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.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 8:25 pm
But then you need to think about how to interpret the analysis, which is what the authors of that paper (as well as Leif) did not do properly.
The several reviewers of your rejected papers explain quite plainly what is wrong with both your analysis and your ‘interpretation’, so man up and post the reviews here so people can see what the problems are.
REPLY: I’ll be happy to post the reviews if Nicola provides them – Anthony
susan smith says: March 22, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Thank you for your analysis.
I hope that Anthony reads and realizes that there are two guys arguing improperly thinking that they know everything: “but when they put so much certainty and weight in their opinion, then it becomes a puzzling issue. ”
You are also right about other things.
So, those who are interested in my paper, please read it.
That is the best way to know what I found.
As Geoff says, This is a new path that may produce a new area of science.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 22, 2012 at 8:38 pm
why do you want to hurt yourself so badly?
If you think my paper is wrong, just submit a comment to the journal. And we will discuss there.
In any case, Leif, the first referee did not find any error in my analysis by his own admission, the second referee’s argument at the end was rejected by the editor. You do not know it, don’t you?
So, it was you and only you.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 22, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Say what? The guy said that cycle 24 would peak in 2010-2011. That is not only a prediction, it is a badly failed prediction.
w.
Willis Eschenbach:
You’ve got the wrong idea about the nature of a prediction. It is an extrapolation to the unobserved but observable outcome of a statistical event. In the case of Dr. Scafetta’s paper, there clearly are no such events for the set of these events, the “statistical population,” is undefined.
A function that maps the time to a variable such as the global average surface temperature is not a “prediction” but rather is a “projection.” While predictions are falsifiable, projections are not, as I’ve tried to call to your attention on a number of past occasions without reply by you. In wattsupwiththat I’ve already provided details on the distinction between a prediction and a projection and why predictions but not projections are falsifiable in the comments sections of numerous articles and will do so again if asked by wattsupwiththat management. Also, a year ago I published a series of three articles on the same theme at Climate, Etc. I’ll supply the URLs if you wish.
Over a period of 13 years, my job was to design and manage a succession of scientific studies for the Electric Power Research Institute. While in this position, I learned that a scientific study centered on the underlying statistical population for a sample drawn from this population provided the sole basis for falsification of the associated models. Thus, for a scientific study to neglect identification of the underlying population was a sure way for this study to fail. As a scientific study it failed because it was not scientific in lieu of means for falsifying the models..
Like Dr. Scafetta’s study, the IPCC’s study of global warming has no underlying statistical population. Thus, this study lacks a scientific methodology. Nonetheless, the IPCC represents this methodology as scientific. Voters, politicians, journalists, taxpayers, bloggers, laymen etc. need to understand this state of affairs for disaster awaits us if they don’t. I can’t enlighten these folks all by myself. How about some help?
A couple of thoughts:
Terry, string theory and M-theory are mathematical descriptions of the universe developed over the last 25 years by theoreticians seeking to reconcile the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics. M-theory describes an infinite number of different universes and one or other of the M-theory universes can adapt to just about anything. Researchers have no way of testing which of the answers that string/M-theory produce is correct. Indeed, it’s possible they all may be correct and we just happen to live in that one particular universe among an infinite number of universes. So far, no one has been able to make a prediction, using string theory, that can be tested to see if it is correct or not. That is, it fails the falsifiabilty criterion big-time.
String and M-theory are physics and the last time I checked, physics was definitely not merely a science, but the scienciest science that could ever possibly be.
Nicola, nearly 2,000 years ago, Aristotle pointed out that the mammalian marine animals such as dolphins and whales were distinctly different to those other denizens of the sea, the cold-blooded fishes. This was considered to be complete and utter balderdash by ever so many scientists during the ensuing centuries despite ever so much evidence to the contrary. It was Jean Baptiste Lamarck who rediscovered that difference in the late 18thC. He also at that time coined the word “biology” to include both botany and zoology. Current scientific opinion is that Lamarck was an utter numpty whose lifework was completely negated by Charles Darwin. So it goes…
This is not a counsel of despair, nor intended to compare your work to either of these giants of science. Your ideas, if they have sufficient merit, will live on. And if they do, your ghost should not be too surprised to find that what was the Scafetta Theory is widely known as the Eschenbach, or Svalgaard Theory and only obscurantist historians will note the truth.
