Nicola Scafetta sent me this paper yesterday, and I read it with interest, but I have a number of reservations about it, not the least of which is that it is partially based on the work of Landscheidt and the whole barycentric thing which gets certain people into shouting matches. Figure 9 looks to be interesting, but note that it is in generic units, not temperature, so has no predictive value by itself.
While that looks like a good hindcast fit to historical warm/cold periods, compare it to figure 7 to see how it comes out.
Now indeed, that looks like a great fit to the Ljungqvist proxy temperature reconstruction, but the question arises about whether we are simply seeing a coincidental cyclic fit or a real effect. I asked Dr. Leif Svalgaard about his views on this paper and he replied with this:
The real test of all this cannot come from the proxies we have because the time scales are too short, but from comparisons with other stellar systems where the effects are calculated to be millions of times stronger [because the planets are huge and MUCH closer to the star]. No correlations have been found so far.
See slide 19 of my AGU presentation:
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
So, it would seem, that if the gravitational barycentric effect posited were real, it should be easily observable with solar systems of much larger masses. Poppenhager and Schmitt can’t seem to find it.
OTOH, we have what appears to be a good fit by Scafetta in Figure 7. So this leaves us with three possibilities
- The effect manifests itself in some other way not yet observed.
- The effect is coincidental but not causative.
- The effect is real, but unproven yet by observations and predictive value.
I’m leaning more towards #2 at this point but willing to examine the predictive value. As Dr. Svalgaard points out in his AGU presentation, others have tried but the fit eventually broke down. From slide 14
P. D. Jose (ApJ, 70, 1965) noted that the Sun’s motion about the Center of Mass of the solar system [the Barycenter] has a period of 178.7 yr and suggested that the sunspot cycles repeat with a similar period. Many later researchers have published variations of this idea. – Unfortunately a ‘phase catastrophe’ is needed every ~8 solar cycles
Hindcasting can be something you can easily setup to fool yourself with if you are not careful, and I’m a bit concerned over the quality of the peer review for this paper as it contains two instances of Scafetta’s signature overuse of exclamation points, something that a careful reviewer would probably not let pass.
Science done carefully rarely merits an exclamation point. Papers written that way sound as if you are shouting down to the reader.
The true test will be the predictive value, as Scafetta has been doing with his recent essays here at WUWT. I’m willing to see how well this pans out, but I’m skeptical of the method until proven by a skillful predictive forecast. Unfortunately it will be awhile before that happens as solar timescales far exceed human lifespan.
Below I present the abstract, plus a link to the full paper provided by Dr. Scafetta.
=============================================================
Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle
ScienceDirect link
Nicola Scafetta, ACRIM (Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab) & Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
Abstract
The Schwabe frequency band of the Zurich sunspot record since 1749 is found to be made of three major cycles with periods of about 9.98, 10.9 and 11.86 years. The side frequencies appear to be closely related to the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn (range between 9.5 and 10.5 years, and median 9.93 years) and to the tidal sidereal period of Jupiter (about 11.86 years). The central cycle may be associated to a quasi-11-year solar dynamo cycle that appears to be approximately synchronized to the average of the two planetary frequencies. A simplified harmonic constituent model based on the above two planetary tidal frequencies and on the exact dates of Jupiter and Saturn planetary tidal phases, plus a theoretically deduced 10.87-year central cycle reveals complex quasi-periodic interference/beat patterns. The major beat periods occur at about 115, 61 and 130 years, plus a quasi-millennial large beat cycle around 983 years. We show that equivalent synchronized cycles are found in cosmogenic records used to reconstruct solar activity and in proxy climate records throughout the Holocene (last 12,000 years) up to now. The quasi-secular beat oscillations hindcast reasonably well the known prolonged periods of low solar activity during the last millennium such as the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton minima, as well as the 17 115-year long oscillations found in a detailed temperature reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere covering the last 2000 years. The millennial three-frequency beat cycle hindcasts equivalent solar and climate cycles for 12,000 years. Finally, the harmonic model herein proposed reconstructs the prolonged solar minima that occurred during 1900–1920 and 1960–1980 and the secular solar maxima around 1870–1890, 1940–1950 and 1995–2005 and a secular upward trending during the 20th century: this modulated trending agrees well with some solar proxy model, with the ACRIM TSI satellite composite and with the global surface temperature modulation since 1850. The model forecasts a new prolonged solar minimum during 2020–2045, which would be produced by the minima of both the 61 and 115-year reconstructed cycles. Finally, the model predicts that during low solar activity periods, the solar cycle length tends to be longer, as some researchers have claimed. These results clearly indicate that both solar and climate oscillations are linked to planetary motion and, furthermore, their timing can be reasonably hindcast and forecast for decades, centuries and millennia. The demonstrated geometrical synchronicity between solar and climate data patterns with the proposed solar/planetary harmonic model rebuts a major critique (by Smythe and Eddy, 1977) of the theory of planetary tidal influence on the Sun. Other qualitative discussions are added about the plausibility of a planetary influence on solar activity.
