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.”
E.M.Smith says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Unfortunately, solving the “Three Body Problem” is incredibly hard and even then often called a ‘restricted three body problem’. Make it 4, 8, or even 9 planets 😉 and it’s effectively impossible. Toss in the Trojan Asteroids, Oort cloud, and KBOs and it’s just pointless.
We cannot solved the three- [or n-] body problem in exact, analytically, closed form, but we can [and do, routinely] solve it numerically to any desired degree of accuracy.
Terry Oldberg: Christensen’s insight stems from the realization that a model (aka theory) can be construed to be the algorithm for an optimal decoder of a “message” consisting of the the unobserved outcomes in a sequence of independent events.
That, of course, is a heuristic. I am sure it works well, as well as the machine learning heuristics described in “The Elements of Statistical Learning” by Hastie, Tibshirani and Friedman, at least in some situations. Could you use it to discover the Periodic Table of the Elements given the information available to Mendeleev, or develop the theories of special and general relativity with the knowledge available to Poincare, Einstein et al? Einstein used the common heuristic of expanding a Taylor series and truncating it after the quadratic term (this is described in “Subtle is the Lord”, by Abraham Pais.)
Could you display even 1 error-free model?
I recommend “Statistics and Chance” by Lawrence Sklar, for a survey of probability in statistical mechanics before Jaynes and Shannon. He reviews measure theory and the necessity for its incorporation into probability, and the development of the concept of ergodic process.
You have persuaded me that you are a serious scholar. I just don’t think your comments here are apt. As I wrote above, they are abstruse, and do not justify your claim that Scafetta’s model is intrinsically non-falsifiable.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler (March 24, 2012 at 8:49):
Thanks for taking the time to respond and for the stimulating discussion! Contrary to your understanding, the notion that a model can be construed to be the algorithm for an optimal decoder is not a heuristic but rather is the basis for principles of logical reasoning that include Aristotle’s laws of thought.
The situation that motivates this conclusion is the one in which several inferences are possibilities for being made by a model that is under construction. The model builder is faced with the necessity for discriminating the one correct inference from among the many possibilities. In this discrimination, it is pertinent that a measure of an inference exists and is unique. This measure is the missing information in the inference for a deductive conclusion, the so-called “entropy” of the inference.
In view of the existence and uniqueness of the measure of an inference, the question of which of the many inferences that are possibilities for being made by a model is the one correct inference has a solution in the notion of optimization. The one correct inference minimizes the conditional entropy of this inference or (dependent upon the type of inference) maximizes the entropy of this inference under constraints expressing the available information.Thus,the principles of logical reasoning are to minimize the entropy of one kind of inference that is made by a model or to maximize the entropy of a different kind of inference, under constraints expressing the available information. Among the fruits of this line of reasoning are thermodynamics, the theory of fair gambling devides and modern electronic forms of communication.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler ( March 24, 2012 at 8:49 pm)
A model that is free from logical error follows:
{Cloudy now implies rain in the next 24 hours.
Cloudy now.
Therefore, rain in the next 24 hours.}
The freedom from logical error follows from the fact that the inference that is made by this model is of the form of Modus Ponens. For brevity, I have omitted specification of the statistical population that would have to be supplied in order for this model to be made falsifiable.
Robert,
Yes, Popper wrote that falsification was ideal:
Once again: if a hypothesis is not testable, it is only a conjecture. Laws are testable [falsifiable]. Theories are testable. Hypotheses are testable. But Conjectures are only the first step in the scientific method. They are educated opinions, nothing more. For example, AGW is a conjecture, because it is not testable.
Fascinating.
I’ve been reading and reading, and while I have come no closer to understanding the science, I have regained my confidence in my bullshit-meter which flashes and hoots at the obscurantist smoke of pseudoscience. And it’s been going, bwaa-bwaa-bwaa-bwaa!.
