Shock, awe. Untruncated and unspliced data used in a new paper from Briffa and Melvin at UEA restores the Medieval Warm Period while at the same time disappears Mann’s hockey stick. Here’s figure 5 that tells the story:
Look at graph 5c, and you’ll see 20th century warmth matches peaks either side of the year 1000, and that for the TRW chronology 20th century warmth is less than the spike around 1750. This puts 20th century (up to 2006 actually) warmth in the category of just another blip. There’s no obvious hockey stick, and the MWP returns, though approximately equal to 20th century warmth rather than being warmer.
Whoo boy, I suspect this paper will be called in the Mann -vs- Steyn trial (if it ever makes it that far; the judge may throw it out because the legal pleading makes a false claim by Mann). What is most curious here is that it was Briffa (in the Climategate emails) who was arguing that some claims about his post 1960 MXD series data as used in other papers might not be valid. It set the stage for “Mikes Nature trick” and “hide the decline“. Steve McIntyre wrote about it all the way back in 2005:
A Strange Truncation of the Briffa MXD Series
Post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series are deleted from the IPCC TAR multiproxy spaghetti graph. These values trend downward in the original citation (Briffa [2000], see Figure 5), where post-1960 values are shown. The effect of deleting the post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series is to make the reconstructions more “similar”. The truncation is not documented in IPCC TAR.
I have to wonder if this is some sort of attempt to “come clean” on the issue. Mann must be furious at the timing. There’s no hint of a hockey stick, and no need to splice on the instrumental surface temperature record or play “hide the decline” tricks with this data.
Bishop Hill writes:
Well, well, well.
In its previous incarnation, without a MWP, the series was used in:
- MBH98
- MBH99
- Rutherford et al 05
- Jones 98
- Crowley 00
- Briffa 00
- Esper 02
- Mann, Jones 03
- Moberg
- Osborn, Briffa 06
- D’Arrigo et al 06
It rather puts all that previous work in perspective, since this new paper has identified and corrected the biases. It should be noted though that tree ring paleoclimatology is an inexact science, and as we’ve seen, even a single tree can go a long way to distorting the output. On the plus side, it is good to see that this paper defines and corrects biases present in the MXD and TRW series of the Tornetraesk tree ring chronology dataset. This is a positive step forward. I suspect there will be a flurry of papers trying to counter this to save Mann’s Hockey Stick.
From the journal Holocene:
Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data
Thomas M Melvin University of East Anglia, UK
Håkan Grudd Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Keith R Briffa University of East Anglia, UK
Abstract
We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.
Here’s the money quote from the paper:
If the good fit between these tree-growth and temperature data is reflected at the longer timescales indicated by the smoothed chronologies (Figures 5c and S20d, available online), we can infer the existence of generally warm summers in the 10th and 11th centuries, similar to the level of those in the 20th century.
Conclusions
• The RCS method generates long-timescale variance from
the absolute values of measurements but it is important to
test that data from different sources are compatible in
order to avoid systematic bias in chronologies.
• It was found in the Torneträsk region of Sweden that there were systematic differences in the density measurements from different analytical procedures and laboratory conditions and that an RCS chronology created from a simple combination of these MXD data contained systematic bias.
• Both the known systematic variation of measurement values (both TRW and MXD) by ring age and the varying effect of common forcing on tree growth over time must
be taken into account when assessing the need to adjust subpopulations of tree-growth measurements for use with RCS.
• It was necessary to rescale the ‘update’ density measurements from Torneträsk to match the earlier measurements over their common period, after accounting for ring-age decay, in order to remove this systematic bias.
• The use of two RCS curves, separately processing fastand slow-growing trees, has reduced the effect of modern sample bias which appears to have produced some artificial inflation of chronology values in the late 20th century in previously published Torneträsk TRW chronologies.