Link to paper: Scafetta_JStides
UPDATE 3/22/2012 – 1:15PM Dr. Scafetta responds in comments:
About the initial comment from Antony above,I believe that there are he might have misunderstood some part of the paper.
1)
I am not arguing from the barycentric point of view, which is false. In the paper I am talking
about tidal dynamics, a quite different approach. My argument
is based on the finding of my figure 2 and 3 that reveal the sunspot record
as made of three cycles (two tidal frequencies, on the side, plus a central
dynamo cycle). Then the model was developed and its hindcast
tests were discissed in the paper, etc.
{from Anthony – Note these references in your paper: Landscheidt, T.,1988.Solar rotation,impulses of the torque in sun’s motion, and
climate change. Climatic Change12,265–295.
Landscheidt, T.,1999.Extrema in sunspot cycle linked toSun’s motion. Solar
Physics 189,415–426.}
2)
There are numerous misconceptions since the beginning such as “Figure 9 looks to be interesting, but note that it is in generic units, not temperature, so has no predictive value by itself.”
It is a hindcast and prediction. There is no need to use specific units, but only dynamics. The units are interpreted correctly in the text of the paper as being approximately W/m^2 and as I say in the caption of the figure “However, the bottom curve approximately reproduces the patterns observed in the proxy solar models depicted in Fig. 5. The latter record may be considered as a realistic, although schematic, representation of solar dynamics.”
{from Anthony – if it isn’t using units of temperature, I fail to see how it can be of predictive value, there is not even any reference to warmer/cooler}
3) About Leif’s comments. It is important to realize that Solar physics is not “settled” physics. People do not even understand why the sun has a 11-year cycle (which is between the 10 and 12 year J/S tidal frequencies, as explained in my paper).
4)
The only argument advanced by Leif against my paper is that the phenomenon is his opinion was not observed in other stars. This is hardly surprising. We do not have accurate nor long records about other stars!
Moreover we need to observe the right thing, for example, even if you have a large planet very close to a star, the observable effect is associated to many things: how eccentric the orbits are and how big the star is, and its composition etc. Stars have a huge inertia to tidal effects and even if you have a planet large and close enough to the star to produce a theoretical 4,000,000 larger tidal effect, it does not means that the response from the star must be linear! Even simple elastic systems may be quite sensitive to small perturbations but become extremely rigid to large and rapid perturbations, etc.
It is evident that any study on planetary influence on a star needs to start from the sun, and then eventually extended to other star systems, but probably we need to wait several decades before having sufficiently long records about other stars!
In the case of the sun I needed at least a 200 year long sunspot record to
detect the three Schwabe cycles, and at least 1000 years of data for
hindcast tests to check the other frequencies. People can do the math for how long we need to wait for the other stars before having long enogh records.
Moreover, I believe that many readers have a typical misconception of physics.
In science a model has a physical basis when it is based on the observations
and the data and it is able to reconstruct, hindcast and/or forecast them.
It is evident to everybody reading my paper with an open mind that under the scientific
method, the model I proposed is “physically based” because I am
describing and reconstructing the dynamical properties of the data and I
showed that the model is able to hindcast millennia long data records.
Nobody even came close to these achievements.
To say otherwise would mean to reject everything in science and physics
because all findings and laws of physics are based on the observations and
the data and are tested on their capability of reconstruct, hindcast and/or
forecast observations, as I did in the paper
Of course, pointing out that I was not solving the problem using for example
plasma physics or quantum mechanics or whatever else. But this is a complex
exercise that needs its own time. As I correctly say in the paper.