The alarms with the flashing and hooting occur during the following: When critiques are interpreted as personal challenges which somehow damage the entire field or the dignity of the author. When we are told to think on a presumably higher plane, or r scolded for not beingimaginative or poetic. When exceptions are paraded as evidence, as in, “well, look at Galileo, Lister….etc.” When we are urged to provide support, kindness and good thoughts, in lieu of critiques (which presumably generate bad energy?). When the argument from authority rears its stupid head in the middle of a debate and some people, quite selectively, are suddenly asked to supply credentials. And, when such crap takes hijacks the discussion, while challenges and questions regarding substantive issues in the claim are left unaddressed.
Just noticed this one in Dr. Scafetta’s paper …
It reminds me of a Nasruddin story. Nasruddin took his shoes to the cobbler to be repaired. He asked when they would be done. “Inshallah (if God wills it) they will be done on the 15th of the month.”
So Nasruddin comes back and they’re not done. “How long until they are finished?” he asks. “Inshallah, by the 21st of the month” says the cobbler.
But when Nasruddin comes back a third time, they’re still not done. “How long this time?” he asks. “Inshallah, they will be finished on the 25th.”
“And how long will it take to finish them if you leave God out of it and fix them yourself?”
So I have to ask … how long is the tidal spring period if we leave circular orbits out of it?
Well, of course it varies all over the place. Dr. Scafetta waves his hand and vaguely says:
An “estimate of the spring period”? Why not an accurate calculation? And I don’t believe that it averages 9.93 years over that short period, that would be too much of a coincidence.
Next, since the actual value swings by half a year each way … why not use the actual tides? Why should the average tide mean anything? If you go down to the ocean, all that matters is the actual tide, not the average tide. That’s a mathematical abstraction, it has no reality.
If the astronomical cycles actually rule, seems to me you need to use the actual cycles, not some number that is somewhere near the long-term average.
Finally, if the calculated tidal spring period of Jupiter/Saturn is 9.93 years, then why is Scafetta using 9.98 years? As I have shown above, that size of an adjustment shifts the beat frequencies by dozens of years in two centuries … if climate is tied to astronomical cycle, it should be tied to the real deal, not some nearby number that Dr. Scafetta happens to find convenient.
w.
PS—I just used the JPL HORIZONS ephemerides system to calculate the times of conjunction and opposition of Jupiter and Saturn. First, the system said it couldn’t calculate Jupiter or Saturn prior to 1800 … OK, so I looked from then until now.
In contrast to Dr. Scafetta’s claims that it gives “a value oscillating between 9.5 and 10.5 years”, the minimum value was between 1981-Apr-28 and 1990-Jul-07,at 9.19 years. The maximum value was between 1821-Sep-27 and 1832-Jun-25, at 10.73 years … so once again I am unable to verify Dr. Scafetta’s claims.
Robert says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Thanks, Robert. Of course there is that potential that they’ll be proven wrong, that’s the point. All scientific “truths” are provisional, and assuredly many of them will be proven wrong in future. But until they are falsified, we use them because it’s the best we have.
w.