• A ‘signal-free’ implementation of a multiple RCS approach to remove the tree age-related trends, while retaining trends associated with climate, has produced
new 1500-year long MXD and TRW chronologies which show similar evidence of long-timescale changes over
their full length.
• The new chronologies presented here provide mutually consistent evidence, contradicting a previously published conclusion (Grudd, 2008), that medieval summers (between 900 and 1100 ce) were much warmer than those
in the 20th century.
• The method described here to test for and remove systematic bias from RCS chronologies is recommended for further studies where it is necessary to identify and mitigate systematic bias in RCS chronologies composed of nonhomogeneous samples.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jan Perlw1tz;
Using the third person, Phil Jones is supposed to have said something in 2012 about what he said in 2009? Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Common knowledge was Phil Jones Climategate e-mail. What a number of climate scientists said in private was exposed by climategate to be very different from what they maintained in public. In this case, Phil Jones was quite clear that if there was no statisticaly significant warming for 15 years, the CAGW theory would be in trouble. Taken in the context of the accompanying emails, it was very clear that he did not qualify this statement in any way shape or form as “ENSO adjusted”. In fact, I find that excuse rather amusing given that there has been rather open admission on the part of climate modelers that they cannot model ENSO well!
Furthermore, you neglected to mention Santer’s comment which was made publicly, and also did not mention anything about “ENSO adjusted”.
Further to my furthermore, the reasoning in the rest of the quote you provided is also…. well… unreasonable:
“The 10 model simulations (a total of 700 years of simulation) possess 17 nonoverlapping decades with trends in ENSO-adjusted global mean temperature within the uncertainty range of the observed 1999–2008 trend (−0.05° to 0.05°C decade–1). Over most of the globe, local surface temperature trends for 1999–2008 are statistically consistent with those in the 17 simulated decades (Fig. 2.8c).”
Frankly, I’m not sure what that means. 10 models that simulated 70 years each? Or 10 models that each simulated 700? Would these be the models that have widely diverging values for aerosol forcing? Are they based radiative forcing attributes that the IPCC rates as “low” or “very low” in 9 of 14 categories? But no matter, the point is the last sentence which claims that the 1999 to 2008 period is consistent with those 17 simulated decades in the past. OK, in the past, we didn’t have significant CO2 forcing, supposedly now we do. Where’s the warming?
But frankly, I don’t care what simulations say, for the reasons above. A very wide range of forcings and an admitted poor understanding of many of the uncertainties in radiative forcing make them a poor standard to compare to.
Bottom line: Phil Jones did say in his email that if there was no significant warming for 15 years, the theory would be in trouble. Santer jumped in later and said 17 years, and, like Jones, didn’t qualify it withyy a statement about ENSO, he was clearly talking about the temperature record only. Then you said something about 20 years. Frankly I don’t remember exactly what, but that is the context I took it to be in.
You haven’t answered my question about low snowfall amounts and late springs. Don’t worry, I won’t bust your chops if the answer is “I don’t know”. I’ll explain it.
Nor have you answered my question about the ability of a non climate scientist to understand the paper which this thread is (used to be?) the subject of.
Nice try distracting everyone’s attention with the whole ENSO adjusted issue, but you said you wouldn’t answer me given that I didn’t document the source of the info I was quoting. You may agree or disagree with my interpretation of the info, but I provided it as asked and now I expect a response to my questions.
The whole idea of relating temperatures to CO2 levels (let alone tree rings) has been proven just as false in this era as it was in the MWP. Joseph Postma’s new paper (22 Oct 2012) shows conclusively that there is no GHE caused by backradiation. He has quoted myself on pp 47-49 and, overall, this is a landmark paper debunking man-made warming with compelling empirical evidence. See: http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
Doug Cotton
Nicola Scafetta says:
October 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm
if I am wrong, I will be happy to be proven wrong
You can start being happy right now.
P.S. We are still waiting for you to produce the other reviews.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
October 29, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. We’re really counting this from about 2004/5 and
not 1998. 1998 was warm due to the El Nino.