“Further research should address the physical mechanisms necessary to
integrate planetary tides and solar dynamo physics for a more physically
based model.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:31 am
I doubt the sample of exoplanets with orbital periods close to their stellar dynamo periods is large enough to support your argument.
There is the [wrong] notion that somehow the sun [or stars with star spots] are ‘oscillators’ in some sense, and that the planets hit the ‘natural frequencies’ of the stars, etc. This is not so. The natural frequencies of solar-like stars are of the order of minutes to hours. The solar dynamo is not an ‘oscillator’, but results from and interplay between differential rotation [‘winds’ basically in the solar atmosphere] and a meridional circulation [much like Hadley cells in the Earth’s atmosphere and also thermally driven]. The speed of the latter [about 20 meters/second] basically sets the cycle length, but is somewhat variable and some argue that that variation is instrumental in determining the variation in activity from one cycle to the next. The basic point is that the sun does not seem to be a tightly controlled oscillatory system, but rather a messy place with most things being pretty random [‘stochastic’ to use a fancy words]. For example, the polar fields [which are thought to control the size of the next cycle] are the result of a magnetic flux from decaying sunspots slowly being transported and diffused in to the polar regions. The magnetic flux at the poles corresponds to the flux from only a handful of sunspot regions compared to the ~3000 such regions that are generated in each solar cycle. One can actually see where the flux comes from: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/torsional.html shows the blue and red ‘tongues’ [of opposite polarities] of flux streaming up from the sunspot latitudes and first reversing the old flux in the polar regions, and then building up the new, opposite polarity, flux.
@Leif Svalgaard: Actually, gravity is the ultimate cause of almost everything: the sun wouldn’t shine [and we wouldn’t be here] if the protosun had not been compressed to high temperature by gravity
Was it the Sun lit by smashing one flint to another?
How does comet Lovejoy manages to cross the Sun from one side to the other?
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 7:19 am
“An important parameter for the dynamo is the solar polar fields and they change sign at solar maximum.”
For which Vukcevic has an R^2 correlation of over .9 with his planetary based equation
In calculation of R^2 one must take into account [he does not] the very high auto-correlation of the polar fields which reduces the number of degrees of freedom to a lot fewer than he thinks.
And his formula fails going back in time before ~1975, which is like a head shot.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 7:28 am
Oh, and by the way Leif, your claim that 10.8 years is peculiar to the solar dynamo is incorrect.
Never said such a thing, the length varies by several years over time.
As well as being one of the harmonic periods of the interaction of the Jupiter-Saturn tidal period and the orbital period off Jupiter, it is also the Jupiter-Saturn synodic period multiplied by the ratio of their distances from the Sun.
more numerology; perhaps you can fit the height of the pyramids in there too.
Here is some more numerology for your compendium:
Back in the 1880s, Wolf calculated the solar cycle period to be 11.295 years based on the 10 cycles he had reconstructed. Charles Harrison at the time noticed that if you insert the periods p, masses m, and distances from the Sun d for the eight planets in the formula
P = sum (p*m/d^2)/sum(m/d^2) you also get 11.295 years. Unfortunately the formula fails for the last ~100 years where the solar cycle period has averaged 10.6 years [but hey that is the fate of numerology]. One can use Keppler’s third law to eliminate either p or d from Harrison’s formula, to make it [d in AU and p in years to get units right]
P = sum(m/d^(1/2))/sum(m/d^(4/2)) or P = sum(m/p^(1/3))/sum(m/p^(4/3))
One can go one step further: P = sum(A)/sum(A/p) where A is the angular momentum.
One last trick. It can be written 1/P = sum(A/p)/sum(A) or F = sum(A*f)/sum(A), so:
frequency of cycle = angular momentum weigthed average frequency of the planets.
Numerology is great fun. Like watching the clowns in a circus.
adolfogiurfa says:
March 25, 2012 at 8:14 am
Was it the Sun lit by smashing one flint to another?
It was lit by gravity compressing it to such a high temperature that some protons began to move so fast that they could overcome the mutual repulsion and fuse to form helium.
How does comet Lovejoy manages to cross the Sun from one side to the other?
Almost all comets manage that. If they pass really close, the smallest ones will not make it, but the bigger ones will, and Lovejoy was clearly big enough.
