
I’m sick of excuses being made for them by snivelling arguments that claim the IPCC ‘doesn’t make predictions but projections’, or as you’ve given above variation. The IPCC AGW claim is the SCIENCE IS SETTLED and they’ve been shouting it loudly for the last two decades while consistently failing to provide one shred of science rationale to back up their claims. How does Carbon Dioxide heat the Earth? How are these models the scientific proof on which their claims are made?
Until they are held accountable for this gross misappropriation of accepted science terms in promoting their models as real science and in claiming their fictional fisics is real world physics, then they will continue to deliberately and with malice aforethought con the population and dumb down the education of same.
From: http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_definitions.html
Definition of Terms Used Within the DDC Pages
“Projection
The term “projection” is used in two senses in the climate change literature. In general usage, a projection can be regarded as any description of the future and the pathway leading to it. However, a more specific interpretation has been attached to the term “climate projection” by the IPCC when referring to model-derived estimates of future climate.
Forecast/Prediction
When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.”
Meaningless drivel excusing the methods of these claims and dismissing those pointing out the real manipulations in these claims is a very great part of the problem – scientific gravity is what is required here because they are making predictions claiming it is science.
And they are believed because of this specific claim.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm
the 10.8 year component and the ~122 year harmonic are internal to the Sun, and these control the dynamo, and the 9.93 year and 11.86 year sideband frequencies arise as a necessary result of these fundamental periods. In other words, he proposes an identical model to Nicola Scafetta’s, but claims that the 9.93 year component and the 11.86 year component only happen to match the tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn and Jupiters orbital period by pure coincidence.
The model is very different as it does not invoke any tidal periods, but simply an amplitude modulation of the fundamental dynamo.
he is now calling Copernicus and Kepler numerologists.
Kepler most certain was: http://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/kepler.html
So much for pseudo-science. The Dynamologists have offered no model which accounts for the 1.3 year countervailing speeding and slowing of the two layers near the solar tachocline
But they know their solar physics, the 1.3 year thingy was a temporary fluke in messy data, and has gone away:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/271/1/012075/pdf/1742-6596_271_1_012075.pdf
“After 15 years of GONG and MDI observations of the solar interior rotation, we
revisit the issue of variations in the rotation rate near the base of the convection zone. The
1.3-year period seen in the first few years of the observations disappeared after 2000 and has
still not returned”
and can’t predict solar activity or hindcast it with any model dynamo
Predicted cycle 24 quite nicely [and actually cycles 21, 22, and 23 too]. Hindcasting you can always do by curve fitting.
@All: “God does not play dice”, Albert Einstein
adolfogiurfa says:
March 25, 2012 at 5:27 pm
@All: “God does not play dice”, Albert Einstein
“He most certainly does, and even throws them where we can’t see them”, me
Terry Oldberg said @ March 25, 2012 at 3:55 pm
I do not, based on my recollection of Popper’s argument in LScD, see where it has been mischaracterised by Sober. Indeed, citing Popper’s argument in regard to another of Popper’s argument seems to me to be the very antithesis of Aunt Sally.
I am also dubious about your appeal to the frequentist interpretation of probability on the grounds that nobody has had, or ever will have, the time to perform an infinite number of coin tosses. I recall here RA Fisher’s remark, made it seems with the courage of despair, “in a hypothetical infinite population the ratio is perfectly definite”. (Phil Trans 222 A, 1922 p312).
The Pompous Git:
You’ve jumped to the wrong conclusion. I’ve not made the frequentist interpretation of probability.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm
[….]
Thank you for honouring me with such a kind and detailed response, Tall Bloke. Please feel free to call me Peter, btw. In re-reading my posts, I recognize that I did, er, well, jump to a few little assumptions, strayed a bit outside the bounds of courtesy and in retrospect, I think I might have done better to have addressed you with my questions and concerns directly. Funnily enough, with all the talk about predictions, projections and forecasts, no one noticed my bulls-eye prediction that you would make an appearance to hand my arse on a platter. I just didn’t know how it would be cooked, but I don’t have a ready access to a Cray.
Regarding Dr Scafetta’s paper I will now have to justify your confidence in my capacity to comprehend the science behind the issues by straining my brain even more. I will read your outline, the arguments and counter-arguments of the others and even struggle through the paper one more time. That’ll occupy my leisure hours for a good part of the coming week. With this single posting, I have actually learned quite a bit about an area that’s far, far outside my usual intellectual haunts. I don’t have any illusions about attaining the kind of depth and detail I see here, but I should be able to reach a general understanding of the topic, which will make me even more insufferable. My own areas of competence are in marketing, digital and traditional art and illustration and the closest I have come to anything scientific has been my writing and editing on brick and stone masonry, having a couple of years ago co-edited, co-authored, fully illustrated and page-formatted the first uniquely Canadian text book on brick and stone masonry. With about a dozen of committee members, technical instructors and university engineering departments overseeing all, I’ve truly tasted peer review at its “finest” and have a few grey hairs to prove it too.
Thanks for addressing my comments, I see you are taking your auto de fe rather cheerfully. And you’re right, much of this way beyond a layman’s ken, but a few comments from the peanut gallery. This pertains to the first and second claims, which in retrospect O could have rolled into one. If there is one thing I sort of got as I rooted around in my new scientist persona, it’s a table of gravitational forces which indicated the Moon as the strongest force, numerically represented with the numeral 2, followed by the Sun as 2, and then fractions of a percent for the planets. The argument some have made, if I understood things, is that in comparison to the influence of the Moon, which exerts a pretty powerful effect on large bodies of water and even (what a freaky thing, that) creates Earth tides, the forces exerted by the planets are inconsequential. The other point of confusion I’ll mention now is “controlling feedback mechanisms,” and “harmonic arrangements.” I’m under the impression that the former is not physically evident and directly measurable…as with the machine that goes “beep,” to borrow from Monty Python…and the latter reminds me of the Renaissance search for mathematically and rationally expressed arrangements in nature. My bias here is at play, in that as a religious fellow I’m familiar with such arguments, but in my efforts to separate science, from faith, my rationalistic half doth protest. However, I do need to look up a few things as you say, and if I get a handle on something, be sure that I’ll proudly flaunt it.
Once again, thank you for taking the time and effort to explain, Tall Bloke. It is not a wasted effort, surely not on others here who have a better grasp, but on me as well, as it spurs me to look at these subjects at much greater depth. I think I understand your position on science and pseudoscience much better too. It is a topic that has concerned me of late, because I believe that confusion over the two has led us all into the trouble with this CAGW, a confusion that’ll cost us trillions. uncounted “units of misery” and actual lives before the madness goes away. Hoping to see you here and at your site; be well,
pk
Robert said @ March 25, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Wrong. Check out the Wayback Machine. Barring the metaphorical plug being pulled, our words would appear to be preserved forever (or at least a very long time indeed). One can easily miss an Erratum, or Comment in a journal because it is necessarily in a later edition than the one you are reading.
Leif Svalgaard said @ March 25, 2012 at 5:49 pm
There ya go! I always thought it was me he threw them at 🙂
The Pompous Git says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Pompous Git…funny, that moniker of yours. My wife who’s of a British extraction calls me that from time to time, especially when I adopt a lecturing tone on a topic, forgetting that it is she and my father-in-law who are the actual professors in our family. True, Galileo is often made into what he is not, but that’s the case it seems with most of the Renaissance giants, especially my favourite thinker of that crazy period, Niccolo Machievelli. It gets worse with Classical Greek philosophers, whose rather ordinary folk wisdoms that happened to be penned down were blown up out of proportion in the 19th century. Hoo boy, here I go again.
My issue with such examples, even where real persecution has occurred is simply that all they indicate is that establishments often act in stupid ways to the detriment of science, but that by virtue of doing so, they cannot in any way weaken or strengthen the substance of the persecuted position. Those strive or fall on their own merits or lack thereof.
The Pompous Git says: “Wrong. Check out the Wayback Machine. Barring the metaphorical plug being pulled, our words would appear to be preserved forever (or at least a very long time indeed). One can easily miss an Erratum, or Comment in a journal because it is necessarily in a later edition than the one you are reading.”
Sure, If one looks for it in such backup systems. But blogs, whether they are original or not, are not indexed in Google scholar or Microsoft Academic. Papers on the other hand, including Erratum, are indexed in Web of Science or Compendex, etc. There is a difference, maybe that difference is getting slightly smaller.