In case Dr. Scafetta or others are running short of astronomical cycles for their parameters to be “closely related to” or “associated to”, I’ve prepared this handy list to prevent the feared cycle scarcity:
1 Year + 1.8 days : Neptune’s Synodic year
1 Year + 12 to 14 days : Saturn’s Synodic year
1 Year + 30 to 38 days : Jupiter’s Synodic year
1 Year + 4.5 days : Uranus’ Synodic year
1 Year 6 months + 5 to 41 days : Venus’ Synodic year
1.881 Years : Mars’ Sidereal year
2 Years + 0 to 1 Day : Moon’s phases
2 Years + 1 to 2.5 Months : Mars’ Synodic year
3.5 to 13 Years : Mercury’s Transit
5 Years + 3 to 6 months to 10 Years + 3 to 6 months : Spica’s Occultation season
7 Years 11 months 30 days 7 hours 2 min 39 sec : Venus’ Elongation
7 Years 3 months to 8 Years 7 months : Regulus’ Occultation season
8 Years – 2 to 3 days to 121 Years 6 months + 2 to 3 days : Venus’ Transits
8 Years + 1 to 2 days : Moon’s Phases
8.85 Years : Moon’s Perigee
9 Years + 5.5 days : Half SAROS Cycle
11 Years 3 months + 10 to 13 days : Jupiter-Graffias Conjunctions
11.862 Years : Jupiter’s Sidereal year
12 Years 4 Months to 13 Years : Jupiter-Neptune Conjunctions
12 Years 10 months to 15 Years 6.5 months : Saturn’s Rings on Edge
13 Years 5.5 to 6.5 month : Antares Occultation-season
13 Years + 2 to 3 days : Mercury’s Elongation
13 Years 2.5 months to 14 Years 3 months : Jupiter-Uranus Conjunctions
13 Years 11 months : Pleiades Occultation-season
14 Years 11.5 months to 15 Years 4 months : Aldebaran Occultation-season
15 to 17 Years : Mars’ Perihelion Oppositions
17 Years-0 to 2 days : Moon’s Phases
18 Years 10 months to 20 Years 7.5 months : Jupiter-Saturn Conjunctions
18 Year + 10.32 or 11.32 days : SAROS Cycle Eclipse Cycle
18.61 Years : Moon’s Nutation Cycle
19 Years + 0 to 2 days : Moon’s Metonic Cycle
21 Years +/- 1 day : Moon’s Phases
27 Years : Mercury’s Synodic Multiple
29 Years – 20.1 days : Inex Eclipse Cycle
29 years 1 month + 11 to 30 days : Saturn-Regulus Conjunctions
29.457 Years : Saturn’s Sidereal year
30 Years : Moon’s Librations Approximately
32 Years + 0.5 to 4.5 days : Venus-Mars 32 Year Cycle
33 Years – 2 to 3 days : Mercury’s Elongation
35 Years 3 months to 36 Years 4 months : Saturn-Neptune Conjunctions
42 Years 10 months to 46 Years 10 months : Saturn-Uranus Conjunctions
46 Years + a fraction of day) : Mercury’s Elongation
47 Years + 3 days : Mars’ Synodic Multiple
47 Years – 17 days : Mercury-Mars-Jupiter Conjunctions
54 Years + 34 days : Exeligmos Eclipse Cycle
58 Years – 40.1 to – 42.1 days : Eclipse Cycle
59 Years : Saturn’s Synodic Multiple
65 Years + 0 to 3 days : Lunar-Solar Eclipse Cycle
79 Years + 3 days : Mars’ Perihelion Oppositions
83 Years : Jupiter’s Synodic Multiple
83 Year 2 months + 12 to 18 days : Uranus-Regulus Conjunctions
84.02 Years : Uranus’ Sidereal year
87 years – 61 days : Three Inex Eclipse Cycles
163 Years 3 months 19 to 30 days and 164 Years 1 month 11 to 18 days : Neptune-Regulus Conjunctions
164.786 Years : Neptune’s Sidereal year
170 Years 3.5 to 5.0 months to 171 Years to +3 months : Uranus-Neptune Conjunctions
217 Years) : Mercury’s Transits
284 Years + 2.5 days : Mars’ Oppositions
410 Years : Solar Totality
521 Years +/- 1 or 2 days : 18 Inex Eclipse Cycles
800 Years : Lunar Eclipse Regulus Occultations
Of course, Dr. Scafetta also includes halves of those cycles, which gives us another whole range of possibilities. He also said one of his cycles was related to (2X + Y)/4, where X is the Moon’s Perigee and Y is the Moons Nutation Cycle, so I guess anything’s possible.
Details here and here …
w.
