Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I came across a curious graph and claim today in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Here’s the graph relating sunspots and the change in sea level:
And here is the claim about the graph:
Sea level change and solar activity
A stronger effect related to solar cycles is seen in Fig. 2, where the yearly averaged sunspot numbers are plotted together with the yearly change in coastal sea level (Holgate, 2007). The sea level rates are calculated from nine distributed tidal gauges with long records, which were compared with a larger set of data from 177 stations available in the last part of the century. In most of the century the sea level varied in phase with the solar activity, with the Sun leading the ocean, but in the beginning of the century they were in opposite phases, and during SC17 and 19 the sea level increased before the solar activity.
Let me see if I have this straight. At the start of the record, sunspots and sea level moved in opposite directions. Then for most of the time they were in phase. In both those cases, sunspots were leading sea level, suggesting the possibility that sunspots might affect sea level … except in opposite directions at different times. And in addition, in about 20% of the data, the sea level moved first, followed by the sunspots, suggesting the possibility that at times, the sea level might affect the number of sunspots …
Now, when I see a claim like that, after I get done laughing, I look around for some numerical measure of how similar the two series actually are. This is usually the “R2” (R squared) value, which varies from zero (no relationship) to 1 (they always move proportionately). Accompanying this R2 measure there is usually a “p-value”. The p-value measures how likely it is that we’re just seeing random variations. In other words, the p-value is the odds that the outcome has occurred by chance. A p-value of 0.05, for example, means that the odds are one in twenty that it’s a random occurrence.
So … what did the author of the paper put forwards as the R2 and p-value for this relationship?
Sad to relate, that part of the analysis seems to have slipped his mind. He doesn’t give us any guess as to how correlated the two series are, or whether we’re just looking at a random relationship.
So I thought, well, I’ll just get his data and measure the relationship myself. However, despite the journal’s policy requiring public archiving of the data necessary for replication, as is too common these days there was no public data, no code, and not even a Supplementary Online Information.
However, years of messing around with recalcitrant climate scientists has shown me that digitizing data is both fast and easy, so I simply digitized the graph of the data so I could analyze it. It’s quite accurate when done carefully.
And what did I find? Well, the R2 between sunspots and sea level is a mere 0.13, very little relationship. And even worse, the p-value of the relationship is 0.08 … sorry, no cigar. There is no statistically significant relationship between the two. In part this is because both datasets are so highly auto-correlated (~0.8 for both), and in part it’s because … well, it’s because as near as we can tell, sunspots [or whatever sunspots are a proxy for] don’t affect the sea level.
My conclusions from this, in no particular order, are:
• If this is the author’s “stronger effect related to solar cycles”, I’m not gonna worry about his weaker effect.
• This is not science in any sense of the word. There is no data. There is no code. There is no mathematical analysis of any kind, just bald assertions of a “stronger” relationship.
• Seems to me the idea that sunspots rule sea level would be pretty much scuttled by sunspot cycles 17 and 19 where the sea level moves first and sunspots follow … as well as by the phase reversal in the early data. At a minimum, you’d have to explain those large anomalies to make the case for a relationship. However, the author makes no effort to do so.
• The reviewers, as is far too often the case these days, were asleep at the switch. This study needs serious revision and buttressing to meet even the most minimal scientific standards.
• The editor bears responsibility as well, because the study is not replicable without the data as used, and the editor has not required the author to archive the data.
So … why am I bothering with a case of pseudo-science that is so easy to refute?
Because it is one of the papers in the Special Issue of the Copernicus journal, Pattern Recognition in Physics … and by no means the worst of the lot. There has been much disturbance in the farce lately regarding the journal being shut down, with many people saying that it was closed for political reasons. And perhaps that is the case.
However, if I ran Copernicus, I would have shut the journal down myself, but not for political reasons. I’d have closed it as soon as possible, for both scientific and business reasons.
I’d have shut it for scientific reasons because as we see in this example, peer-review was absent, the editorial actions were laughable, the authors reviewed each others papers, and the result was lots of handwaving and very little science.
And I’d have shut it for business reasons because Copernicus, as a publisher of scientific journals, cannot afford to become known as a place where reviewers don’t review and editors don’t edit. It would make them the laughing stock of the journal world, and being the butt of that kind of joke is something that no journal publisher can survive.