Willis Eschenbach says: “I first published on WUWT have subsequently appeared in peer-reviewed journals.”
This is precisely my point. I am almost sure they did not even referenced you in their publication, because they don’t have to – they are not obliged to look at every blogs. If that information was available in a journal database, as I mentioned above, you would have received proper recognition among that circles. But, having said that, I admire your effort. All the best.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm
the 10.8 year component and the ~122 year harmonic are internal to the Sun, and these control the dynamo, and the 9.93 year and 11.86 year sideband frequencies arise as a necessary result of these fundamental periods. In other words, he proposes an identical model to Nicola Scafetta’s, but claims that the 9.93 year component and the 11.86 year component only happen to match the tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn and Jupiters orbital period by pure coincidence.
You have this a bit wrong. What I showed was that if we take the solar cycle period to be 10.810 year and if we assume a long cycle of 121.8944 years we reproduce the 9.91 and 11.87 years side-peaks. Now, the sunspot record is not long enough to determine any of these periods to two decimals [let alone one], and the long cycle is more like 104 years the past 3 centuries, so all of this is approximate only and there are no matches to 4 days accuracy (0.01 yr).
Furthermore I show that the coincidences only work if the tidal influence from Jupiter and Saturn are precisely equal which is unlikely as Saturn is smaller and further away. So, we are back to pure coincidence unless physical [and numerical] arguments can be made why the two influences should be equal.
Myrrh (March 25, 2012 at 5:03 pm):
There is a connection between between the study of Green and Armstrong’s study and mine. In their study Green and Armstrong (
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf ) use a different
terminology and methodology than mine ( http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ ) but reach the same conclusion as I.They report (page 1006) that “…Trenberth (2007) and others have claimed that the IPCC does not provide forecasts but rather ‘scenarios’ or ‘projections’.” However, they report that “…the word ‘forecast’ and its
derivatives occurred 37 times and ‘predict’ and its derivatives occurred 90 times…” in Chapter 8 of the report of Working Group 1 in AR4. From these data, they conclude that the IPCC makes forecasts. To give them a name, I’ll call call them “IPCC forecasts.” Next, Green and Armstrong compare the methodology in the creation of the “IPCC forecasts” to criteria that are determinative of whether an “IPCC forecast” is a “scientific forecast.” On the basis of this comparison, they conclude that an “IPCC forecast” is not a “scientific forecast.”
Pertinent features of my study and of Green and Armstrong’s study become congruent when 1) my use of “projection” taken to be identical to that of Trenberth et al and the equivalent of of an “IPCC forecast” and 2) My use of “prediction” is taken to be the equivalent of Green and Armstrong’s use of “scientific forecast.” By separate routes, Green and Armstrong and I reach the identical conclusion that the methodology of the study that is described by Working Group 1 in AR4 was not “scientific.”
Terry Oldberg said @ March 25, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Your words:
From the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
So no, I didn’t jump; I was pushed 😉
Peter Kovachev said @ March 25, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Nice thing about using it as a nom de plume is when someone calls me a pompous git. I just smile and say: “I know”.
Establishments often act in stupid ways to the detriment of everyone, not science alone. Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly: from Troy to Vietnam is a series of examples throughout history. Like all her books, it’s a gripping as a novel which seemed to upset some of my history lecturers who seemed to favour obscurantist writing.
Pompous:
In your most recent response you are winging it. It is time for me to bid you fairwell.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Rog – There are a lot of coincidences in the universe. It’s just not enough. There has to be a causal mechanism to connect these things, and I just do not see one readily apparent. I’m as certain as I can be it isn’t gravity or the apparent motion of the Sun relative to the planets.
Whatever is causing the ~60 year cyclic or quasi-cyclic variation in the GATM, it is there. That is the major thing right now. Determining its origin may take decades of additional research. But, right now, it is readily apparent in the data. Within the next decade, it will become undeniable. And, that means that the anthropogenic impact on the climate, at least through release of long sequestered CO2, is negligible.
That’s my opinion, FWIW.
Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Rog – There are a lot of coincidences in the universe. It’s just not enough.
And they usually fall by the wayside after some time. Here is another well-worn example that generated quite some excitement back then:
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/collections/staffnotes/asset-000-000-000-565.pdf
Robert says:
March 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm
I’m sorry for my lack of clarity. What I meant was, I have first published things on WUWT, and then subsequently rewritten them. submitted them, and had them published in the peer-reviewed journals. So I got the benefits you mention. I regret the misunderstanding.
But suppose your scenario were the case. Suppose someone takes my idea and runs with it? Suppose I never get “proper recognition”? Let me pass on a lesson I was fortunate enough to learn early on.
I can accomplish almost anything if I don’t care who gets the credit.
So I have no problems if I see an idea of mine in the journals. Hey, it’d be great to get a hat tip or an attaboy, but I’m in it for the results, not the credit. Here’s a funny story about that.
When I was working in the Solomon Islands, a partner and I put together a proposal for a hydropower pre-feasibility study on one of the rivers. The country is broke and burns diesel for power, but they have wild uninhabited areas for run-of-the-river power plants. So I was pushing hydro, because I wanted to be involved in the project. I put together about a 25-page plan laying out the general parameters of the survey, the locations on the Tina River that warranted investigation, the landowner issues, the issues with the Solomon Islands Electrical Authority, the legal issues, the financial side, the whole thing.
We pitched it to World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and both expressed interest in further discussions about providing funding.
Then we heard nothing for about three months.
Then one day I read in the paper that the World Bank is funding a pre-feasibility study on the Tina River … those World Bank cabrones had taken my plan lock, stock and barrel, the whole dang thing, and were promoting it as their own.
My partner and I had many a good laugh about that, because if we’d had to push the idea ourselves, it would have been a pile of work for both of us and taken forever, the World Bank bureaucracy is way slow when they want to. But since they stole the idea, the bureaucrats made sure it happened right away. Both my partner and I wanted it to happen for the good of the country, so we got our wish and even at double speed, because we didn’t get credit … and I got my plan implemented in the real world without lifting a finger. Go figure.
Finally, I’m an amateur scientist, which is an enviable position in that my advancement doesn’t depend on publication. The “publish or perish” system leads to a lot of bad papers. In fact, a flood of bad papers. So I can publish what I want to, when I want to.
And the best to you as well,
w.
Terry Oldberg said @ March 25, 2012 at 10:40 pm
What an odd response!
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 25, 2012 at 5:14 pm
the 1.3 year thingy was a temporary fluke in messy data, and has gone away:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/271/1/012075/pdf/1742-6596_271_1_012075.pdf
“After 15 years of GONG and MDI observations of the solar interior rotation, we
revisit the issue of variations in the rotation rate near the base of the convection zone. The
1.3-year period seen in the first few years of the observations disappeared after 2000 and has
still not returned”
Thanks Leif, I do appreciate your willingness to furnish us with data even while we are having a spat. 🙂
I note the following statement in the document.
“Even though the 1.3-year signal appears only in the early years of the data set, the variation
of the 0.72R equatorial rotation rate in MDI and GONG looks remarkably similar during
the whole period.”
So what does this mean? The 0.65R signal disppears (energy leaking meridionally), but the latitudianl signal at 0.75R remains? It’s so frustrating that we are left playing guessing games with short datasets. And that SC24 isn’t around the same strength as SC23. Oh well. Will the monitoring continue? I sure hope so.
Fig2 looks interesting, with sideband frequencies swelling and diminishing in different timeframes. Not a system we’d be able to understand without a much longer dataset. Concepts of a fairly simple mechanical dynamo being able to usefully describe the Sun’s electromagnetic behaviour properly are dead in the water for sure.
That’s why it’s a more useful approach to look at the solar system macro scale harmonic patterns (whatever the causative mechanism which undoubtedly links them), and try to model future solar behaviour from those. This is what Scafetta is attempting, and it is a reasonable and logical approach in my opinion.
TB: and can’t predict solar activity or hindcast it with any model dynamo
LS: Predicted cycle 24 quite nicely [and actually cycles 21, 22, and 23 too].
Using heuristics and observation just like the rest of us do, not with a coherent dynamo model which calculates anything from ‘first principles’.