Now it’s time for the Git to return to his everyday wife and prepare the repast for the Gitling’s 26th burpday celebration.
The Pompous Git:
To the extent that physics embraces non-falsifiable theories, physics is no longer a science, by the definition of “science.”
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 8:25 pm
You are citing that paper as a support for your claims, when it is clear from their failed prediction that their claims simply don’t work.
I wouldn’t refer to their prediction either if I were you, but then, you did refer to it, and recommended it. I’m unclear why you recommended a failed prediction, but it certainly doesn’t buttress your position.
w.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 22, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Thanks, Terry. I understand very well that many claims made in the climate literature are not falsifiable … which means that they are not science. A claim which is incapable of being falsified is not a scientific claim.
So if Dr. Scafetta’s claims are not falsifiable, they also are not valid scientific claims, and you sure don’t have to convince me of that …
w.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 9:06 pm
If you want us to believe that, simply put your money where your mouth is and publish the reviews. Because your word simply won’t do. I have no opinion on the matter, never having read the reviews. But if you are right, then publish them and show us, not just claim but show us, that you are right.
Leif is not hurting himself at all. After all, he’s not the one refusing to publish …
w.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 22, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Terry, apparently you mis-read what I said. What I was referring to as a prediction was the claim, not in Dr. Scafetta’s paper but in the paper referenced by Dr. Scafetta, that the sunspot cycle 24 would peak in 2010-2011.
Merriam-Webster says:
So when someone says that a specific thing will happen in the future, like say that solar cycle 24 will peak in 2010-2011, Merriam-Webster says that is most definitely a prediction.
You also say that “predictions but not projections are falsifiable”. Since the solar cycle did not peak in 2010-2011, the claim is falsified, and thus according to you must be a prediction.
w.
Willis Eschenbach (March 22, 2012 at 10:44 pm):
I stand corrected. By the way, Merriam-Webster’s definition of “prediction” can be misleading for it fails to provide a context for the use of the term. Under the scientific method of inquiry, a “prediction” exists in the context of the complete set of predictions that are made by an inquiry’s model. The relation from this set to the inquiry’s statistical population is one-to-one.
To Terry: You seem to be hung up on this 3 P prediction/projection/prognosis
confusion…..
According to Adam Smith: Terminology must be clearly understood …otherwise
we get into Scholastics, where everyone puts HIS sense into the term….
The only way to avoid confusion is to AVOID both terms and stay with good old
“Forecast.”…. This word was invented for its clearness……
If I say: Folks, listen, in this decade global temps are not going to increase and
I bet 10,000 $ on it , and the first person who comes by in 2020 showing
temps have increased and have not plateau-ed will receive this sum….
then I am not going to dicker with “THis only is a one of the 3 PPP quoted
above without any significance…. whereas on the AGW side:
The IPCC has lawyers and word inventors at hand working to eliminate all
RESPONSIBILITY when their future scenarios do not come true….
The MetOffice in England gives detailed temp numbers up to 2020….
NOBODY there will be dismissed there, when the numbers will prove wrong…..
They will claim ADDITIONAL funds to make more “3PPP”s instead….
JS
Wow! This is so cool! Two egotistical tin foil hat brainiacs having a juvenile pissing match in public! Sweet! Let me get some popcorn and a light beer and enjoy the social stupidity of the intelligent.. Leif old buddy…you impress me as an inflexible stubborn condescending hard ass know it all with a God Complex. Do your students worship you…or are they always cutting class? Both of you…cease fire…grow up…and go to opposite corners for a time out. Your bizarre exchange is very creepy. Maybe we could discuss abnormal psychology instead of astrophysics. Cabin fever maybe? Get out of the chalet and get some fresh air and sunshine before you go postal. Is this hissy fit you’re subjecting us all to the sausage making of real science in action? Does Nick owe you money?
