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.
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?
@ur momisugly Gail Combs @ur momisuglyTerry Oldberg @ur momisuglyWillis Eschenbach @ur momisuglypoptech
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