Hindcasting you can always do by curve fitting.
True. We’ll only know if we got it right if the fitted model carries on performing well into the future.
Peter Kovachev says:
March 25, 2012 at 6:13 pm
My own areas of competence are in marketing, digital and traditional art and illustration
Peter, thanks for your response, and feel free to call by at my site, there is room there for art and literature as well as technical discussion, as the present thread demonstrates. My own degree is in History and Philosophy of science, but a lot of sciences used to involve the arts too, and I prefer an integrated and eclectic approach, as it stops things getting dull, and cross fertilises ideas in an interdisciplinary way. Something which is sorely needed in the stultified, institutionalised, compartmentalised and over-specialised faculty operations in our universities if they are going to make headway with the big puzzles the universe presents us with.
Lord Kelvin believed physics was pretty much sorted out, and that only the details were left to iron out. This led him to state categorically that “heavier than air flying machines are an impossibility”.
Similarly, I attended a lecture by the astronomer royale in 1988 where we were informed that the astrophysics was pretty much sorted out, and only the details were left to iron out. I nearly fell off my chair laughing, and got a dig in the ribs from the elbow of my phil of sci prof who later told me to be more respectful of the afflictions of others.
Willis Eschenbach said @ March 25, 2012 at 11:05 pm
So you won’t mind if I pinch that statement for my epitaph; I’m more than happy to have it signed: “w.” 🙂
Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:45 pm
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Rog – There are a lot of coincidences in the universe. It’s just not enough. There has to be a causal mechanism to connect these things, and I just do not see one readily apparent. I’m as certain as I can be it isn’t gravity or the apparent motion of the Sun relative to the planets.
You may be right. In which case we’ll need to have a rethink about the microstructure and macrostructure of space, because as I see it, there is no way the solar system can be stitched together the way it is, shot through with harmonics which persist in time, if there is no causal mechanism linking them. If it’s not gravity or electromagnetism via the void, then the void isn’t as void as we thought it was.
Whatever is causing the ~60 year cyclic or quasi-cyclic variation in the GATM, it is there. That is the major thing right now. Determining its origin may take decades of additional research. But, right now, it is readily apparent in the data. Within the next decade, it will become undeniable. And, that means that the anthropogenic impact on the climate, at least through release of long sequestered CO2, is negligible. That’s my opinion, FWIW.
The ~60 year cycle may persist, although not as strongly as in the late C19th and C20th, due to the destructive interference of other oceanic oscillations besided the PDO and AMO, and the now out of phase ~75 year Lunar and underlying 45 year solar system signature. As Willis says above, there’s lots going on, and it isn’t simple to untangle.
I still prefer to build as a celestial mechanic than be a stats monkey wrench in the works, though we all have a role to play. Checks on enthusiasm balance the overly-optimistic resistance against chaos. Some chaos is inevitable, but a large part of what is believed to be chaotic is the interaction of cycles we haven’t disentangled yet because we gave up and didn’t try hard enough.
I think Nicola Scafetta’s model will be vindicated in the long run, but it won’t be in our lifetimes, as we haven’t yet achieved the integrated understanding of the relative power of the various strong cyclicities well enough to predict at a timescale short enough to be of real value and interest to human society, which really needs decadal scale weather knowledge at regional resolution.
I still think we’re headed in the right direction though, and who knows, another breakthrough may be just around the corner.
Cheers
TB
I should add that the impending collapse in solar activity levels will give the impression that the ~60 year cycle is persisting strongly, but this will flatter believers in the solidity and overarching strength of that cycle to deceive them.
Simple it ain’t.
tallbloke says:
March 26, 2012 at 12:18 am
“Even though the 1.3-year signal appears only in the early years of the data set, the variation of the 0.72R equatorial rotation rate in MDI and GONG looks remarkably similar during
the whole period.” So what does this mean?
It just means that these [otherwise random] variations are not entirely due to instrumental noise.
Concepts of a fairly simple mechanical dynamo being able to usefully describe the Sun’s electromagnetic behaviour properly are dead in the water for sure.
That statement is nonsense. The dynamo models solve Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations as they apply to the plasma movements observed to take place in the sun.
This is what Scafetta is attempting, and it is a reasonable and logical approach in my opinion.
It is inferior to applying real physics.
LS: Predicted cycle 24 quite nicely [and actually cycles 21, 22, and 23 too].
Using heuristics and observation just like the rest of us do, not with a coherent dynamo model which calculates anything from ‘first principles’.
Again, you just don’t know your stuff. Here is how it is done: http://www.physics.iisc.ernet.in/~arnab/prl.pdf
tallbloke says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:00 am
I think Nicola Scafetta’s model will be vindicated in the long run, but it won’t be in our lifetimes, as we haven’t yet achieved the integrated understanding of the relative power of the various strong cyclicities
We need to understand the physics, not just the putative cycles. When the physics is hard. the theory needs to be guided by observations. Our theories of stellar evolution are checked by observations of millions of stars in all phases of their life. Similarly, our theories of the magnetic dynamo can be checked against the exemplars we observe of exoplanet systems. This is becoming more and more feasible as thousands of systems are becoming available to us with a wide range of relevant parameters [mass, rotation, magnetic field, age, composition, etc]. Already we are seeing results from this and in a few years time the question might be settled one way or the other, and the theories may be guided down the road to reliability. Reliable prediction [forecast, whatever…] of solar activity is becoming ever more important as our civilization relies more and more on space-borne assets. For this we need real science [physics, quantitative mathematical modeling], not ‘integrated understanding’ of pseudoscientific Keplerian cycles.
Leif Svalgaard,
There is a lot of parameter tuning including cycle lengths and “average” values input in that dynamo model, and since it is a 2-D model, 3 dimensions might provide state to “remember” more than the two previous cycles giving the possibility of longer cycles. But I doubt it will be able to sustain patterns of activity variation on the scale of centuries without coupling to external drivers of some sort. I look forward to further development.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 26, 2012 at 7:44 am
But I doubt it will be able to sustain patterns of activity variation on the scale of centuries without coupling to external drivers of some sort. I look forward to further development.
As the paper states [and I agree]: “Since the dominant processes during the rising phase of a cycle from a minimum to a maximum are fairly regular processes like the magnetic field advection and toroidal field generation by differential rotation, a good knowledge of magnetic configurations during a minimum should enable a good theoretical model to predict the next maximum reliably. On the other hand, the dominant process in the declining phase of a cycle is the poloidal field generation by the Babcock-Leighton process which involves randomness and cannot be predicted in advance by theoretical models. In other words, we suggest that the rising phase of the cycle is predictable (enabling us to predict the strength of the maximum a few years ahead of time), but the declining phase is not predictable. So, it may never be possible to make a realistic prediction of a maximum more than 7–8 years ahead of time, even when we have better theoretical models and better magnetic data.”
It is like forecasting the weather: if we don’t feed in new observations all the time, the forecast soon becomes meaningless, but will work for a limited time into the future.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 26, 2012 at 7:44 am
But I doubt it will be able to sustain patterns of activity variation on the scale of centuries without coupling to external drivers of some sort.
The drivers proposed are either physically impossible [barycentrics] or energetically unfavorable [tides, magnetic forces], so I doubt they will be useful. But, as I said, we are getting many more exemplars for observations of exoplanetary systems that might guide us to further understanding. So far it doesn’t look too good for the proposed drivers, but perhaps other ones will turn up. This might be evident in a few years, not the several lifetimes that will be needed to postpone falsification of current ideas.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 26, 2012 at 8:27 am
Martin Lewitt says:
March 26, 2012 at 7:44 am
But I doubt it will be able to sustain patterns of activity variation on the scale of centuries without coupling to external drivers of some sort.
The drivers proposed are either physically impossible [barycentrics] or energetically unfavorable [tides, magnetic forces].
Did you finish writing any rebuttal of Wolff and Patrone and submit it?
tallbloke says:
March 26, 2012 at 9:07 am
Did you finish writing any rebuttal of Wolff and Patrone and submit it?
No, it is low on my list [and does not advance science]. Bad papers die all by themselves. Douglas Gough [one of the leading experts on solar circulation and dynamics] had commented on W&P [and I have quoted from his comments before] and we were thinking of providing a rebuttal, but as it does not advance the field, it has not been high on our list. There are better things to do. Such rebuttals will not be persuasive for pseudoscientists anyway, so why bother? After having read his comments http://www.leif.org/research/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Patrone.doc you might confirm my above point.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 26, 2012 at 9:38 am
with ref. to tallbloke.