Robert (March 24, 2012 at 3:23 pm):
Three comments:
1) If the IPCC’s theories made predictions, these theories would be falsifiable. However they make no predictions; instead, they make projections. Though people often confuse predictions with projections, the two words reference different concepts.
2) By definition, the equilibrium temperature is the temperature that would be attained if all of the heat fluxes were held constant for an infinite amount of time. As the heat fluxes cannot be held constant and one cannot wait for an infinite amount of time the numerical value of an equilibrium temperature is not observable.
3) If your background is in engineering, it would be helpful for you to know that the climatological term “equilibrium temperature” translates to the engineering term “steady-state temperature.”
Terry Oldberg,
How is a projection not a prediction? If I “project” having $128 surplus at the end of the month based on my spending, what difference would it make if instead I “predict” that I will have $128 based on my spending? And you could correctly replace either word with “forecast”. They are all conclusions regarding the future, based on current data.
In “Climate Misconceptions”, Dr Roy Spencer writes: …climate projections and climate predictions are the same thing. This means that the climate projections need to be compared with real world data in the same manner as a prediction. Kevin [Trenberth] is not correct when he writes that “the IPCC does not do forecasts“. They most certainly do.
[Also please note in your point #1 that the IPCC is not discussing scientific theories, it is making scientific conjectures. Big difference.]
Smokey (March 25, 2012 at 9:11 am ):
Dr. Spencer is laboring under a misconception. In statistics, a prediction does not exist in isolation but rather as an element of a set of predictions. The relation from this set to a set of statistically independent events is one-to-one. The latter set is an example of a statistical population. A subset of a statistical population in which the events have been observed is an example of a statistical sample. In statistically testing a predictive model one compares the predicted to the observed relative frequencies of the various possible outcomes of the events. If the difference between the predicted and observed relative frequencies of one or more outcomes is too great to have resulted from sampling error, the model is falsified.
“Projection” is a term from the field of ensemble forecasting. In particular, a projection is an element of a statistical ensemble. The use of this idea in climatology is based upon the recognition that in a chaotic system such as the climate, small uncertainties in the starting state grow into larger and larger uncertainties in the current state as time progresses. Thus, runs are made of a general circulation model with variations in the starting state that that are within the ranges of uncertainty on the various state variables. An output from a single run such as the global average surface air temperature feeds into the specification of a single projection. The computer output is timewise discrete but a projection is timewise continuous. In generating a projection from the computer, climatologists use some type of interpolation; I think it is linear interpolation.
In meteorology, ensemble forecasting is used (with a degree of success) in making predictions. In climatology, a log of folks have gotten the cockeyed idea that a projection IS a prediction and in doing so they have neglected the necessity for identifying the statistical populations for their studies. This has had the effect of rendering the conjectures of these climatologists non-falsifiable and thus unscientific.
Joachim Seifert (March 24, 2012 at 4:00 pm):
The decorum that is required of a person who is in a debate such as the one we are having is an interesting and important topic. However, I shall pass on the opportunity to comment on it in this particular thread as it is off the topic of this thread.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 25, 2012 at 6:18 am
So far we haven’t found any correlation, but the argument from the planetary enthusiasts is that the solar system is so unique that we won’t find any and that therefore the exoplanets cannot be used as a test vehicle.
You are stretching the point big time. So far we have not seen a solar system like ours, but it is early days. Show me something even close to our 4 gas planet controlled system that comes close.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:23 am
I’ve put up a new post which I hope will put a few of the criticisms into perspective here.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/the-key-signatures-in-the-music-of-the-spheres/. It’s not exhaustive, no-one would read an article that long, but it attempts to outline the main interactions which support the contention that the solar system is not a collection of randomly placed masses, but a coherent organised system which must have feedback within it in order to maintain that coherence.
——————————
Well, it does put some of the criticism in perspective here, alas not in a way our good friend, Tall Bloke means. I’ll leave it to others to chew on the important particulars, but three things…apart from the hopefully tongue-in-cheek “music of the spheres bit… struck me as worrisome.
First, the straw man argument which claims that potential critics of “coherent organized system” view the Solar system as a “collection of randomly placed masses.”