I must say he did not word himself very well then since by reading “a total of 15 years”, one does not get the impression that he in effect meant 21 years from 1998 since he was counting from 2004/2005. But now the question is why from 2004/2005? The brand new Hadcrut4 data set has no warming at all from November 2000 or 11 years, 10 months (goes to August.) (slope = -0.00018 per year) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.8/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.8/trend
To be fair to Phil Jones, he would not have known this at that time, but in light of this information, would you say that if we went another three years and two months with a slope of zero that CAGW is falsified?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 29, 2012 at 4:58 pm
“You claim you can predict with precision solar activity thousands of year in advance. Well, if every planetary prediction produces a unique, different curve from all the rest, then, of course, they are worthless and the theory is dead. So, get on with it, or admit you can’t.”
What kind of resoning is that? When people trying to understand a complex phenomenon they may propose alternative theories which may make different predictions that may be conflicting with each other. That does not mean that all theories must be wrong a priory. One of them may be found correct at the end. This initial uncertenty happens in every field of frontier science. This is how science progress.
For example in the 16th century people were discussing new astronomical theories to contrast the Aristotelian geocentric theory, and at least three major similar but conflicting theories existed. The copernican theory, the theory of Tycho Brahe and Kepler’s theory. The three theories produced different predictions. Only one hundred year later, with further observations and Newtow’s theory solved the problem in favor of Kepler’s theory.
If we were living in the 16-17th century, you would have argued that because the copernican theory, the theory of Tycho Brahe and Kepler’s theory were producing conflicting predictions, then the aristotelian theory had to be correct. (!)
So, be patient. And try to read well my papers before criticizing them
About your comment
“Your paper is not worthy of further reviews. You paper has already fallen flat. ”
Really? Apparently my papers are among the most downloaded papers of the journal, not bad for papers that have already fallen flat!
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics/most-downloaded-articles/
As I said, you only prefer slander and defamation to a real scientific debate.
joeldshore says:
October 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Of course, what is also true is that none of them is statistically-different from the post ~1975 trend of ~0.17 C per decade at a 95% confidence level. So, the claim that “global warming stopped 16 years ago” is a deliberate falsehood.
That is an interesting way of looking at things! But suppose the slope was in effect 0. Then you could say it is just as likely to be warming as cooling. Then no action or money should be spent since you do not know what is really happening.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 11 years and 9 months to 15 years and 9 months, but note *
1. UAH: (*New update not on woodfortrees yet)
2. GISS: since January 2001 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to September)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since November 2000 or 11 years, 10 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since March 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to August)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since February 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to September)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 9 months (goes to September)
RSS is 189/204 or 92.6% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since November 2000 or 11 years, 10 months (goes to August.)
P.S. My earlier graph estimating Hadcrut4 using GISS was off by only one month as the flat line started in December 2000 in the estimation.
See the graph below to show it all. (GISS has an obvious error as it shows October, but I did not count that.)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.16/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.0/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.8/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.08/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.8/trend
joelshore,
Werner Brozek is eating your lunch.
Nicola Scafetta says:
October 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm
What kind of reasoning is that?
That was Tallbloke’s strong claim. Geoff makes the same claim. At least to your credit you know that it was overblown and false.
Apparently my papers are among the most downloaded papers of the journal
Helps to advertise it on blogs, doesn’t it? Explains why you are here. Those papers are only cited by one or two other papers [apart from many citations by yourself], so are already on the road to oblivion.
You had at least two papers rejected by your peers that I know of. There must be at least 5 referee’s reports. Produce them here so people can see the problems real scientists have with your ‘papers’. That you continue to evade this step tells a lot about lack of quality. Did you rebut the reports? Other than by insulting the Editor, reviewers, and Journal Officials.