Smokey said @ur momisugly March 24, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Thanks Smokey 🙂 However, what is being missed here is that Popper was not a naive falsificationist (naive here is a term of art). While Einstein is frequently quoted as saying a single experiment would suffice to bring down his relativity theory, this is far from the case.
The example I usually use is that of the orbit of the planet Neptune. It stolidly refused to follow its allotted Newtonian path. Newtonian physics was not instantly rejected, after all it had served well for 200 years. Instead, it was hypothesised that there was an outer planet affecting the orbit of Neptune. Newtonian physics was saved by the hypothetical planet that was later discovered where it needed to be to do the saving and named Pluto.
Popper’s main effort was attempting to create a demarcation between science and pseudo-science. A theory that explains everything, such as astrology, or psychoanalysis, is inherently unfalsifiable. Whatever happens, the theory is sufficiently ad hoc to explain the event.
Kuhn’s contribution to our understanding of the progress of science is that saving the theory by ad hoc explanation is what he calls “normal science”. The theory determines what is legitimate research. Research that might call a theory into question is not legitimate science. Just about every generally accepted theory so far eventually falls under the accumulated weight of ad hoc explanations for anomalous observations precipitating a paradigm shift.
There’s a tendency among philosophers of science to support either Popper, or Kuhn. I find much of value in the work of both. And there’s lots of what we consider to be legitimate science that falls outside of Popper’s falsifiability criterion as I attempt to point out from time to time.
And following Willis’ example:
Nasrudin was ferrying a traveler across a lake. As they spoke on various subjects, Nasrudin made a minor grammatical error.
The traveler remarked, “You who wears a turban and calls himself a Mulla-have you ever studied grammar?”
“No,” Nasrudin admitted, “I have not covered that subject in depth.”
“Well then,” the traveler replied,” you have wasted half of your life!“
Several minutes later, Nasrudin turned to the traveler and asked, “Have you ever learned how to swim?”
“No,” the traveler responded.
“Well then,” Nasrudin replied, “you have wasted all your life; there is a hole in the boat, and we are sinking!“
E.M.Smith says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:32 pm
“So while the sun has most of the mass, most of the angular momentum is in the outer planets.”
Mmm-mm. You have to compute the angular momentum with respect to an inertial reference. Do it with respect to the solar system barycenter and see what you get.
“…I’ve not found any decent reference for a macro level spin orbital coupling.”
The only coupling possible, besides terrifically small relativistic effects is from interaction with tidal bulges and other deviations from a spherical mass distribution. Much effort has been put into detecting a significant quadrupole moment (the lowest term in spherical harmonic expansion indicating deviation from a spherical distribution) of the Sun . Investigations continue, but the vast majority have not found anything noteworthy. Most physicists accept that, if there is such a deviation, it is limited by the experimental error in predicting and measuring the general relativistic precession of the perihelion of Mercury.
The Pompous Git says:
March 25, 2012 at 12:09 am
Git and Smokey, thanks.
Einstein is frequently quoted as saying a single experiment would suffice to bring down his relativity theory. This is in fact the case, because Einstein obviously meant an experiment that no one could falsify.
Neptune appeared to falsify Newtonian physics. Consider what would have happened if despite our best efforts, to this day we had not found any other planetary body outside Neptune’s orbit. That would have undermined Newton’s Laws. But the claim that there were no other planets was falsified, and Newtonian physics stands.
You go on to say:
Seems like you are saying we notice anomalies. We attempt to explain them using modifications or alternate interpretations of our current theories. You say sometimes that works (Neptune), sometimes it doesn’t.
If that is what Kuhn said, I don’t see what that has to do with falsification. I mean it’s important, but it seems like a very different subject.
My point is simple. Science is not about proof, because you can’t prove a dang thing. It’s about disproof, which you can certainly do.
w.
Willis Eschenbach said @ur momisugly March 25, 2012 at 12:44 am
[1] Yep! There seems to be no sure-fire do-it-by-numbers way of predetermining the outcome. Terry Oldberg claims to have solved the induction problem, but as you correctly point out, he’s only sharing the how-to specifically with people who are willing to pay him for the training, or follow an unspecified path through a long reading list.