To me, it’s a huge tragedy, for two reasons. One is that I and other skeptical researchers get tarred with the same brush. The media commentary never says “a bunch of fringe pseudo-scientists” brought the journal down. No, it’s “climate skeptics” who get the blame, with no distinctions made despite the fact that we’ve falsified some of the claims of the Special Issue authors here on WUWT.
The other reason it’s a tragedy is that they were offered an unparalleled opportunity, the control of special issue of a reputable journal. I would give much to have the chance that they had. And they simply threw that away with nepotistic reviewing, inept editorship, wildly overblown claims, and a wholesale lack of science.
It’s a tragedy because you can be sure that if I, or many other skeptical researchers, got the chance to shape such a special issue, we wouldn’t give the publisher any reason to be unhappy with the quality of the peer-review, the strength of the editorship, or the scientific quality of the papers. The Copernicus folks might not like the conclusions, but they would be well researched, cited, and supported, with all data and code made public.
Ah, well … sic transit gloria monday, it’s already tuesday, and the struggle continues …
w.
PS—Based on … well, I’m not exactly sure what he’s basing it on, but the author says in the abstract:
The recent global warming may be interpreted as a rising branch of a millennium cycle, identified in ice cores and sediments and also recorded in history. This cycle peaks in the second half of this century, and then a 500 yr cooling trend will start.
Glad that’s settled. I was concerned about the next half millennium … you see what I mean about the absence of science in the Special Edition.
PPS—The usual request. I can defend my own words. I can’t defend your interpretation of my words. If you disagree with something I or anyone has written, please quote the exact words that you object to, and then tell us your objections. It prevents a host of misunderstandings, and it makes it clear just what you think is wrong, and why.
Willis,
I don’t believe that your categorical dismissal of a pattern is appropriate.
I see a pattern. It is there. My mathematics skills limit me in that language but my pattern recognition machinery is very convincing. I suppose I could work on it but it has been a while since I did such comparisons.
I suggest that the data sets are better related than scatter plots.
So I say why is my pattern recognition machinery telling me that there is a pattern? I see groupings within the set. so dealing with the whole set without accommodation localized features seems like a half-hearted attempt at being a critic.
I suggest “seemingly unrelated regression analysis” as a subject matter.
Keep an open mind.
JCasey
I see similar frequencies as well with locally varying phase and amplitude.
A periodic function and many of its harmonics will also fail the R and P tests.
I would normalize the data sets against a common aggregated periodic function. Then do a test. I bet that will yield a close correlation. I wish I had time to do it. Maybe I will later.
One last comment.
The underlying relationship will be revealed by looking at the outlier sets. That is where all the information resides. I as an act of discipline, assume that the two sets would otherwise be superimposed. (This is where I differ from Willis) Examining the regions of greatest error, to me, are the areas of interest.
Hey Willis,
getting anywhere with the reproduction of the 350 yr SSN record with the randomly chosen orbital periods I gave you yet? Yo said you could do it easily with all the extra ‘free parameters’. Y’know, wiggling trunks and all that? Don’t forget R.J. Salvador’s model also reproduces the Maunder minimum well, Svalgaards previously stated acid test.
Talk is cheap. A little less condescension and a little more action baby.
REPLY: Are you unable to read comments? He’s posted it right here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/22/riding-a-mathemagical-solarcycle/#comment-1545760
– Anthony
REPLY: So because you hate what Willis has to say, along with the maths to back it up (you’ve presented none), it was OK to violate my trust? Interesting. – Anthony
I violated your trust by alerting the PhD’s to the ad hom and bad math attack about to be launched on them by Willis, and you sacked me from the voluntary 30 hour a week moderation job I was doing for you. It was a merciful release from a situation supporting behaviour I could no longer stomach.
Willis’ maths left a lot to be desired on that occasion Anthony, and you refused the PhD’s the right of reply here where the attack on them was posted. So they asked me to post it at the talkshop where they could get a fair crack of the whip.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/
Can you or Willis find anything wrong with their maths? I doubt it.