Can we assume that Dr. Svalgaard’s review comments were similar to what was included in the post proper? If so, they were hardly relevant at all. There is no reason to assume that a solar dynamo could be synchronized with an orbital period so short, no matter how massive the planet. Venus’ tidal effects on the Sun are as large as Jupiter’s yet noone is arguing that the solar dynamo is coupled with Venus. Perhaps solar variation is totally chaotic and all perceived order in it is spurious, but declaring the debate closed is no way to establish that. If there are longer term solar cycles, I doubt the solar dynamo can be sustaining them internally and immune to general relativistic gravitational effects relevant to extended bodies.
I am a little disappointed by both Willis and Lief in this post, you have both done yourselves a disfavour. When new science is presented only those with a bias attack like bulldogs, being sceptical is fine but an open and inquiring mind is finer.
Nicola has presented some vary serious research with some very strong correllations to real world events and he is not the first. Some thing very basic and beyond our world controls our climatic conditions and their cyclic nature, this man is trying hard to find the reasons and you can him.
I would have thought that both of you understood that our climate is controlled by outside forces, and the study of these is most important as CO2 certainly does not control our climate.
After a hundred years of consensus science in quantum mechanics they still can not tell me what gravity, electricity or magnetism is, not to mention the higgs boson.
Science in the grand scheme of things has failed us for one hundred years practical scientists using engineering have give us wonderful things and they work we just are not sure why they work.
The imaginary friends that scientists invent to try and prove their grand scheme of every thing is starting to wear a bit thin after a hundred years [ imaginary particles and oops the universe does not work any more, invent dark matter and energy, ok now it works oops]
Nicola you are on the right track, the harmonics of the solar system are the key to its understanding, the harmonic equations of nuclear physics on the speed of light and the gravity harmonic will enlighten your path. These were worked out long before I was born and I am old.
wayne Job says:
March 23, 2012 at 12:45 am
Wayne, if you want to go all California on Scafetta, and tell him what a great man he is so he doesn’t get discouraged, offer him praise so as not to damage his self-esteem, that’s fine … but don’t pretend it is science.
Science proceeds by exposing new claims to the pitiless light of public enquiry and to the most strenuous attempts at falsification. If you want an encounter group, go to Esalen. This is science, and it is a blood sport.
When I put out my new ideas, people gather like sharks to try to find any possible holes in my science … funny, but I don’t recall you saying that they were out of line.
And neither did I say they were out of line, because they weren’t—that’s what I expect. That is science. It’s not about holding hands and singing kumbaya. It’s about one scientist trying his damnedest to poke holes in another scientist’s theory. I hope and expect that people will do that to my ideas and claims, and you can be quite sure I’ll do it to their ideas and claims.
w.
wayne Job says:
March 23, 2012 at 12:45 am
I understand no such thing. As far as I am concerned, climate is controlled by the Constructal Law, which lays out the parameters underlying the many thermostatic and homeostatic phenomena operating at a range of temporal and spatial scales.
w.
I see the usual “Does So!,” “Does not!” has broken out about all things circular…
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
Posits and presents evidence for a tidal influence on the climate of Earth, caused by the moon, with periods noticed that match changes of the lunar orbit perigee and planar tilt. One period noted is almost identical to the 179? ish year solar cycle.
This illustrates both a value and a risk from ‘wiggle matching’. I can give something usable, but for all the wrong reasons or no reason at all. At the same time, it can easily lead to what IS causal.
So all the running off to look at solar internal dynamics may simply be missing the point that the sun, moon, and earth have been wobbling together for a long time and have their tune in harmony… and what wiggle matches to a Solar / Jupiter / Saturn orbital fit might be a Lunar / Earth tidal effect (that just happens to be synchronized).
Oh, and the Taurid Meteors are also in a Resonant Orbit and might well have a periodic impact (literally!) that shows up in the ‘few thousand year’ periodic cold “issues”. We’re presently near the outer edge of the meteoric cluster mass and our orbit slowly comes back to the middle of the track while the “main lump” of the Taurids vs the Earth also have to sync up arrival times. The product of those two looks like it is in sync with Bond Events (speculative…) so it may just be added meteor dust from a Resonant Orbit beat frequency.
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.
Why is the study of gravitational and barycentric effects treated like voodoo or witchcraft?
