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.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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:
@ur momisugly Terry Oldberg
Thanks for the disambiguation.
The PompousGit:
Thanks for the peer review!
susan smith said @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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