As to the slander and defamation, may I point out that you are the one using inappropriate words like ‘dishonest’, ‘slander’, ‘defamation’, ‘incompetent’, and other assorted gutter words. Such usage is not fitting for a gentleman, but perhaps you don’t claim to be one.
[snip – off topic]
Geoff Sharp says:
October 29, 2012 at 10:23 pm
[snip – off topic]
If so then you had better snip, tallbloke’s, Nicola’s, Bart’s, Vuk’s and Leif’s comments in relation to the Abreu paper and the associated FFT discussions. The Abreu et al paper that has Steinhilber, McCracken and Beer as co authors should not be ignored and is worthy of a separate posting.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 29, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Nicola Scafetta says:
October 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm
What kind of reasoning is that?
That was Tallbloke’s strong claim. Geoff makes the same claim
What claim did I make?
Geoff, here’s the claim we’re supposed to have made. It’s another Svalgaard straw man. He’s just wasting our time. As Nicola has pointed out, the solar-planetary theory is gaining traction rapidly despite Leif’s attempts to misdirect understanding and kill it with his illogical arguments and rhetoric. Coming from someone who is on the blogs 21/7 pushing his own ideas, it made me laugh to see Leif claim it was Scafetta’s promotion of his work on blogs being the reason for Scafetta having written 4 out of 25 of Elsevier’s most downloaded papers. With people of Steinhilber and Scafetta’s quality working on the SPT, I expect further progress before long.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 29, 2012 at 4:58 pm
tallbloke says:
October 29, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Well clearly we need to convene some ‘workshops’ to get everyone singing off the same hymn sheet. /sarc
That is what characterizes a mature science. But more importantly you need to get the various hymn sheet produced and compared. You claim you can predict with precision solar activity thousands of year in advance. Well, if every planetary prediction produces a unique, different curve from all the rest, then, of course, they are worthless and the theory is dead. So, get on with it, or admit you can’t.
I have never made such a claim of course. It’s just Leif desperately flailing at the proponents of a theory who’s time is come. Once our various predictions from various methods tighten up and show stronger agreement than they already are, climatologists will show a sudden rekindling of interest in the Sun as a climate driver, because they’ll be able to run predictive models again after the failure of nature to conform to the co2 curve.
Creating consensus in workshops isn’t something which “characterizes a mature science”. It’s something which characterises a corrupt science, led by the nose by the team who send each other emails behind the scenes, discussing how to keep new ideas out of the literature.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127786
Where did we hear that before?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/a-response-from-chris-de-freitas/
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 29, 2012 at 3:26 pm
…..official Group Sunspot Number is flawed and should not be used anymore…
GSN is available from NOAA prior 1995
Do you have link (or could you quote) the annual GSN after 1995?
joeldshore:
Your post at October 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm is falsehood worthy of Perw1tz himself. It begins
No! That is NOT what I am “trying to say”.
And your assertion that
is the precise opposite of the truth.
Perw1tz claimed global warming did not stop 16 years ago and presented data which – he claimed – supported his assertion.
My comment which you quoted states – without “trying to say” anything – that the data Perlw1tz provided refutes the assertion which he claimed it supports. As I said, there is no “discernible” trend in any of the data he provided in support of his claim that there is discernible global warming(i.e. a discernible trend of warming).
If – as is the case – the determined trend is within its inherent error range then it cannot be distinguished from zero trend. He chose to present the +/- inherent error range and he chose the confidence level which provides that inherent error range. He could have chosen any confidence limit he wanted provided he had stated it. And it is a falsehood to claim I am “trying to say” anything about that choice: I accepted what he chose to present as his (presumably) best evidence.
The data Perlw1tz provided shows exactly the opposite of what he asserted it shows. And that is what I said.
Subsequently, at October 29, 2012 at 8:35 pm, Werner Brozek,addressed your falsehood and rubbed your nose in it.
Richard
tallbloke says:
October 30, 2012 at 12:33 am
I have never made such a claim of course.