Douglas Gough [one of the leading experts on solar circulation and dynamics] had commented on W&P
You might enjoy one of Gough’s recent papers: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.4924v1.pdf
Bart
If there is no significant bulge or inhomogeneity of the Sun, then there is no classical avenue for spin/orbit coupling
I’m not talking about tial force. The body is Sun-Ea-Ve and the ‘bulge’ is Ea-Ve and every 22 years this bulge is more often on the same side of the Sun seen from Jupiter.
yes, tidal
Bart and lgl,
The sun has an equatorial bulge significant enough to account for some of the precession of Mercury, and it has mass currents from its rotation and from convection. Mass currents and density heterogeneity presumably from the dynamo itself gives it a quadrupole moment relevant in general relativity. There is no free fall for extended bodies in curved space. The GR effects scale as the mass and the inverse distance cubed, like newtonian tidal forces but have effects that don’t occur in the classical newtonian gravity.
The high correlation between the cock’s crow and the sunrise does suggest causality, as does the correlation between daylight and sunrise. Maybe the dawn causes the cock to crow, but does the dawn cause the sun to rise? The intuitively far fetched notion that the sun is responsible for daylight seems to require the far fetched notion of a round earth with antipodes.
Galileo rejected the theory that the moon was responsible for tides in spite of an observed correlation as old as the one between sunshine and daylight–there was just too much extraneous baggage for him–gravitation and menstrual cycles? –give me a break.
And Wegener. Continental shelves fit like a puzzle. Even the stratigraphy matches, including the paleontology. But with no mechanism it must be coincidence.
OK, maybe the rooster doesn’t make the sun rise, but there seems to be a causal connection. And the geologists weren’t any smarter about continental drift than the rooster. Solid correlation is not to be dismissed for lack of a causal mechanism. –AGF
Martin Lewitt says:
March 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm
There is no free fall for extended bodies in curved space. The GR effects scale as the mass and the inverse distance cubed, like newtonian tidal forces but have effects that don’t occur in the classical newtonian gravity.
True, but the effects are vanishingly small in the weak gravity of the solar system. As the tides, but much smaller.
agfosterjr says:
March 26, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Solid correlation is not to be dismissed for lack of a causal mechanism.
The problem is that the correlation is not solid, but marginal, with shaky data sets.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm
The sun has an equatorial bulge significant enough to account for some of the precession of Mercury
The bulge is due to solar rotation ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.2202.pdf ) and is so small [0.014″/century] that its influence on the precession is too small be be measurable [less that the error bar on the precession value]. It is useful to keep the effects in proper perspective.
Leif Svalgaard,
“True, but the effects are vanishingly small in the weak gravity of the solar system. As the tides, but much smaller.”
The effects will be twice as large for Venus and Jupiter as for Mercury, and if concentrated in gravity waves in the 2% of solar mass in the convection zone, we gain 2 orders of magnitude. It is still a small effect in the sense that it won’t dominate dynamic forces there, but I don’t think we can rule out a more subtle coupling.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:54 pm
The effects will be twice as large for Venus and Jupiter as for Mercury, and if concentrated in gravity waves in the 2% of solar mass in the convection zone, we gain 2 orders of magnitude.
You are mixing the effect on the Sun and the effect by the Sun.
It is still a small effect in the sense that it won’t dominate dynamic forces there, but I don’t think we can rule out a more subtle coupling.
It won’t even by measurable, and instead of ‘we can’t rule out’ you should calculate how large the coupling is and then compare. ‘Gravity waves’? the Sun is extremely stiff, gravity waves have periods of hours.
“You are mixing the effect on the Sun and the effect by the Sun.”
Yes, I’ve been assuming Newton’s third law still applies.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 26, 2012 at 9:38 am
The drivers proposed are either physically impossible [barycentrics] or energetically unfavorable [tides, magnetic forces].
tallbloke says:
March 26, 2012 at 9:07 am
Did you finish writing any rebuttal of Wolff and Patrone and submit it?
No
Thanks.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm
I already addressed issues such as quadrupole and Lense-Thirring. AFAIK, nobody has measured a widely accepted value for the quadrupole moment, much less a significant one. If I remember correctly, that pretty much died with Brans-Dicke. The other effects are very tiny.
@Myrrh:
The explanation by the IPCC of how projection and prediction are SO different, the way they use them, reminds me of Humpty Dumpty and words meaning exactly what he says they mean…
===================
Well, I’m flattered. From all that I said, the only rock that was tossed was that I find hard what Leif finds easy! I must be right then 😉
Running the software to solve the 3-body problem is easy, writing it from scratch is harder (at least for me 😉
On the other hand, it might help for every statistician to take a course in Kabbala. –AGF
Martin Lewitt says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:31 pm
“You are mixing the effect on the Sun and the effect by the Sun.”
Yes, I’ve been assuming Newton’s third law still applies.
So you are assuming that because solar oblateness causes a precession of Mercury of 0.014″ per century, there is an equal and opposite precession [or whatever] of the Sun’s bulge of the same magnitude. [of course not, but that is your flippant answer]. As for Jupiter gaining two orders of magnitude, its mass is 6000 times larger than Mercury, but its distance cubed is 2400 times larger so you gain only a factor of 2.5.
This paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.0543v3.pdf provides a justification for the gravitational Detweiler-Whiting axiom that a “point mass” moves on a geodesic [that is ‘free fall’] in a suitable background field.
Anyway, what you are trying to say is that solar activity due to barycentric effects is an effect of General Relativity. I think that is a bridge too far.
tallbloke says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Did you finish writing any rebuttal of Wolff and Patrone and submit it?
“No”
Thanks.
But I also explained why not and invited you to tell us if Gough’s comment [that would have formed the core of our rebuttal] was persuasive so that you from now on will refrain from using W&P as a pseudo-argument. Or if my assessment of your reaction was near to the mark?
Martin Lewitt says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Yes, I’ve been assuming Newton’s third law still applies.
Except it does not: http://www.nd.edu/~astro/MWRM18/Scientific%20Program.pdf
“4:00 Self-forces and generalized symmetries
Abraham Harte University of Chicago
A non-perturbative formalism is developed that greatly simplifies the understanding of self-forces and self-torques acting on compact bodies. New notions of effective linear and angular momentum are identified, and a simple law of motion is derived for extended scalar and electromagnetic charges in curved spacetimes. The Detweiler-Whiting axiom that a body’s overall motion should only be influenced by the so-called “regular” component of its self-field is shown to follow very easily in an appropriate limit. Corrections to this result are related to the failure of Newton’s third law for the remaining “bound” portion of the self-field. Alternatively, excess forces and torques are shown to arise from deformations of a particular Green function under the action of generalized Killing fields.
tallbloke says:
March 26, 2012 at 12:34 am
[….]
Thanks for the invite, Tall Bloke, be sure I’ll taking you up on it. Speaking of websites and artsy stuff, I did notice you’ve a cool graphic interface and wondered if it’s custom or template. I’m fond of that style; takes me back to the “old” days when I started in Web design in ’99, halcyon times when the heavily Photoshopped look with the airbrushed, tv-lines and glowing, fuzzy effects ruled. And we did all the crazy, multi-layer and multi-effect stuff with 286s and 386s. You clicked on an effect and went out for a smoke to wait as the drives rattled away. Sometimes the thing didn’t hang or crash.
We didn’t have history or philosophy of science at my university, although I took an intro to astronomy which I quickly withdrew from after asking to look at the stars through the great big telescope; it was around noon. Actually what sped up my departure was my first assignment to calculate orbits for objects of different masses. The high school I went to was still into New Math, which I couldn’t explain what it means because I cut all math classes to become the local Pinball Wizard. Ditto for chemistry, which I avoided because the teacher had halitosis from Hell. Once I got through my ESL classes I did enjoy English lit, though, and spent many a period reading aloud, with my own special sound effects, to a class in which more than half of the kids had major reading issues. Ah, the good old days of inner city school laxity; graduate them before they rob you or cut you up. Anyway, somehow they let me into university where my major was in History, which I did enjoy very much and Judaic Studies as a minor of sorts, which were to take me on a path of becoming a pulpit rabbi. Life got in the way of that plan.