[2] Correct. Kuhn’s explanation of science is more sociological than philosophical. It’s orthogonal to Popper, rather than opposed. Critics of both seem to somewhat willfully misinterpret the one they oppose.
[3] I agree except that a lot of what is included in science, bench biology for example, is not amenable to disproof; it’s more akin to map-making. Darwin’s work on barnacles was description, not attempting to make a prediction about some future state of barnacles. Many physics theories seem to be disproved by incongruence with another theory, or theories, rather than by falsification.
I am also deeply suspicious of the concept that the behaviour of a system can be understood in terms of its parts. Bridges for example can consist of wires, logs, ropes, steel, concrete or in the case of a tunnel, nothing. This has nothing to do with our imagination: ants and termites are great bridge and tunnel builders.
Heck it’s fun thinking about science 🙂
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 24, 2012 at 11:41 pm
The list might be more useful if you could whittle it down to those with at least minimal significance. E.g., Mercury’s Elongation surely has no effect on the Earth’s climate. If it doesn’t involve the Moon, Jupiter, or possibly Saturn, it is of no interest (really, I very much doubt any but the Moon actually are). I would pare your list to at least the following:
1 Year + 12 to 14 days : Saturn’s Synodic year
1 Year + 30 to 38 days : Jupiter’s Synodic year
2 Years + 0 to 1 Day : Moon’s phases
8 Years + 1 to 2 days : Moon’s Phases
8.85 Years : Moon’s Perigee
9 Years + 5.5 days : Half SAROS Cycle
11.862 Years : Jupiter’s Sidereal year
17 Years-0 to 2 days : Moon’s Phases
18 Years 10 months to 20 Years 7.5 months : Jupiter-Saturn Conjunctions
18 Year + 10.32 or 11.32 days : SAROS Cycle Eclipse Cycle
18.61 Years : Moon’s Nutation Cycle
19 Years + 0 to 2 days : Moon’s Metonic Cycle
21 Years +/- 1 day : Moon’s Phases
29 Years – 20.1 days : Inex Eclipse Cycle
29.457 Years : Saturn’s Sidereal year
30 Years : Moon’s Librations Approximately
47 Years + 3 days : Mars’ Synodic Multiple
54 Years + 34 days : Exeligmos Eclipse Cycle
58 Years – 40.1 to – 42.1 days : Eclipse Cycle
59 Years : Saturn’s Synodic Multiple
65 Years + 0 to 3 days : Lunar-Solar Eclipse Cycle
83 Years : Jupiter’s Synodic Multiple
87 years – 61 days : Three Inex Eclipse Cycles
410 Years : Solar Totality
521 Years +/- 1 or 2 days : 18 Inex Eclipse Cycles
This is a problem you are having of your own making in convincing people: you appear hostile, and it appears you are trying to obfuscate as much as clarify. This is a tactic usually observed on the warmist side, so you should not wonder that people here are put off by it.
But, IMHO, the point is still valid: with so many cycles to choose from, it does not appear extremely surprising that some subset can be made to match climate observations on a superficial level.
I’m banned from Tamino’s blog for mopery on the skyways, aka asking inconvenient questions. However, like many AGW supporters, he’s a smart guy. I rarely go there because I’m banned, but I’d heard he had commented on Scafetta’s paper, so I took a look. He brought up an interesting point.
Scafetta claims a bimodal distribution for the sunspot cycles. Here’s his Figure 2.
ORIGINAL CAPTION (emphasis mine) Fig. 2. Probability distributions of the sunspot number cycle length (SCL) using Table 1 and Eq. (2). Note the double-belled distribution pattern (solid curve) centered close to 10 and 12 years. There appears to be a gap between 10.55 and 11.25 years in the SCL record.