So, now you say that you cannot predict solar activity. Fair enough.
vukcevic says:
October 30, 2012 at 12:41 am
GSN is available from NOAA prior 1995
Do you have link (or could you quote) the annual GSN after 1995?
There isn’t any GSN after 1995, and GSN should not be used anymore as it is not calibrated correctly. What people do is to use the SIDC sunspot number after 1995 as the GSN.
Werner Brozek says:
That’s just silly. By that standard, last week in Rochester we should have stopped preparing for winter given that we had several days of warm temperatures that surely made the temperature trends over some reasonable time period of a week or more positive rather than negative, as would be expected if this seasonal cycle theory was real.
However, in reality, we have science and science allows us to go beyond just looking at noisy trendlines and actually understand what is going on. So, no, we aren’t in the Dark Ages where we have no understanding of the basic processes that govern the physical universe and are ignorant of basic statistical fluctuations to boot.
joeldshore:
This post also replies to your post at October 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm but addresses a different issue. My previous reply refuted your misrepresentation of what I had written and explained my actual words. This reply addresses the issue of statistical confidence raised in your post.
The discussion was about global warming since 1970 and the fact that it stopped 16 years ago. The egregious troll had claimed the cessation of global warming has not occurred. Your support of the troll’s falsehood raised the issue of confidence in determination of the existence of global warming and its cessation.
There are several ways to observe if the data sets of global temperature indicate warming since 1970 and if it has stopped.
Firstly, one could eyeball a graph of the global temperature time series. This suggests there was warming since 1970 and it stopped around 15 years ago.
Secondly, one could observe when each data set changed from a positive (i.e. warming) linear trend to a negative (i.e. cooling) linear trend. This is what Werner Brozek has done and reports in his post of October 29, 2012 at 8:35 pm. He finds the transition to cooling occurred between 10 and 16 years ago depending on which data set is used.
Of course, his used model is a linear fit. This is clearly not a good model because global temperature exhibits many cycles (e.g. AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc.). A true model would fit to a composition of those cycles but that is not possible because their frequencies, magnitudes and phases are not known. Alternatively, linear comparisons could be made by assessing over periods which are a factor of all the cycle frequencies but those are not known. Indeed, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods suggest one cycle has a cycle length of ~900 years and most – possibly all – global warming of the last 300 years is recovery from the Little Ice Age which is part of this cycle.
However, climastrologists (such as the troll) use linear fits to the data so it is reasonable to use linear fits when assessing their assertions.
Thirdly, one can address sections of the period since 1970 to determine the confidence with which global warming can be observed. And the climastrologist practice of using a linear fits is appropriate for conduct of an assessment of their claims.
There are two ways to conduct this assessment: i.e (a) equal periods and (b) moving periods.
(a)
According to all the data sets, the first three decades after 1970 each show global warming at 90% confidence. The decade from 2001 to 2010 does not show warming at 90% confidence. None of these decades show warming at 95% confidence.
In other words, global warming which can be observed with 90% confidence existed for each of the three decades prior 2000 but that global warming stopped for the decade after 2000.
(b)
Global warming observable at 90% confidence has stopped (see (a)), but it needs to be determined when it stopped. This can be determined by taking now as the start point and assessing annual increments of time towards the past. This will answer the question of when global warming observable at 90% confidence stopped. According to HadCRUT3 this was 16 years ago.
The above analysis uses 90% confidence because decadal trends are not discernible at higher confidence. Any confidence limit can be used. Climastrologists often use 95% confidence which is a low confidence: ‘hard’ scientists tend to use 99% confidence.
However, differences are observable in the global temperature data at 90% confidence over periods shorter than since 1970, but they are not observable at higher confidence. Hence, if one wants to examine evidence for changes since 1970 then the use of 90% confidence is required and there is no valid reason to insist on another confidence level. The results of any analysis need to be considered in the light of the confidence which can be applied.