So, apropos yesterday’s talk, I’m starting off with the Solar system. Freaky, freaky stuff; the insane distances, the masses, the energies. The reminder that the most of the universe we see no longer is what it looks like to us now. And I like Sedna a lot, reminded me of the end-of-science malaise lecture you attended. And I delighted in the sense of poetry some astronomers had when they named the orphan planet(?) after an Inuit goddess of the sea. Even better when they displayed enough gumption to push the name to an indignant International Astronomical Union’s Committee on Small Body Nomenclature. It’s stuff like that that keeps me reading and gives me hope.
[Thank you, once again, Mod, for fixing my last html booboo. I’ll try even harder.]
The Pompous Git says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:39 pm
[……]
Say WHAT? Obscurantist history professors? At our universities?
Excursus time. There was a second-year course I took in the way-back-when-time on the medieval witch craze. I didn’t read the course outline of course (misplaced), and missed the first three or four lecture sessions because the seven friendly pubs at the university obstructed my passage to the lecture hall and severely degraded my motility and navigational skills. I was also unable to attend the seminars because they were scheduled ridiculously early, at 11 AM. So, due to understandable circumstances beyond my control, I never had the foggiest about what I was getting into when I submitted my first essay. It dealt with partial records hinting at the finances behind the witch hunts in several towns in Germany. How and why I had microfilm printouts of these records is another story.
In any event, I used those records to support a view first advanced by the late Columbia U anthropologist, Marvin Harris (worth a look-see), who interpreted the craze as a huge financial scam resulting in expropriation of property which was divvied-up by the State and Church authorities. There are similarities between that and the CAGW scam, btw, which if I ever get serious one day, I’ll try to write up and submit to Anthony. Right.
Anyway, I was sure I had nailed an A+, so I was a bit shocked when I saw an unsightly C+ on the title page. My prof hand-wrote a barely legible critique in which she criticized my treatment as too materialistic, patriarchal and grossly insensitive to the “real women involved.” I didn’t, for example, discuss how these women felt or what their matriarchal naturalistic beliefs and customs were. I met with her at her office and explained that there are no records or diaries (in an illiterate age) to hint at how any of the victims thought or felt, given that all we have on them are names and summarized descriptions of the routine “trials” and predictable decisions. As for their beliefs, these were by and large ordinary church-going women with unremarkable beliefs, but more interestingly to the authorities, widows who had been left with property, such as town homes, pastures, orchards or fields, mills or foundries. The witchcraft charges were all boiler-plate crap concocted by idiot friars and psychopathic theologians. No records I was aware of reliably established that these victims held any sort of unusual beliefs for the times.
My professor’s response was to point me to the “literature” of modern-day feminist neo-Pagan “witches,” the alleged “spiritual descendants” of the imagined high-priestesses of ancient Natural religions. That would’ve been the sandalwood-oiled purveyors of herbal teas and experts in prana and kundalini yoga, who had accessed the mystical founts of wisdom cleverly hidden at their community libraries to concoct elaborate syncretistic mythologies stretching to the dawn of prehistory…all the way back to the early 1960s. She also recommended books by that lunatic fraud, the 1970s peyote-dropping “witch,” Carlos Castaneda. Fortunately, I managed to panic-withdraw from the course without academic penalties, although I lost about half of my course fee, valued at the time at about 20-30 pub sessions.
This adventure took place in ‘82 or ’83, and was a-typical of the times. Most history profs were, by and large, still sticklers for facts, documentary evidence and sound logic, although some of their young course assistants already displayed the early symptoms of the malady of obscurantism and the turgid and incomprehensible diktatura of neo-Marxism. No one saw a linear trend back then, least of all one that would “amplify.” Today, from what I read and hear, things are…worse than we thought… in the PC-hallowed towers of post-this and post-that academia.
Scafetta,
Let me explain if I got the case correctly; All discussion about is to define and fix a formula about the cycle time and period for over heating the Earth by the Sun.
Now let’s make a model on trial & error and take X years the cycle time and proceed. Why you stop at this point, parallel to theory makings, let’s try which one of the models are more complying with the existing climate realities on the Earth. This would help you to find out 9.8-10.9-60 years the period or whatever would be more realistic. You should not forget the destination.
agfosterjr says: March 26, 2012 at 12:59 pm
“Solid correlation is not to be dismissed for lack of a causal mechanism.”
you got the point! Bravo!
Usually only those who understand that point are able to discover something. Of course, sometimes they may be in error. But the fact remains that only those who understand the above point do discoveries. Those who do not undertand the point just wait that somebody else does the discovery.
Bart says: March 25, 2012 at 3:20 pm
“Such quasi-cyclical behavior could easily be the effect of a resonance in the Earth’s ocean/land/atmospheric system. I think Dr. Scafetta is right about the Earth’s near term climate future, but for the wrong reasons, and I look forward to seeing how his predictions for the future pan out.”
See, Bard. The problem is that not only the harmonics of the climate match the astronomical harmonics in their frequencies, but even the phases are in good agreement. If you look careful at my figures, you can see hindcast test going back for several millennia and everything appears to match quite well (by taking into account the simplicity of my proposed model and the fact that the proxy data are not perfects).
TI believe that this result is very important although no everybody may understand it.
Of course everything can also be a coincidence. But in physics, contrary to what some individual thinks, we are not looking at the absolute inner truth of the things, but at how they appear to our experience and analysis. This is true for everything. Essentially all science is made of correlations.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 26, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Well, I took the time to mull this over more thoroughly, and now I am not so sure that the tidal effects are negligible. Yes, the tidal acceleration due to Jupiter across the diameter of the Sun is about 3000 times less than the tidal acceleration of the Moon across the Earth. But, Earth’s ocean tides are significant, and that is water, which is almost seven orders of magnitude more dense than the gases of the photosphere, and significantly more viscous as well. And, while the Sun’s gravitational pull at the photosphere is about 28 times greater than the Earth’s pull at the surface, the ocean tides are diurnal, whereas the Sun rotates at an average of roughly once a month, so there is greater time for the tidal force to exert full effect.
I do not know, Nicola. This is venturing outside the realm of things I have spent much time studying. I may have spoken hastily, and I need to take more time to consider the problem.
Leif Svalgaard,
The note that I was assuming Newton’s third law applied in the interest of disclosure since so much is different in GR, and not be be “flippant”. Jupiter I had as a factor of 2 more significant than Mercury, scaling as the tidal effects. The 2 orders of magnitude came from if the effects were ended up in the 2% of the solar mass that is in the convective zone.
I’m not thinking of barycentre, but of GR quadrupole, angular momentum and tidal effects, allowing Jupiter to directly couple to the mass currents in the solar dynamo, or indirectly perturb the dynamic through its general accumulative torquing of its extended convective zone (extended in the extended body sense). The barycentre weights the outer planets higher. Jupiter is central to both, however. The free paths/free fall in GR are for points, co-located points in extended bodies want to take different paths, since they are coupled (in extended bodies) there are torques.
I’m not sure your cites on GR vis’a’vis the Newton’s third law are on point. In GR even orbiting bodies are just mass currents, as are the solar equatorial bulge and any mass flows within the sun. It is all more dynamic with gravity no longer instantaneous. But as I disclosed, I’m not sure the 3rd law holds for all these GR effects. I’ll have to look back over my references, but I suspect it is still a good assumption for the quadrupole moment. The solar equatorial bulge and other mass currents are asymmetrically within the fields of the planets, particularly the inner 4.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 27, 2012 at 1:59 am
I’m not thinking of barycentre, but of GR quadrupole, angular momentum and tidal effects,
There is no way you can isolate angular momentum from the barycentre. Two peas in a pod.
@ Peter Kovachev
I suspect we are now very far OT and should take this conversation offline. There may be a delay before I email you as I am falling ill and I may end up back in hospital later today. Hopefully not.
@ Nicola
Regarding your comment:
It is also true that not all correlations are scientific. That said, I experienced the scorn of mainstream authority some years ago when I was conducting some experiments on plant growth under the influence of seaweed (kelp) extract. This material had a greater effect at high dilution that decreased with increasing concentration and everybody knows that “dose makes the poison”. There were two observed effects: stimulated plant growth and increased disease resistance, though these were rarely observed at the same time. Additionally I was told that foliar feeding with the material could not possibly have any effect “because plant leaves cannot absorb large molecules”.