REPLY:Well OK since you’ve brought it out into the open, here’s my say. As you know, your breach of trust caused a very insulting and nasty personal attack to be sent to me from the N-Z camp, and even though the article had not been published, they made ludicrous demands to go along with the insults. And so, you rationalized using privileged information, obtained by the trust I placed in you by giving you administrative access to my blog, using that to launch a rebuttal. I said then after they way they emotionally and unprofessionally exploded over something not yet published that you could have them and their reply. You were a lot more contrite then when I explained why I could no longer trust you, and you understood why and agreed with my decision to terminate your access. I find it telling that you would use my trust that way. It is a sad commentary on your ethics.
You were also quite thankful when I went to bat for you in your times of need.
It is unfortunate, the situations you have created for yourself through your own actions. which further isolate you. Best of luck in the future. – Anthony
Anthony says:
I said then after they way they emotionally and unprofessionally exploded over something not yet published that you could have them and their reply.
Willis had already infuriated them with the avalanche of ad hom attacks and misrepresentations of their work in his previous posts. They demonstrated to you that his maths was bunk and that posting this next attack was ill advised. But you posted it anyway and denied them a right of reply.
You were a lot more contrite then when I explained why I could no longer trust you, and you understood why and agreed with my decision to terminate your access. I find it telling that you would use my trust that way. It is a sad commentary on your ethics.
I knew we’d no longer be able to work together after you condoned WIllis’ behaviour, and that was a matter for regret. I was certainly sorry we’d arrived at the parting of the ways. I have no regrets over my ethical choice to put correct maths and decency in debate before loyalty to a blog which permitted the personal and scientific abuses Willis indulged in, and your condoning them.
You were also quite thankful when I went to bat for you in your times of need.
I was. But that innings was before the events we parted company over. I maintained decorum about those events so far as was possible since then. But the unwarranted attack you and Willis are now making on the integrity of the members of our research group is the last straw for me. We’ll keep going with our productive research though.
Best of luck in the future. – Anthony
I believe in making my own luck, but thanks for the sentiment, and the same to you.
Rog
There are two fundamental problems here.
1) Just how flexible the concept of ethics has become, and
2) Whether or not integrity has anything at all to do with the concept of ethics anymore.
The solution(s) might very well lie closer to the end of the next ice age. Perhaps more propitiously, the one after that. Assuming we actually manage to get to either one, or both………
“An examination of the fossil record indicates that the key junctures in hominin evolution reported nowadays at 2.6, 1.8 and 1 Ma coincide with 400 kyr eccentricity maxima, which suggests that periods with enhanced speciation and extinction events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on high moisture levels.”
state Trauth et al in “Trends, rhythms and events in Plio-Pleistocene African climate”, Quaternary Science Reviews 28 (2009) 399–411 http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/Trends-rhythms-and-events-in-Plio-Pleistocene-African-climate.pdf
We are at an eccentricity minima right now. It will most likely be 200kyrs (two more post-MPT100kyr glacial/interglacial cycles) before we are at the next eccentricity maxima, e.g our next potential hardware braincase-capacity upgrade.
Yet, to this very day, try as we might, chimps STILL do not post their data or their code……go figure
Enjoyed this Willis, Anthony, et al etc. Stay thirsty my friends, and remember, it’s only as bad as it hits your wallet, ye old universal gaia language.
Strange doth it seem, methinks, how much scrutiny be given the trees at the expense of the forest. Especially given the half-precessional-cycle+ age of the Holocene.
Apologies to all. The last sentence of my last post was actually a partial, still being edited, response to a comment on a sports blog (another tab that was up). I really do not know how it ended up at the end of the response intended here. I did not paste anything before clicking “Post Comment” here. Yet here is the last sentence from a longer comment on some other blog on something else altogether. How a sentence not actually complete from another tab got appended here I really do not understand.
Again, my apologies.
Obviously a reboot, at a minimum, is in order……followed by some serious system scanning for bots and malware.
[Fixed. -w.]
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 22, 2014 at 9:36 am
“Dear God, would all of you folks making this or a similar claim please do the freakin’ math! ….”
Willis, did you read the rest of my post? The next sentence is:
” Of course, the eye can be easily fooled.”
I simply observed that there does appear to be a striking correlation, but nowhere did I state that the correlation is real or proven. That’s why I suggested some kind of Monte Carlo analysis to give an indication as to how frequently a similar correlation could be produced by chance.