The second is the claim that our Solar system is a “coherent organised system.” This strikes me as a statement based on faith rather than objective observation. Disclaimer: I’m religiously observant and believe in Intelligent Design. However, that is a position I base entirely on faith and tradition. I know of no convincing scientifichypothesis that confirms my beliefs, nor do I require one. I’m not philosophically troubled by this, as I know that science and religion are different systems of knowledge; I’m more troubled by annoying attempts by some theologians and even scientists within my religious community to cherry-pick scientific claims in a decidedly unscientific manner.
Thirdly, I’m uncomfortable about Tall Bloke’s seemingly reflexive defense of contrarian or alternate sciences. Opposition to CAGW is based on that conjecture’s failure and fraudulent politicking and rent-seeking. This does not require skeptics to come up with alternate explanations on the fly, nor to hold hands with everyone who is being snubbed by the mainstream scientific establishment. In the comments section, where Tall Bloke participates, the usual and tiring comparisons with Galileo are made. Tall Bloke says, “Halton Arp was denied further telescope time after publishing his anomalous red shift data…At least they didn’t put him under house arrest to make sure he couldn’t spread his heresy like the Catholic Cardinals did with Galileo.” Now, a quick look at Halton Arp’s case and his site confirms that the man was indeed unfairly hounded and that he makes many a good point. However, his work also appears to have been falsified, or at least credibly challenged, by new equipment and discoveries and Dr Arp’s angry and strident persistence in hanging onto his claims and his beatification as a Galilean martyr are questionable, though, and one of the markers of crank-hood.
Personally, I wish that Tall Bloke would describe his boundaries explicitly and clearly. As I mentioned before, some of his blog friends and guests stray to the margins of science, such as crop circle research, astrology, psychics, UFOs and I’m curious on what basis he includes or excludes certain ideas from the margins of established science. Once again I worry about CAGW skepticism reaching beyond its aims and getting dragged down by opportunistic pseudoscientists. Just a thought.
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2012 at 7:19 am
For which Vukcevic has an R^2 correlation of over .9 with his planetary based equation which uses the orbital period of Jupiter and the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.
Time to wake up Rog, Vuk’s equation is nonsense and has no scientific base. I remember in the old days he was predicting a high cycle SC24 and changed his formula when the writing was on the wall. Basically numerology and cyclomania is just pure crap, the solar system is a natural structure of nature that refuses to conform to our need to force the universe into perfect pigeon holes. The mainly non repeating format of the planet positions gives us the variation of solar activity over the Holocene, which will only give us glimpses via FFT type analysis.
Your blog spends a lot of time on perfect cycles and repeating numbers. This concept will ultimately be proven wrong, the variation in each cycle is the key.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:26 am
Show me something even close to our 4 gas planet controlled system that comes close.
So you are saying that it will only happen in systems just like ours. If the planets in general have an influence it should be felt in all systems to degrees depending on the particulars. You want special pleading for the sun, go ahead.
Peter Kovachev says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:35 am
As I mentioned before, some of his blog friends and guests stray to the margins of science, such as crop circle research, astrology, psychics, UFOs and I’m curious on what basis he includes or excludes certain ideas from the margins of established science.
I think those cranky ideas fit very well with the rest of his stuff, and do not find it particularly strange that they are included.
Terry Oldberg: Thus,the principles of logical reasoning are to minimize the entropy of one kind of inference that is made by a model or to maximize the entropy of a different kind of inference, under constraints expressing the available information. Among the fruits of this line of reasoning are thermodynamics, the theory of fair gambling devides and modern electronic forms of communication.
I’d be happier if you would display one error-free model and operationalize the distinction you are trying to make between prediction and projection. Scafetta’s model outputs will be compared to future data; if they are close, his model survives, if not it gets discarded. Why you think it is intrinsically untestable remains a mystery to me. But I think we have worked this vein as far as we can. Some of the references on your web page are already on my reading list.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler ( March 25, 2012 at 10:11 am ):
I forwarded an error-free model to you via an earlier comment. Scafetta’s model is not falsifiable because it makes no predictions and identifies no statistical population.
Scafetta’s model does make projections. Conflation of predictions with projections makes it seem to many that predictions are made but this conflation is inconsistent with the actual absense of a statistical population. For a disambiguation of the idea of a “prediction” and the idea of a “projection” please see my recent response to Smoky once it passes moderation.