Some Dutch researchers discovered the causal mechanism behind my observations. Spring harvested kelp had high levels of auxins, plant hormones involved in cell elongation. Autumn harvested kelp had high levels of the plant hormone abscissic acid, the hormone responsible for leaf fall in deciduous trees. Hormones only have their effect at particular concentrations, thus explaining the issue of the extract ceasing to have the desired effects when applied at too high a concentration. The differing compositions of the parent materials explained the differing plant responses in different trials. These days seaweed extract is used widely in horticulture rather than only by heretics like the Git.
Good luck with it all Nicola and keep smiling.
@ Bart
I am impressed.
I love the phrase “vanishingly small”. Reminds me of the modeled (I say modeled because it actually is not directly measured) uptick in atmospheric fossil fuel CO2 when taken into perspective. Yet they say our planet is going to burn by 2030 or something like that, because of it. And to be clear, they mean that portion of CO2 that is calculated from the burning of fossil fuels. If we were forced to stop putting that part into the atmosphere, we would be cool as cucumbers they say. All because of a vanishingly small portion of CO2 being removed from the atmosphere.
It is a ridiculous argument as is the search for barycenter influences on Earth’s temperature (and that is the ultimate goal here, make no mistake). Vanishingly small variations of this or that are buried in the room filled with a very natural, eating and pooping elephant called Earth. Why are some driven to examine such vanishingly small measurements in such a room? I’m a firm believer in elephant poop. I heard it’s even really good garden fertilizer.
Pompous Git: I’m very sorry to hear that you’re not well and I pray for your speedy recovery. I’m getting over pneumonia myself, which fortunately didn’t require a hospital stay. My website’s down for now, but here’s my email: avbarzel@gmail.com. I know it’s inadvisable to leave contact info on blogs, but I figure the trolls and idiots have gotten bored and have dropped off this page long time ago. I can probably leave my banking passwords here for safekeeping, as it’s just us the wonks here now. I stay offline on the Jewish Sabbaths, between Friday evenings and Saturday nights, but otherwise I’ll keep an eye on messages from you. Write if you’re bored and cellphone pics of pretty nurses are always welcome too. Get better and in shape for the battle fast, Git; this fire-fight requires every swinging dick, as they say in the forces.
Peter Kovachev says:
March 27, 2012 at 10:07 am
“I know it’s inadvisable to leave contact info on blogs, but I figure the trolls and idiots have gotten bored and have dropped off this page long time ago.”
Beware the Bots.
Thanks for the warning, Bart. I knew about bots…in a vague sort of way…but the link finally clarified the mystery. Anyway, the same address is plastered all over my website, http://www.barzel.ca, which is with GoDaddy, but is down now and is being temporarily moved to my server sometime by tonight or tomorrow morning, then back to GoDaddy, hopefully with their email accounts or an email form. Oddly enough, my above gmail address got only two spams in three years. Still, I want to dump that gmail address soon and sever my relationship with Google, as we all should, given how nosy and generous with their info on us they’ve become.
In this thread whether, in climatological terminology, there is a meaningful
difference between the ideas referenced by the terms “prediction” and “projection” has been at issue.Some, including WUWT’s Willis Eschenbach, have weighed in on the position that there is not a difference. Others, including me, have weighted in on the opposing position. In light of this
controversy, I offer the following testimony (
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=1 ) by Vincent Gray. Dr. Gray is a
veteran IPCC Expert Reviewer.
NZCLIMATE & ENVIRO TRUTH NO 150
WHEN IS A “PREDICTION” NOT A PREDICTION?
JULY 1ST 2007
Alice Lives
But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knockdown argument” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpy said, in rather a scornful tone. “it means
just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less”
“The question is” said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many
different things” “The question is” said Humpty Dumpy, “which is to be the master — that’s
all”
When I was at school I had a book called “Clear Thinking” which sought to argue that we should use words that have precise meanings. It included a number of passages showing how politicians are experts in using words which sound impressive, but have no meaning whatsoever. Many of the illustrative passages were from speeches made by the then British Prime Minister, James Ramsay McDonald.
The environmental movement is a supreme example of how a whole series of words can be invented which superficially seem beneficial, but which can be used to conceal the main overall objective of the movement which is to harm human activity.
“The environment” What is it, where is it, what are its boundaries? All these are decided any way that they wish by anybody who call him/herself an “environmentalist”, to persuade us to take harmful decisions.
The term has a long history. It is a new form of “Nature”, which is supposed to exist separately from humans, and to be somehow, superior. Anything that is “natural” is preferable to anything that is “artificial”. Darwin himself fell for this when he attempted to distinguish between “natural” and “artificial” selection.
The political term is “conservative”. The richest people in all human societies want to maintain their privileges so they argue than any change is bad; particularly any change which interferes with their income. “Conservation” is a similar term. Not only must we conserve the incomes and
privileges of the rich, but we must conserve the superior “natural” world.
Ordinary humans do not count, unless they are primitive and backward. “Sustainability” is a recent similar term, used to prevent and frustrate any sort of change. Since it admittedly harms contemporary humans the hypocritical claim is made that we make all these sacrifices “for the sake of future generations”. All past experience show that future generations always have different attitudes, beliefs, and technology, They will not thank us for our foolish sacrifice.
Ernst Haeckel coined the term “ecology” to describe the constantly changing interaction between all organisms. “Environmentalists” have redefined this scientifically correct term to take us back to our medieval ancestors who believed in a static world. They have divided the world into static “ecosystems” which must be maintained permanently in a constant state. No “ecosystem” in the way they think of it actually exists, but who cares?
“Biodiversity” is another environmentalist absurdity. It seeks to claim that there is some sort of moral superiority in actual numbers of “species” present in an “ecosystem”. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to count them all, so that in practice, it tends to refer to those creatures that
are visible to the human eye.
Other organisms have no such qualms. Deciduous trees have devised a cunning system for killing off competitors by shedding poisonous leaves which kill off other plants. With al other organisms, biology is competitive. Only humans are supposed to commit suicide on behalf of the preservation of other organisms.
Then we have the fraud of “endangered” species. There is no record of any one of them ever becoming actually extinct. I tried asking Google for a list of organisms that had recently become extinct. The number was very small, about the same as for the past 400 years.
Darwin devoted his famous book “The Origin of Species” to explain that “species” is only a card index classification category which is decided arbitrarily from the opinions of taxonomists. Environmentalists have restored the concept of Linnaeus that “species” are created by God and are unchanging; or at least must be prevented from changing.
Darwin’s work presented a real challenge to taxonomists in trying to classify fossils. They are obsessed with the coming of “speciation” a process that actually takes place in their own minds when they try to decide how much difference is enough for them to take out a new index card.
Nowadays they have the conflict between the amount or importance of genes as opposed to more readily visible characteristics.
“Climate Change” has actually been rigidly defined by an International Treaty as “change of climate by human-produced greenhouse gas emissions”. But this rather inhibits the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which, on the face of it has the sole task of promoting this definition. If they keep to it too rigidly they cannot show that “natural” climate effects can be rubbished, so they change the definition to include “natural” effects, but switch to the other one whenever they feel like it.
The IPCC “Climate Change 1990” was called an “Assessment”. It included a Chapter entitled “Assessment of Climate Models”. Page 1 of the “Executive Summary” of the “Policymakers Summary” had a paragraph headed “Based on current models, we predict:” and under this they give the “Business as Usual” scenario results. These results are thus not just from the results of models, but they include the assumptions of this particular scenario. Even if you think the models might be correct, how can you rely on what is no more than guesswork about the future–100 years ahead?
Later they confessed “There are many uncertainties in our predictions” but they did not give any actual estimates of how high these were. The next paragraph was headed “Our judgment is” So, it is a matter of opinion only.
They also used such terms as “we expect”, “we are confident that” “we conclude” all purely opinions, not scientific evidence. There was no glossary, or definitions in this Report.
The IPCC “Climate Change 1992” said: “Scenarios are not predictions of the future and should not be used as such”It seems that after that they stopped using the word “prediction”.