In conclusion, it can be stated that global warming discernible with 90% confidence stopped 16 years ago.
Reasons why it stopped can be debated, but it stopped.
Richard
joeldshore:
I write to agree with a point you make in your post at October 30, 2012 at 5:32 am.
You say
I agree.
There is no reason to use “looking at noisy trendlines” as an excuse to pretend the blindingly obvious is other than it is.
We now know that climate cycles and the global warming of the last 300 years are consistent with recovery from the LIA with periods of no-warming and cooling provided by shorter cycles. I completely agree with you that “noisy trend lines” cannot change that.
Richard
[snip – calling other posters “nitwits” isn’t going to help convince them – rewrite and resubmit – Anthony]
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 30, 2012 at 4:49 am
So, now you say that you…
You should spend less time telling other people what they said and more time thinking about what they say.
Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Leif, I am sorry that you continue with your smearing and defamatory tactics.
In science, theories can be rejected with valid arguments. You have “opinions” against a planetary theory of solar and climate variation. However, your “opinions” are not conclusive, and you know it well. That is why you simply use smearing tactics, don’t you?
So, wait that the science progresses on this issue. If the theory is correct it will be Nature to confirm it, if the theory is not correct it will be found out.
However, at the moment many people are focusing on the importance of climatic and solar oscillations, and the results of many papers including mine is that these oscillations can be astronomically induced because they can be deduced by planetary orbital oscillations. So, the theory seems to work, once it is well understood. The future will tell more.
About whether diferent versions of my two papers have been previously rejected by a journal. It is irrelevant here. Journal articles can be rejected and then improved and accepted. This happens for most articles. About my specific papers you are talking about, the first reviews were positive.
For example on 2/24/2011 the editor wrote this email to me about one of my papers
Dear Dr. Scafetta,
We received a positive referee report recommending acceptance of the revised version of your manuscript. Congratulations!
Then, I believe that the editor was somehow biased by somebody else and started to behave strangely. And my papers were blocked. In fact, the editor became very unresponsive.
For example, the reviewer that contacted you argued that my paper do not have to be published because he could reproduce the 11-year solar cycle and its secular and millennial variation by superposing two harmonics with periods of 12 2/3 year and 14 year.
That is, he claimed that the 11-year sunspot cycle plus its secular and millennial variation, which I was modeling very precisely with my model, could be produced also by this kind of formula
f(t) = A * cos(2p*(t-T1)/12.66) + B * cos(2p*(t-T2)/14)
I wrote the editor that this referee clearly did not understand math because the above formula cannot produce anything similar to a 11-year solar cycle, nor its secular variation. However, the editor refused to acknowledge the clear evidence that the referee was wrong and claimed that my paper had to be rejected because the referee said so.
Tell me, Leif, do you agree that the above formula can capture the 11-year solar cycle and its secular and millennial oscillations?
tallbloke says:
October 30, 2012 at 7:52 am
You should spend less time telling other people what they said and more time thinking about what they say.
Thinking about what you said: you claim to be able to forecast and hindcast solar activity [whether it is for centuries or millenea doesn’t matter] much better than solar dynamo enthusiasts. Geoff also makes similar claims, and even Scafetta. Plus a whole host of other luminaries: Vuk, Fix, etc. You claimed you could forecast the 21st century with some precision. The problem is that those forecasts have not been collated and compared. The only thing we hear is the exorbitant claims: everyone claims they are on the right track, have traction, gaining support, etc. Nicola mentioned that even if ten different planetary predictions are all different, one of them might be correct [apart from the likely possibility that they are all wrong], in which case there is a 90% chance that a given one is wrong. A sign of good science is that people build on each other’s work and have a common set of accepted ‘facts’ [a paradigm]. This paradigm may not be quite right, but is better than a scattered and fragmented community. So, a comparison of predictions is really a good thing. We did that at the NOAA/NASA Prediction Panel meetings and it brought out what the problems and successes were.