The series of three articles that I published a year ago might be of interest in light of your interest in logic and climatology. The URLs are: http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/22/principles-of-reasoning-part-i-abstraction/ , http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/25/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-ii-solving-the-problem-of-induction/ and http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ . If you read the articles and have comments, I’d like to hear them. There is a place for comments in the associated blog.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:26 am
Show me something even close to our 4 gas planet controlled system that comes close.
This thread is specifically about Scafetta and his ideas and he does not rely on ‘our 4 gas planets’. Your stuff has other [much more fundamental] problems.
@terry Oldberg says:(March 25, 2012 at 8:50 am):
Unfortunately I think you are giving too much importance to semantics than content. To me, predictions and projections are almost the same – projection probably involves some participation and control from a group, prediction probably does not include that. In either way, they give parameters related to a future state of affairs.
Sure, I am aware of equilibrium and ensembles, steady state etc. Earth is not an adiabatic or isolated system, so we have to work with what we can parametrize – lack of equilibrium does not prevent us from dealing with the average surface temperature. So I do not see any logical or scientific inconsistencies in predicting rise in average temperature from the information we currently have. It is falsifiable with additional pertinent information or modified more accurate parameters or methodology.
Robert ( March 25, 2012 at 10:19 am ):
To pass this off as a mere semantic problem is to trivialize a linguistically borne subterfuge with consequences that may include the permanent loss of 100 trillion U.S. dollars in capital.
Robert says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:23 pm
“I do not believe in the account from that professor, it is not that involved.”
Prof Trebino has stated unequivocally that the problems described regarding his journal Comment are accurate: “This ridiculous scenario actually occurred as written; I didn’t make it up… Those events all happened exactly as I’ve described them.” You are calling Prof Trebino dishonest with no legitimate reason. You should read this about climate journal politics:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
Prof Trebino makes clear [#59] that his Comment corrected a paper on global warming. You should also read A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion to see how thoroughly corrupted the climate journal industry has become. Climate alarmism papers are greenlighted by climate journals, while reasonable criticism such as Trebino describes is given one roadblock after another.
Recently it was discussed here that MIT’s eminent climatologist Prof Richard Lindzen could not get a paper published in less than a year, while another paper by Michael Mann was fast tracked to publication in less than a month.
If you have climate related papers recently published, I would like to read about your experiences. But if you are simply presuming that “it is not that involved”, I suggest you read the book. It is even worse than Prof Trebino describes. Much worse. Read the book. It will open your eyes.
Smokey,
“How is a projection not a prediction? ”
The distinction is made to acknowledge that they cannot yet simulate or predict multidecadal climate modes or vulcanism, so their projections can be “wrong” and not falsified by just a few decades of data.
Martin,
Please see Climatologist Roy Spencer’s comment @March 25, 2012 at 9:11 am above.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:12 am
To be more specific, to test Dr. Scafetta’s conjecture, one would need observed events. Scafetta’s events cannot be observed because he has yet tell us what they are.
i think that he implicitly [deduced from his various papers] would consider the occurrence of a sunspot maximum or a conjunction of two planets as ‘events’. Those can be observed, but I do agree that without a mechanism [other than the vague ‘tidal’ waving] it is hard to tell what he means. In other papers he argues that finding the same cycle periods in some time series establishes causation and opens to road to new science for us all to follow. Again, it is hard to pin this down to testable ‘events’. His basic [newest] claim is that within ‘errors bars’ his ‘model’ sees no variation in climate the next several decades and if that happens IPCC is wrong [which they would be] and that therefore his hypothesis is correct. The latter does not follow. Just because someone else is wrong does not prove that he’s right.
Peter Kovachev says:
March 25, 2012 at 6:46 am
You have a valid point, Peter, and my wording was regrettably imprecise, though not with the same intent or intensity of MM’s rather egregious faux pas. Perhaps I should have said “those who align themselves with The Cause“. IMHO, Willis has taken up a lot of space on this thread with mostly useless verbiage and one useful observation, which I have pointed out. One need not be nasty to disagree. That only widens the gulf and results in people choosing sides, if only in order to keep valid trails of inquiry open. Willis has most probably heard of the aphorism “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”, but apparently wants no truck with it.
In a later comment you say:
Indeed. I have tried to articulate this point several times on earlier threads related to this matter, but you do it well here.