The IPCC “Climate Change 1994” included an evaluation of emissions scenarios which had the prize quotation: “Since scenarios deal with the future; they cannot be compared to observations”
Since ALL of the IPCC pronouncements incorporate scenarios it means that you
can never find out whether they are correct, In any case they always “predict” or “project” so far ahead that they will enjoy their generous pensions without the danger of somebody checking up on them.
The “Report on Emissions Scenarios (2000)” repeated the definition of “scenario”, but also said:
“Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts”
The IPCC “Climate Change 1995” abolished the use of the term “predictions”.In the “Summary for Policymakers” they even retreated to the utterly ambiguous statement:
“The balance of the evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the climate”. This statement did not even mention greenhouse gases, In this report there was no mention of “predictions” or “projections” Climate Models were “evaluated”, NOT “validated”
The IPCC “Climate Change 2001” also banned the use of the word “prediction”, but they introduced the word “projection” instead. They had, at last, a Glossary”, and they defined “projection” as follows: “Projection (Generic)
A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections aredistinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning e.g. future socio-economic and technological
developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to
substantial uncertainty”
This is an IPCC definition. It does not appear in any dictionary, most of which merely regard a “projection” as a “scheme” or a “plan.” This definition, surely, means that any “forecast” of the future which involves assumption of a particular “scenario” as to what might happen,
should not be called a “prediction”
The “Summary for Policymakers” for the IPCC “Climate Change 2007” keeps to this definition. All their “forecasts” are called “projections”: But it is obviously dishonest, as they have ignored that part of their own definition
which says that “projections” are “subject to substantial uncertainty” when
they ascribed 90% probabilities to several “projections” and consider that
some “projections” can be “virtually certain”.
The word “prediction” is creeping back into use. They can obviously change
the meaning of words to suit themselves and the current political
possibilities. The public believe that the IPCC makes “predictions” and I
continue to try and point out that “officially” they say firmly that they do
not.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 27, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Thanks, Terry. In that reference, Dr. Gray quotes the IPCC definition of a “projection”. He says
So yes, the IPCC claims that projections are different, because they depend on assumptions about the future … but of course, predictions and forecasts also depend on assumptions about the future, so what?
What the IPCC calls “projections based on scenarios” have been usually called “conditional forecasts”. These are forecasts of the form “IF A happens, then B will happen. IF C happens, then D will happen.”
My opinion is that the IPCC has tried to sell this bogus definition of “projection” in order to excuse the fact that their forecasts are often not falsifiable, because they don’t want to be responsible for any of them.
Which of course means that their work is not science to the extent that it is not falsifiable.
And that to me is what renders all of your nuances and semantics and idiosyncratic definitions superfluous. I truly don’t care what you call a claim about what will happen tomorrow. Use whatever word you want, it’s a claim (which might include conditions) about what tomorrow will look like, and I’m indifferent to what you call it.
I care only and solely about whether the claim is falsifiable, it is immaterial to me whether you call it a pro-diction or a pre-jection.
If a prediction/projection/forecast is falsifiable, it is a testable and valid scientific statement. If it can’t be falsified because it lacks specificity or time or error bounds, it is not scientific.
The rest is just words.
All the best,
w.
Willis Eschenbach (March 28, 2012 at 12:33 am):
Thanks for taking the time to reply. It sounds as though we agree with the possible exception of some details. One detail is that in order for the predictions of a model to be falsifiable the methodology of the study must reference a statistical population. The methodology of the IPCC’s study of global warming refererences no statistical population. Hence, the IPCC’s models are not falsifiable.
The dictionary definition of a “prediction” or “forecast” is inadequate for the purpose of establishing the requirements for falsifiability because it treats a prediction in isolation of its statistical context. This context is established by a couple of sets. One is the complete set of predictions that are made by the model. The other is the complete set of independent events in the population. The relation from the predictions to the events in the population is one-to-one.
In the case of a predictive model, this model has a set of independent variables and a set of dependent variables. The values of the independent variables become observable at the start-time of an event. The values of the independent variables become observable at the end-time of the same event. As the events are independent and a climatological study is longitudinal, the end-time of one event is the start-time of the next event in the sequence. Thus, the complete set of events is a partition of the time-line.
A “condition” is an example of a state of nature and is a proper subset of the Cartesian product of the values that are taken on by the various independent variables. An “outcome” is also an example of a state of nature and is a proper subset of the Cartesian product of the values that are taken on by the various dependent variables. A “prediction” is an extrapolation from the observed condition of the associated event to the unobserved outcome of this event.
In statistically testing a model one observes a subset of the events in the statistical population; this subset is an example of a “sample.” One compares the predicted to the observed relative frequencies of the various outcomes. Ignoring the complication of sampling error, the model is falsified if the relative frequencies do not match with respect to at least one if the several possible outcomes. The model is “validated” if not falsified.
Years ago, Vincent Gray pointed out to IPCC management that the IPCC climate models could not be validated. The IPCC could have reacted by admitting that the models were insusceptible to being falsified with the consequence that the IPCC’s study was not scientific. However, this is not what IPCC management elected to do. What it did was to maintain the fiction of a scientific methodology and change the statistically meaningful term “validation” to the statistically meaningless term “evaluation.” In an IPCC-style “evaluation,” a set of IPCC-style “projections” of the global average surface temperature is compared to a global surface temperature time series.
The term “prediction” sounds like the term “projection” and the term “evaluation” sounds like the term “validation.” Also, the ambiguity of reference of the dictionary definitions of these two word pairs fosters conflation of the ideas that are referenced by them. Both phenomena foster a false belief in the proposition that the IPCC’s models were falsifiable and thus that the methodology of the IPCC’s study was scientific when it wasn’t.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 27, 2012 at 5:49 am
There is no way you can isolate angular momentum from the barycentre. Two peas in a pod.
;———————
Sure you can.
Just calculate the center of mass and the total angular momentum of the center of mass.
You just need to realize angular momentum is a vector (actually it’s a pseudo vector.)
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:18 pm
‘Gravity waves’? the Sun is extremely stiff, gravity waves have periods of hours.
;—————–
I’m assuming by gravity waves people mean buoyancy and not the ripple of spacetime.
What is the Reynolds number for the Sun?
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 6:16 am
The numerology never stops. How about the height of the Cheops pyramid being one billionth of the distance to the Sun.
;———————————
“The problem of the source of a star’s energy will be considered; by a process of exhaustion we are driven to conclude that the only possible source of a star’s energy is subatomic; yet it must be confessed that the hypothesis shows little disposition to accommodate itself to the detailed requirements of observation, and a critic might count up a large number of ‘fatal’ objections.”
A. Eddington, The Internal Constitution of the Stars.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 27, 2012 at 9:57 pm
…
Terry, a comment which I would hope you will take in a positive sense.
I didn’t finish reading the last thing you posted. It was far too long, and again I found myself lost as to what point you were trying to make. So I bailed out about a quarter of the way through.
Let me suggest that you seriously need to boil your ideas down to the key essential points. Because no matter how good your prose might be, if I’m giving up and not reading it, your effort is wasted. I, like many people, have much more information coming in than I can process. Every one of my posts attracts usually hundreds of comments. This post of Dr. Scafettas is over 500 comments already. So everyone uses some kind of triage to decide what to read, because I and other folks may not have time to read your three vertical feet of text.
Let me emphasize that I am as subject to this constraint as you are. People have a short attention span. I have to write to fit that.
To explain what I mean, let me digress a bit, and talk about playing music.
I’ve made my living at various times playing music. And when I started, I had the idea that if the audience didn’t like my work, it just showed that their musical taste wasn’t all that good.
But then I realized that I was looking at it backwards. My job was to entertain, not to play the music as I thought it ought to be played. I found that blaming the audience for a poor reception was total nonsense. So I started singing what entertained the audience.
It didn’t mean that I wasn’t free to play the songs I wanted to play. It didn’t mean I couldn’t get my musical or even political message across. It merely meant that I had sing in such a way that would catch my audience’s interest, that would get their toes tapping, that would leave them clapping. That was the first thing, to involve them and entertain them, and once I had their interest, I could do pretty much whatever I wanted.
