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.”
“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.