There is an approximately 60 year quasi-cyclic phenomenon evident in the global average temperature metric over the past 100+ years. The 30 year interval from 1910 to 1940 shows almost precisely the same run up in the metric as observed in the interval 1970 to 2000. The presence of this phenomenon accounts purely naturally for the greater part of, perhaps the entire, run up in the metric which the AGW advocates point to as indicating anthropogenic forcing of the climate. We are almost surely in for a cooling spell (decades long decline in the metric) which will last until the 2030’s, as we have just recently passed the peak of the quasi-cycle.
Getting wrapped up in conjectural arguments as to the cause of the phenomenon merely provides ammunition for the AGW advocates to dismiss the entire matter out of hand, whereas focusing on the existence of the phenomenon itself forces them into handwaving and advancing implausible arguments.
Terry Oldberg,
Thanks for that. The accepted dictionary definitions and the thesaurus similes from my handy desktop dictionary:
Dictionary
prediction noun. a thing predicted; a forecast : a prediction that the Greeks would destroy the Persian empire.
Thesarus
projection: noun. augury, conjecture, forecast, prediction, prophecy, prognosis, prognostication, projection.
But I will accept your distinctions if you begin to refer to the various parts of the scientific method in their correct context [not saying you don’t]: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law. Both CAGW and AGW are conjectures. I get as peeved as you do over prediction/projection when I see people referring to the “IPCC’s theory”. There is no such thing using proper scientific terminology. In IPCC land, it’s conjectures all the way down.
Smokey (March 25, 2012 at 11:45 am):
Terms in the English language such as “prediction” make ambiguous reference to the associated ideas. In the hands of tricksters, this ambiguity can be put to the task of leading people to conclusions that seem true but that are false or unproved. This is the mechanism by which the IPCC has lead a large fraction of the populace to the conclusion we’ll soon be fried if we don’t spend 100 trillion dollars on renewable energy projects.
Regarding the terminological issue, in this thread I’ve already signified my complete agreement with you on the issue of whether IPCC propositions such as CAGW are conjectures, hypotheses or scientific theories. As you rightly point out, they are mere conjectures.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 24, 2012 at 11:41 pm
In case Dr. Scafetta or others are running short of astronomical cycles for their parameters to be “closely related to” or “associated to”, I’ve prepared this handy list to prevent the feared cycle scarcity:
…
Of course, Dr. Scafetta also includes halves of those cycles, which gives us another whole range of possibilities.”
Can you please stop this posting of numbers; it has no relevance to post possibilities.
I have told you several times fruitless that it makes no scientific sense to deal with sinusoid cycles in years.
Because of i.) the non sinusoid function of the synodic Jupiter / Saturn movement and because of ii.) the double frequency of a tide function the function contains not only the main frequency, but more frequencies as the FFT analyses shows.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/fft_jusa_june1.gif
To make it clear again the n. time, what the differences is between my GHI simulation of the temperature proxies and the method of Scafatta, I try it:
The GHI takes the true heliocentric positions on the ecliptic in increments of years, month or days, and builds the absolute angle between two planets and then folded at 90°. This manner gives low values for 90° tide angles and high values for 0° and 180° values corresponding to cold resp.warm global temperatures.
Dr. Scafetta takes some few single (sine) frequencies out of FFT analyzed known available temperature reconstructions from the literature and fits these sine functions in phase by hand in a formula, and because he has a (correct) feeling that solar tide functions from planets are involved, he call this strange work ‘astronomical based’.
If there comes something out, what is near to the origin makes no wonder, because the summing of the FFT elements reconstruct bad the (old) temperature spectra.
I do argue since two years that the climate has a relation to heliocentric tide functions of the planets, and all people have ignored it. I have done maybe 500 comparison graphs, and the people have called me a tragic character of an old man.
Now, adding the real solar tide function of Jupiter and Saturn plus the real solar tide function of Jupiter and Neptune (three planets involved) you get a function which can be compared with p.e. the high frequency temperature reconstruction of A. Moberg.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/moberg_vs_st2.gif
Because these are only two functions is takes no wonder that there are not always matches, but adding 9 more real solar tide function, there is a better match:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif
Because it is no secret that the sea level is connected to the global temperature it can be shown with significance that the solar tide functions of the high frequency bodies corresponds with the global sea level.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_solar_tides_d1.gif
If in this thread the role of the planets are discussed, then these comparisons are relevant.