Tamino’s point was that there are mathematical tests to determine if a dataset is not a normal distribution. Note that once again we are discussing falsification. The Shapiro-Wilk test rejects the hypothesis that the data is normal. This is because it is not possible to prove that a given dataset is normal, only to falsify the hypothesis of normality. Typically, a “p-value” of less than 0.05 is taken as a rejection of the hypothesis of normality.
Tamino says the Shapiro-Wilk test gives a p-value of 0.67. I get slightly less, 0.65, but both of us show there’s not a trace of non-normality about the dataset at all.
In order to sustain the claim that the data has a “double-belled distribution”, Dr. Scafetta first needs to show that the data is not normally distributed. But the Shapiro-Wilk test shows he can’t even establish that simpler case.
Finally, I also use the Jarque-Bera test for normality. That test, which also rejects the assumption of normality, gives me a result of 0.67. This again doesn’t show any evidence for a non-normal distribution.
So Dr. Scafetta’s claim of a “double-belled distribution pattern centered close to 10 and 12 years is falsified. He has not presented evidence rejecting a normal distribution.
w.
APPENDIX: R code for the calculations
require(tseries) scaf=c(11.25, 9.00, 9.25, 13.67, 12.58, 12.42, 10.50, 9.67, 12.42, 11.25, 11.75, 11.25, 11.92, 11.50, 10.00, 10.08, 10.42, 10.17, 10.50, 11.67, 10.25, 9.67, 12.58) #length of solar cycles from paper shapiro.test(scaf) # Shapiro-Wilk normality test # #data: scaf #W = 0.9685, p-value = 0.6535 jarque.bera.test(scaf) # Jarque Bera Test # #data: scaf #X-squared = 0.7931, df = 2, p-value = 0.6726Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:20 am
Thanks, Bart, but since I think that there is no ex-ante way to determine if any of them have significance, much less which ones it might be, such whittling is suspect.
Also, rather than hostility it was an obviously unsuccessful attempt at humor. I find it hilarious to watch the random picking and choosing of cycles. That’s why I talked about averting a possible cycle shortage, because at the rate Scafetta is going through them he might run out soon … a joke, don’tcha know …
w.
The Pompous Git says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:07 am
Appreciated, Git. I was with you up until the last. Much of science is map-making, and it progresses in the usual way, through falsification of the map. Consider the story about the number of human chromosomes.
And description is falsifiable as well. If Darwin had said that barnacles attach onto the rocks with suction cups, that description can be falsified. And indeed it is falsified by the observation that they glue themselves to the rock, which is the correct description.
w.
Another oddity. The cycle lengths of the minima of the sunspots is what is used by Scafetta. But he offers no justification for using the distances between minima instead of the distances between sunspot maxima. And they are quite different.
Here is the violinplot of the two distributions:
Why would the climate follow one and not the other?
w.
APPENDIX: R code
require(vioplot) scaf=c(11.25, 9.00, 9.25, 13.67, 12.58, 12.42, 10.50, 9.67, 12.42, 11.25, 11.75, 11.25, 11.92, 11.50, 10.00, 10.08, 10.42, 10.17, 10.50, 11.67, 10.25, 9.67, 12.58) #length of minimums of solar cycles from paper scafmax=c(8.25, 8.67, 9.42, 16.33, 12.25, 14.17, 6.67, 10.92, 12.00, 10.50, 13.33, 10.08, 12.08, 11.50, 10.67, 9.00, 10.08, 10.83, 10.67, 11.08, 9.58, 10.75)#length of maximums of solar cycles from paper par(mgp=c(2.2,1,0)) vioplot(scaf,scafmax,names=c("Years bet. Min.","Years bet. Max.")) title(main="Sunspot Cycle Lengths")The Pompous Git says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:07 am
I will say that one area where science does progress without falsification is through simplification. The epicycle theory is a perfectly valid geocentric view and explanation of the movements of the planets. However, the heliocentric view is much, much simpler, and prevailed for that reason among others.
w.