There is nothing more controversial here than the proposal that two masses might exert a gravitational pull on eachother (there – I’ve said it!!).
It is well accepted that some of the the Milankovich orbital parameter oscillations are due to interaction with other planets particularly the Jovian ones. So why all the jowl-flapping about a possible climate influence?
Here are some papers detailing further this thrillingly controversial idea of gravity:
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-9559.pdf
http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/Sidorenkov.pdf
http://www.netpilot.ca/geocryology/annals/volume4/volume4.pdf
Above “Seems like the NSIDC sea ice graphs are broken” They ALWAYS break down when ice goes normal or above . They don’t like it just you see how in the coming weeks they will try to adjust the whole thing down again
phlogiston says:
March 23, 2012 at 4:08 am
Why is the study of gravitational and barycentric effects treated like voodoo or witchcraft?
There is nothing more controversial here than the proposal that two masses might exert a gravitational pull on eachother (there – I’ve said it!!).
==========
Because gravity isn’t included in warmist physics – they have empty space instead, based on the very basic descriptions of ideal gas in a container without temperature or pressure variation..
..so all their arguments are without volume, weight and attraction.
And as they have no sound in their atmosphere so they can’t hear any arguments to the contrary.
[NB which is why they have radiation in a vacuum and no convection, why their gases are not buoyant in air, why they are ‘well-mixed’; an atmosphere of empty space with molecules like hard dots bouncing off each other at hight speeds, etc. as they spontaneously diffuse through nothing unrestrained by gravity – hard to credit that they have no concept at all of our fluid voluminous gas ocean above us, weighing down a ton on our shoulders..
..but not only do they appear to be utterly oblivious to it, they argue it doesn’t exist. And shout at everyone who tries to point out the real world around us.
http://mcat-review.org/phases-equilibria.php
“Ideal gas
•definition
◦An ideal gas consists of pointy dots moving about randomly and colliding with one another and with the container wall. The ideal gas obeys the kinetic molecular theory of gases and has the following properties.
■Random molecular motion.
■No intermolecular forces.
■No (negligible) molecular volume.
■Perfectly elastic collisions (conservation of total kinetic energy).
◦You can treat gases as ideal gases at:
■Low pressures
■High temperatures
◦Deviation from the ideal occurs at high pressure and low temperature. At these conditions, the gas molecules are “squished” together. When the gas molecules are so close together, they experience intermolecular interactions. Also, the molecular volume becomes significant when the total volume is squished down so much. The intermolecular attractions will cause collisions to be sticky and inelastic. At the extremely high pressures and low temperatures, gases cease to be gases at all – they condense into liquids.
◦Ideal gases behave according to the ideal gas law. ”
Real gases don’t..
Instead of gravity they have pressure created by hard dots of things they call oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide bouncing off the inner surface of their greenhouse through which no direct heat from the Sun can enter… That’s why they have no water cycle in their comic cartoon energy budget – their clouds appear by magic in an atmosphere of empty space where gas molecules can’t separate out as they’re all madly dashing about at great speeds bouncing off each other..
..because they have no way to form.
Empty vessels make much noise.
I am an unschooled dirt dwelling troglodyte with a deep interest in all things natural and scientific. I would like to add my two cents on the weighty cosmic matters being discussed here. I thought that years ago astronomers discovered possible planets around distant stars by the wobble of the star as it travelled through space. I can’t express myself mathematically like all you brilliant guys on this website…which I love to pieces (and I know Einstein’s God is a numbers guy). I remember them saying that this wobbling was evidence that something…perhaps a solar system like ours…was tugging it willy nilly all over creation like a drunken dog sled team. Maybe the gravitational tug of orbiting bodies might mess with the physical processes of the parent star. Somebody pointed out here that a tiny sun grazing comet seemed to trigger a solar prominence. The sun has been extremely moody as of late and the earth has had some wild weather extremes. My TV picture has been pixilating like crazy and my PC is possessed by imps and demons. Suffice it to say…something’s up. Doesn’t chaos theory say that a butterfly in Hong Kong can cause a hurricane in Dallas? Please don’t yell at me Leif.