Nicola Scafetta says:
October 30, 2012 at 8:32 am
Leif, I am sorry that you continue with your smearing and defamatory tactics.
You have to learn that saying that you are wrong and that your paper is junk is not ‘smearing and defamation’. Your ‘sorry’ seems insincere.
You have “opinions” against a planetary theory of solar and climate variation. However, your “opinions” are not conclusive, and you know it well. That is why you simply use smearing tactics, don’t you?
Again, saying that you are wrong is not smearing. You saying that I use smearing tactics is, however, smearing. Try to understand the difference. And I do not have ‘opinions’. I have outlined my arguments in referee’s reports and postings here. They are not ‘opinions’, but reasons.
So, wait that the science progresses on this issue.
‘Science’ has faltered on this issue for 150 years and is still bumbling along.
However, at the moment many people are focusing on the importance of climatic and solar oscillations, and the results of many papers including mine is that these oscillations can be astronomically induced because they can be deduced by planetary orbital oscillations.
The planetary theory has the allure of simplicity, in contrast to the complicated real science.
For example, the reviewer that contacted you argued that my paper do not have to be published because he could reproduce the 11-year solar cycle and its secular and millennial variation by superposing two harmonics with periods of 12 2/3 year and 14 year.
Such statements out of context are not useful. We need to see all of the reports in full. Put them in a file that we can link to, or email it to me, then I’ll upload the file.
That is, he claimed that the 11-year sunspot cycle plus its secular and millennial variation, which I was modeling very precisely with my model, could be produced also by this kind of formula
f(t) = A * cos(2p*(t-T1)/p1) + B * cos(2p*(t-T2)/p2)
Some variation on that formula does a good job, e.g. the one I used in my toy-example:
‘Sunspot Number’ =SQRT(ABS(k*cos(π/p1*t) + cos(π/p2*t)))
There are several counts against you:
1) the formulae are arbitrary and numerological
2) the mechanisms are un-physical, e.g. your fusion argument ignores the fact that it takes 250,000 for the fusion energy to exit the core washing out any shorter periodicities
3) you misuse data, e.g. the auroral data we discussed at length already
4) failure to account for e.g. the Maunder Minimum.
Leif Svalgaard says: October 30, 2012 at 8:47 am
” The problem is that those forecasts have not been collated and compared.”
As usually, you are interested only in smearing and defamation. You are not interested in understanding the issue, don’t you?
About my model, in the paper the model has been carefully tested in its hindcasting capabilities for centuries and millennia. And it performs very well in reconstructing all known major solar and climatic patterns. Much better than any other solar model.
About the future, it predicts that the sun is entering in a grand minimum modulated by a quasi 60 year oscillation, with a minimum in the 2030s.
That the sun is entering into a grand minimum, is something said by a lot of people, not just me. So, about my model I can say that the “forecasts have been collated and compared” And they are consistent with my model.
read well my paper
Scafetta N., 2012. 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. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000648
Now you need to wait and see what happens.
Nicola Scafetta says:
October 30, 2012 at 9:21 am
As usually, you are interested only in smearing and defamation.
You need to learn that saying you are dead wrong is not defamation, while saying that I smear you is defamation. Do you understand the difference?
And it performs very well in reconstructing all known major solar and climatic patterns.
Such a claim always triggers the BS-filter.
That the sun is entering into a grand minimum, is something said by a lot of people, not just me.
I too say that, does that make me right in everything I say?. It seems to be a popular bandwaggon on which to jump.
So, about my model I can say that the “forecasts have been collated and compared”
So, you have compared your detailed cycle by cycle forecast with Geoff’s, Tallbloke’s, Ed Fix’s, Chartova’s, Vuk’s, etc ? And yours is vastly superior to theirs, right?
Now you need to wait and see what happens
I forecast the sunspot number in the year 2123 to be 123, now you wait and see what happens 🙂