The same thing is true of my writing. I have to write to entertain as much as I do to communicate, to investigate, or to educate. It doesn’t stop me from getting my ideas across, it just means that I can’t drone on and on. I have to be interesting, I have to be clear, I have to be concise, or I’ll lose my readers. There’s miles of text on the web to attract them, I have to hold their interest …
An exercise that is valuable for me is to put my ideas into the form of a standard “five paragraph essay”. The first paragraph lays out the main thesis, along with the three principle ideas or reasons that support my main thesis.
The next three paragraphs explain, one by one, the three supporting ideas or reasons.
The final paragraph pulls it all together and ties it back to the main thesis.
The other exercise I do is the “elevator speech”. The situation is this—some person who could give you immense support in your work gets in the elevator on the ground floor with you. You realize that you have the length of the elevator ride to explain your brilliant idea in such a way that the person gets it and offers their support.
What do you say?
The elevator speech requires that you severely boil your ideas down until only the core remains. It requires that you cut out every extraneous or useless word. You have a few short paragraphs to explain your idea so the other person grasps the essentials of your idea.
I do these exercises myself, to clarify my own thinking about the given issues as much as to make a compelling narrative.
My best to you,
w.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 7:12 pm
There are hundreds of papers that have gone there since Kepler…
;—————–
And we’ve learned to think of the mean Keplarian ellipse as a set of excitable eccentricities driven by resonances.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 26, 2012 at 10:35 am
Douglas Gough [one of the leading experts on solar circulation and dynamics] had commented on W&P
You might enjoy one of Gough’s recent papers: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.4924v1.pdf
Well the arxiv paper is a good deal more readable (and interesting) than the garbled mess of his W&P comments, which start with an ad hom “fairy tales” before an admission that he didn’t read more than the first few pages of their paper.
Why do you waste my time with this? Neither you nor he display any understanding of the Wolff-Patrone mechanism whatsoever. No wonder you both shied away from trying to get any half baked ‘rebuttal’ published.
The Arxiv paper was of interest though so thanks for that. It clearly shows what a primitive stage of understanding we are at with respect to th Sun. So I’ll be laughing harder at further assurances that the mainstream “fairy tale” of how the Sun works is well defined and correct.
Agile Aspect,
What I had in mind with gravity waves, is some effect in the sun, analogous to the QBO (quasi-biennial oscillation) in the climate system on earth.
“Gravity Waves in the Sun”
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/pub/rogers_glatzmaier_mnras_2005.pdf
Willis Eschenbach (March 27, 2012 at 9:57 pm):
Thanks for sharing your ideas. Your recommendation for construction of an elevator speech is a good one. In conjunction with an attempt at starting a business, I’ve worked hard over a period of 5 years at constructing one but without success in reaching the intended audience.
The topic is logic. The deductive logic is relatively simple but in the construction of a model one also needs the inductive logic and this turns out to be mathematically complicated. Publication of logically flawed arguments is accepted practice in the scientific journals and within the agencies that fund research leaving researchers without incentive toward mastering a difficult subject.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 28, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Thanks for your thoughts, Terry. We agree that the central issue is falsifiability.
However, you say “… in order for the predictions of a model to be falsifiable the methodology of the study must reference a statistical population.”
Now, I’m a pretty smart guy. But that one baffles me. First, I’m not clear on the connection between the model and the “study”. What is the study?
More to the point, suppose the model says I’ll make a hundred bucks ± twenty bucks by the end of tomorrow. That model forecast is clearly falsifiable (and far too often falsified, but that’s another issue).
But where is the “statistical population” for my model? What would be the “study” that “must reference a statistical population”? And why must the study reference anything at all? It seems to me that whether a model is falsifiable must be determined by the particular type and characteristics of the output of the model. You look at the model output, and you look at the actual outcome.
To be falsifiable, it seems to me that very little is required. Any falsifiable forecast must involve a variable whose future value is not known, and a predicted range for that variable on a particular future date. If I have that and the actual outcome that’s all I need—which doesn’t include any “statistical population”.
For example, if a given climate model says the global surface air temperature (for specificity we’ll agree to use UAH MSU T2LT) will be higher by 2° ± -.2°C in the year 2050, what more is necessary?
If the temperature rises 1°C by 2050, the forecast is falsified. If it rises 1.9°C, the forecast is validated. Why do I need a “statistical population”?
What am I missing here?
w.
Willis Eschenbach (March 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm):
Good questions! In responding, for brevity I’ll reference a model whose job is to predict whether in 24 hours, the state of some system will be B or NOT B given that the current state of the same system is A or NOT A. A and NOT A are examples of “conditions.” B and NOT B are examples of “outcomes.” An “event” takes place when the condition (either A or NOT A) is observed, there is a time delay of 24 hours and then the outcome (either B or NOT B) becomes available for observation. If the outcome and condition are both observed, the associated event is said to be “observed.” Note that an event can be observed only after a 24 hour time delay.
A predictive model makes a conditional prediction. My model makes a conditional prediction that is the pair of propositions “A implies B” and “NOT A implies NOT B.” This conditional prediction references the set of events to which the model’s conditional prediction is claimed to apply. This set is an example of a “statistical population.” In testing the model, a subset of the events in the sample are observed and the predicted are compared to the observed outcomes. This subset is an example of a “sample.” If there is not a population, there is not a sample and the model cannot be tested.
In the second of your examples, you make a start on defining the single event that ends in 2050 but don’t complete this definition. It sounds as though one of the outcome possibilities for this event is that the temperature has risen by 2° ± -.2°C by comparison to a referenced temperature; you do not specify the referenced temperature. You specify none of the remaining outcome possibilities and none of the condition possibilities. You do not specify the duration of the event. You provide no details on any of the remaining events in your population.
By the way, “study” is trade jargon for “research project .” A study has a “methodology,” one possibility for which is the so-called “scientific method.” Under the scientific method, claims made by the model are falsifiable necessitating the description of the associated statistical population.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 28, 2012 at 1:32 pm
I’m shocked, I tell you …
In any case, the amount I don’t know about statistics far exceeds what I do know.
I know enough to know that that neither the average and range of a number of runs of a given model, nor the average and range of an “ensemble” of models, can be assumed to adequately explore the dynamical state-space of the real world.
All the best,
w.
PS—Again in the intention that it be taken as an appreciative inquiry, let me comment on the web page that comes up when I click on your name. One man’s opinions. It starts out:
First thing that hits my eye is “Offerings”. This is a word with strong religious overtones.
Next, “KnowledgeToTheMax”?? I know of no way to say this nicely. That’s a terrible name.
A name needs to embody the core vision of your ideas. It should express power, fluidity, strength, flexibility, speed, that kind of thing. What you have there is none of those. It is a boast.
Next, don’t put a list up of who the message “targets”. “Targets” sounds like spin. But that’s not the main issue. A list like that can only turn people off … particularly if they’re not listed, and sometimes if they are. There’s no upside to the paragraph, it won’t increase your readership, it can only reduce the number of folks willing to read on.
You go on to say:
Honestly? That’s right where I’d stop reading. First, nothing is ever “completed”, there’s always more unknown.
Second, if it has indeed “completed logic”, you are the very last man who should mention that. Instead, you should wait for the acclaim, for the logicians to come and ask for your secrets. Wait for them to hail you now that knowledge is completed. And when they do, you say “Aw, shucks, it wasn’t all that much, actually, but thanks.”
But claiming it yourself? For me, that’s just boasting, and it’s one pretty sure sign of a SIF, a “single issue fanatic”. I move on at that point.
You continue:
“Maximum possible knowledge …” that makes me very uneasy …
Let me pass on a bit of wisdom I was fortunate enough to learn early on:
Every all-inclusive statement is false.
Yes, I know … that’s an all-inclusive statement, so the gears strip, but it’s still true.
You should say “creates an increased amount of knowledge”. You have no way of possibly knowing that you’ve achieved the maximum. That’s like saying “the AGW supporters believe …”, which also doesn’t work. I can say “some AGW supporters believe”, but not “all AGW supporters believe”
The other problem is, when I read “maximum possible knowledge”, it comes across as boasting.
All I can say is, once I got that far in reading your web site, I’d have stopped reading long before that …
(Yeah, yeah, I know, that doesn’t make sense either, but it reads well, don’t you think?)
Anyhow … that’s one man’s opinion.
w.
Willis Eschenbach (March 27, 2012 at 9:57 pm):
Thanks for sharing your unvarnished impression of my sales pitch! I get too little of that.
Terry