I’ve put up a new post which I hope will put a few of the criticisms into perspective here.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/the-key-signatures-in-the-music-of-the-spheres/
It’s not exhaustive, no-one would read an article that long, but it attempts to outline the main interactions which support the contention that the solar system is not a collection of randomly placed masses, but a coherent organised system which must have feedback within it in order to maintain that coherence.
Willis,
Being unable to reject a normal distribution doesn’t falsify a bimodal distribution. Since the process in nonlinear, the presumption should probably be a poisson distribution anyway. I suspect peak picking software would pick two peaks there.
Leif Svalgaard,
I doubt the sample of exoplanets with orbital periods close to their stellar dynamo periods is large enough to support your argument. You seem to be assuming this isn’t relevant.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:31 am
I doubt the sample of exoplanets with orbital periods close to their stellar dynamo periods is large enough to support your argument. You seem to be assuming this isn’t relevant.
My argument is that this is where to look [and the sample increases almost as we speak]. So far we haven’t found any correlation, but the argument from the planetary enthusiasts is that the solar system is so unique that we won’t find any and that therefore the exoplanets cannot be used as a test vehicle. Turning this around, I’m pretty sure that if a strong correlation had been found that the cries that only the solar system would exhibit planetary influences would subside considerably.
A second element is whether the planets largely create the activity or only cause a minor perturbation on an intrinsic dynamo that has nothing the do with the planets, but is determined by properties of the star itself. If the planets drive the dynamo, then exoplanets are a good test because the dynamo period should be set by the planets. Even if the planets only weakly modulate an existing dynamo, that modulation should still be visible and may be teased from the stellar data within a time much shorter than the centuries we would have to wait for statistics to build up.
Although Scafetta is rather vague about it, it seems that he also thinks that the climate perhaps is directly controlled [at least partly] by planetary action on the Earth, rather than via the Sun [c.f. his lunar ideas].
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:26 am
Scafetta claims a bimodal distribution for the sunspot cycles.
The claim as stated hides an inconvenient fact, namely that the cycle length has changed over time [rather than being bimodal in any subset of the data]. The cycle was longer in the first half of the sunspot series than in the last half. Your argument about how to measure cycle length is well taken. An important parameter for the dynamo is the solar polar fields and they change sign at solar maximum. Yet another proposal is to use the times when the sunspot number during the rise of the cycle reaches the average for the cycle.
Willis Eschenbach said @ur momisugly March 25, 2012 at 1:38 am
Happily, Darwin, being the impeccable observer he was made no such assertion and gave us a body of information about barnacles that made his scientific reputation as it was intended to do. But it seems I have not explained myself clearly. Let’s take a description of barnacles as analogous to a theory in physics.
“A barnacle is a type of arthropod belonging to infraclass Cirripedia in the subphylum Crustacea, and is hence related to crabs and lobsters. Barnacles are exclusively marine, and tend to live in shallow and tidal waters, typically in erosive settings. They are sessile (non-motile) suspension feeders, and have two nektonic (active swimming) larval stages.”
So when some smart-arse comes along and says: “what about members of the genus Sacculina that are parasitic and dwell within crabs?” is my original description falsified? Not at all; the description of barnacle habits is broadened and gains some new named species. It’s possible that there are one or more neotonous species that never becomes sessile. Should they be found, the original description is not falsified, but new members are added to that group of creatures we call barnacles.
Popper based his arguments on scientific disciplines that have scientific laws. I would argue that biology arguably has no genuine laws of its own, though all the usual laws of science apply to biological systems. Unfortunately, those laws mostly are of little use in understanding those systems at this time.
This is not to say that biology is devoid of mathematical aspects; Ian Stewart’s The Mathematics of Life is one of my favourite books. One imagines that this conversation would be quite different in a hundred years time.