I have argued here that a ‘NO’ is not a valid argument in science, but a personal claim of skepticism. You can verify the astronomical calculations or not, but please avoid it to try to refute results with irrelevant conclusions.
V.
Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:18 am
Getting wrapped up in conjectural arguments as to the cause of the phenomenon merely provides ammunition for the AGW advocates to dismiss the entire matter out of hand, whereas focusing on the existence of the phenomenon itself forces them into handwaving and advancing implausible arguments.
Let the chips fall where they may, I leave the politicking to others on the whole. I want to find out what drives things like the 45 year, 90 year and 180 year cycles in the formation of the beach ridges in Northern Siberia and Canada, and the 1.3 year tidal action at the Sun’s tachocline.
You and others here just blithely walk past these cycles as if they don;t exist.
I am interested in the solar system dynamics which causes them.
If Mr Kovachev makes his judgement about me and my site and the people who post there based on a brief inspection of one thread, his attention span and rush to judgement matches that of the critics here who demonstrate that they didn’t bother to read and understand Nicola Scaffeta’s paper.
they don’t seem to mind wasting several days blethering their lack of comprehension all over this thread though.
Anthony Watts says:
March 22, 2012 at 11:12 am
I’m reopening comments now.
Argue the issue/science, not the persons. Otherwise I’ll close this thread permanently
Moderators, snip comments that cross this line.
Mr Kovachev seems to have crossed the line. He has nothing to say about the scientific facts presented in the post he looked at on my site, but plenty of ad homs to toss in my direction.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:52 am
[…..]
Greetings and thank you for your reply, Leif. Apart from the time when Tall Bloke had a spot of trouble with the local constabulary…a clear case of legalized persecution, if I ever saw one…and recently, with Mr Michele Casati’s and Dr Scaffeta’s article, I haven’t spent any time on Tall Bloke’s blog. This is because his topics are way over my head. Your opinion is that Tall Bloke has strayed into pseudoscience. Perhaps…apart from my dissatisfaction with his Music of the Spheres post, I’m not equipped to arrive at an opinion about his claims alone. I wish mainly that he do what Anthony has done, namely to list a number of topics he doesn’t want to see on his blog.
________________________________________
Terry Oldberg says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:28 am
CAGW isn’t a false proposition. It can’t be falsified because the IPCC has not identified the events that would be observed in an attempt at falsifying it. The IPCC’s fault does not lie in the falsity of the proposition but rather in the non-falsifiability of this proposition and misrepresentation when it says that its study of global warming was scientific.
Thank you, I stand corrected. Your second sentence, especially, clarifies it beautifully; a light went on somewhere in my head.
________________________________________
Bart says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:18 am
[…]
Thank you for your reply, Bart. First, onto the Abominable Willis. Yes, it would be nice if he were a little more diplomatic at times and that he didn’t always piss-off about two thirds of the congregants here, but I think…as I opined elsewhere…that diplomacy is vastly overrated, that we must be prepared to have our ideas taken apart, in part to prevent them from becoming cherished pets. Besides, I think Willis simply wouldn’t work as Willis if he tried diplomacy. When Willis arrives at the scene with his mace a-swinging, it’s a good time to step back from the arc, but he gets the point across. I find his explanations are clear to me, and regarding this post, I do get the impression that he has contributed a whole bunch of specific critiques, most of which have yet to be addressed.
Thank you for your compliments on my attempt to articulate the problems with “big tent” chumminess. In turn, you have crafted the following well-put observation which I’ll try to remember:
Getting wrapped up in conjectural arguments as to the cause of the phenomenon merely provides ammunition for the AGW advocates to dismiss the entire matter out of hand, whereas focusing on the existence of the phenomenon itself forces them into hand-waving and advancing implausible arguments.
In any event, all this is fun and games for now, until Tall Bloke appears to hand me my arse on a plate.
PS: Is anyone else having trouble with this page hanging and taking a long time to refresh
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler (March 24, 2012 at 8:49 pm):
Contrary to your understanding, it is not a heuristic but rather is an optimization. That it is an optimization explains the consistent outperformance over models built by heuristic methods.