Nicola Scafetta: I hope that Anthony reads and realizes that there are two guys arguing improperly thinking that they know everything:
On that I disagree with you, fwiw. There have been rather specific criticisms directed at the present paper, and you have an opportunity to rebut those criticisms. Some readers find some criticisms more important than others (other readers, other criticisms), but all of the criticisms deserve specific rebuttals, as far as I can see. In particular, the modeling has to produce actual model temperature values that can be compared to past temperature records (hindcasting) and future temperature values (forecasting, predicting, projecting) in order to test the accuracy of the model. I can not find (maybe I missed it and you can direct me to it) where your “generic units” have ever been converted/transformed to an actual model for temperatures.
Willis Eschenbach: I’m sorry, Nicola, but that’s totally unresponsive. You have cited a badly failed prediction as support for your claims.
Willis is correct. Dr Scafetta cited a paper, Willis checked the paper and found that, on the particular detail for which Dr Scafetta cited the paper, evidence after the paper was published showed the claim cited by Dr Scafetta to have been falsified. Something else in the paper may have been correct (as averred by Dr Scafetta in response to an earlier post by Willis Eschenbach), but the specific point for which Dr Scafetta cited the paper was not supported.
Terry Oldberg: You’ve erred. That’s not a “prediction” but rather is a “projection.”The two words reference distinct ideas.
Someone may attempt to refer to two distinct ideas, but practically (or “operationally”) there is no difference. Either the future observations are close enough to the modeled values that the theory can be taken seriously, or they are too discrepant. Whether the modeled values for the future values are called “projections”, “predictions”, or “forecasts”, if they are inaccurate enough then the theory behind the model fails the test.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler (March 23, 2012 at 11:16 am):
To conflate the idea that is referenced by “projection” with the idea that is referenced by “prediction” is to make the idea that is referenced by “projection” identical to the idea that is referenced by “prediction” and also not identical to it. A consequence is for Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction to be violated. Aristotle’s law is a true proposition. The negation of Aristotle’s law is a false proposition.
Through the use of the negated law as a false premise to an argument, one can lead people to a conclusion which they believe to be true when this conclusion is false or unproved. Thus, unless one’s purpose is to mislead, it is always best to maintain the distinction between the idea that is referenced by “projection” and the idea that is referenced by “prediction.” A consequence from maintenance of this distinction is for it to be revealed that predictions are falsifiable while projections are not. As you may know, falsifiability is the distinguishing feature of a theory that is “scientific” in nature. By conflating the two ideas one leads people to the conclusion that a theory is scientific when it is not.
Wayne Job: When new science is presented only those with a bias attack like bulldogs, being sceptical is fine but an open and inquiring mind is finer.
That is not normative in science. The scientist should expect criticism from all points of view, and be prepared to defend claims against the criticisms. It does not matter whether the bulldog-like attacks come from friends or enemies, people with or without bias — what matters is that the attacks be based on science and evidence, and they they be responded to with reference to science and evidence. Science is unique in emphasizing that a theory must be subjected to skeptical attack before it is given credence. Critical review, aka “attack” is a job for all who have open and inquiring minds.
My judgment after my review of the postings here is that (most of) the criticisms are on point and based on science (there are a few I can not evaluate, hence my qualification “most of”.)
Let me make one more comment. Nicola Scafetta, Please just ignore these criticisms appearing in a blog, and deal with any criticisms you get through journals. If someone is so convinced that your methodology and conclusions are wrong, they can try to publish their own papers to that effect. Today I finally checked on the background of two of your main critics, none of them have even a Masters degree from what I could find, or a formal training in an area related to climate science, meteorology, etc. But that did not seem to prevent some to endow Dr. designation to one, I guess because of the tone of certainty. I am somewhat amazed that work experience in coding and IT or construction management can give so much of self-assurance in climate science. These comments are all rather amusing to read, but I find it difficult to assign credibility to your critics from what I could find about their background. These criticisms clearly go beyond legitimate academic criticisms.
susan smith says: March 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm
“These criticisms clearly go beyond legitimate academic criticisms.”
Thank you, but it is not me that you need to convince. It is Anthony.
I just discovered some startling evidence which supports Scafetta’s tidal theory
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/the-sun-dances-the-soho-two-step/