The Pompous Git(March 25, 2012 at 6:40 am):
Like all of the other sciences, biology has a falsifiable theoretical structure. This structure provides us with information about the outcomes of biological events. Information about the outcomes of events is the functional equivalent of “scientia,” the Latin word for demonstrable knowledge that gave rise to the English word “science.”
Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:20 am
This is a problem you [i.e., Willis] are having of your own making in convincing people: you appear hostile, and it appears you are trying to obfuscate as much as clarify. This is a tactic usually observed on the warmist side, so you should not wonder that people here are put off by it.
———————————
On the face of it, you’re right, Bart, and my former marketing persona would certainly agree. Some very, very smart people here I couldn’t shine a light to are indeed put off. Folks like Messrs Seifert and Doormann, to mention but a few. That is sad and disconcerting, for we need certain amount of solidarity, given the forces arrayed against us. But then, with my Sunday morning coffee, something nagged at me and I posed a question to myself, what would I think if Anthony welcomed Dr Scafetta’s paper with open arms and warm comments befitting someone on “our side”? If Willis, Leif and others held back their “attacks,” as some would see them, and waffled politely and incomprehensibly, tiptoeing around not to offend a brilliant academic friend, a rare addition to “our cause”? I realized that I’d be flying out of this site like a singed bat out of a blazing Hell. No great loss, perhaps, but I’m sure that I wouldn’t be the only one.
Why? Because even those, like me, who may not understand the specifics of the science behind the disputes here, may well understand that a false proposition (CAGW) should not be replaced with just about anything, especially when created by someone on the “friendly” side. A lack of coherent and spirited objections which best crystallize difficult points and an absence of curmudgeons to act as “predators,” would be a clear sign to me that this site is primarily interested in group politics and is sliding towards quackery. The inevitable has finally happened; as CAGW skepticism grows in stature and moves towards the mainstream, it becomes a crank-magnet, a potentially friendly host for the pseudosciences to latch onto for their ride into the sunlight. And if you think on it, it’s not the hostility of the Warmies that is problematic, but exactly the opposite; their closed-circle bonhomie, their, circle-jerk faux peer-reviews, their tendency to cover for each other and to defend publicly defend friends even in the face of behind-the-scenes disagreements. This is why Warmism always was and will remain, to its bitter end, the junk science scam par excellence of the Modern Era.
Peter Kovachev ( March 25, 2012 at 6:46 am ):
CAGW isn’t a false proposition. It can’t be falsified because the IPCC has not identified the events that would be observed in an attempt at falsifying it. The IPCC’s fault does not lie in the falsity of the proposition but rather in the non-falsifiability of this proposition and misrepresentation when it says that its study of global warming was scientific.
Willis Eschenbach said @ur momisugly March 25, 2012 at 2:26 am
Copernicus’ heliocentric system required the same number of epicycles as the Ptolemaic system for no significant gain in accuracy, or ease of use, which was why it was never widely adopted. The real revolution in astronomy came when Kepler published Epitome astronomiae Copernicanae though Galileo refused to read the copy Kepler sent him and continued to champion the Copernican epicycle model of the solar system. René Descartes also refused to accept Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. These laws weren’t a simplification, but a completely new way of understanding planetary motion and Epitome became the most widely read book on astronomy in Europe.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 25, 2012 at 6:18 am
An important parameter for the dynamo is the solar polar fields and they change sign at solar maximum.
For which Vukcevic has an R^2 correlation of over .9 with his planetary based equation which uses the orbital period of Jupiter and the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn, just as Scafetta does in his paper.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Nice foot shooting there Leif. 🙂
Oh, and by the way Leif, your claim that 10.8 years is peculiar to the solar dynamo is incorrect. As well as being one of the harmonic periods of the interaction of the Jupiter-Saturn tidal period and the orbital period off Jupiter, it is also the Jupiter-Saturn synodic period multiplied by the ratio of their distances from the Sun.
All just coincidences? I think not.