I made some reasonable criticism and suggested more analysis is needed. Isn’t this what science is supposed to be about?
Best regards,
Chris
ROFLMAO! What did you actually prevent? It took N&Z two weeks to write a rebuttal anyway. Was a critique by Willis (which he does all the time) worth abusing your moderating privileges? Most authors respond in the comments and a debate ensues. I have never seen such a hysterical reaction before …wait, maybe there is a trend here.
I had no idea anyone took the Nikolov & Zeller stuff so seriously. I initially looked to see if it was published (still not) and moved on, or was that being saved for the second “special” edition of PRP? Fits my PRP special edition correlation to the Talkshop theory ,
Nikolov (2,200)
Who seriously reads these comments by the author and does not step back for a minute,
It reads like WUWT is being punked.
Paul Westhaver:
To ensure that I am not addressing it out of context, I am copying all your post addressed to Willis which is at January 22, 2014 at 8:56 pm.
Taking your final point first, it is an old adage that
One needs to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
The assessed paper suggests
So, it is claimed there is an effect of “yearly change in coastal sea level” which is RELATED to “solar cycles“ as indicated by “sunspot numbers”.
Willis is assessing the claimed effect.
There are two possibilities which are
(a) The “sunspot numbers” and the “yearly change in coastal sea level” each varies with similar periodicity BUT their variations ARE NOT RELATED.
Or
(b) The “sunspot numbers” and the “yearly change in coastal sea level” each varies with similar periodicity BECAUSE their variations ARE RELATED.
Willis has provided cogent evidence of (a); i.e.
(a) The “sunspot numbers” and the “yearly change in coastal sea level” each varies with similar periodicity BUT their variations ARE NOT RELATED.
His evidence includes
Lack of coherence indicated by varying synchronicity over the assessed period.
Lack of correlation indicated by low R^2 and p values.
Lack of causal mechanism to induce a relationship.
Possible cherry picking of sea level data.
and Leif Svaalgard adds possible cherry picking of sunspot data.
Simply,
1.
the paper provides no evidence for existence of the relationship claimed by the paper,
2.
analysis of the data used in the paper indicates that the relationship claimed by the paper does not exist
3.
and the paper uses dubious data for each of the parameters which the paper claims are related.
However, you say you “see a pattern”. Yes, you do. The “pattern” is that the “sunspot numbers” and the “yearly change in coastal sea level” each varies with similar periodicity. But so what? Nobody disputes that those two parameters varies.
Willis has demonstrated that the variations of those two parameters are NOT related although the paper claims they are related.
I hope this has clarified the matter.
Richard
My comment got censored at the Talkshop,
“Good thing you alerted them in time, otherwise we would of had to wait longer than two weeks for the rebuttal – an eternity when dealing with Blog science. Thanks to your swift action, crisis averted!”
I don’t know why?
By Team PRP defending the indefensible they are creating a skeptic turkey shoot. They are full of bullet holes and bleeding out, while we have a band of zealots going around telling everyone they have not been shot. So instead of admitting they should not have stepped in front of a loaded gun, they keep telling us it is just a flesh wound!
lsvalgaard says:
January 22, 2014 at 8:43 pm
But it ain’t science, and should not be peddled as such.
Oh yeah, or is it just because you happen to find implications somewhat distressing to the ‘sun is impotent’ idea.
This specific curve fitting is based on two well known sets of data:
– Sunspot count from the world’s standard (SIDC)
– Geomagnetic data from the four world’s top scientists in the field (Jackson, Bloxham, Gire and LeMouel).
Both sets of data is used by NASA, NOAA and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris among others.
I am sure you actualy delighted by this finding that climate and solar magnetic cycle have strong and direct relationship, but as a true scientist choose to remain sceptical until my results are verified by the academic establishments.
Italian professor Giovanni Gregori announced: “I am presently smoothing an 8 volume set (8,000 pages, completed) on the electromagnetic coupling between solar wind and Earth. It has been a hard 10-year job.”
I assume you have already reserved your set of copies.
Richard Courtney,
You’ve made my point exactly. Thank-you,
Willis’ analysis ignores normalization of the OBVIOUS periodic behavior.
What I asserted, as did JCasey etc, is that both sea level rise and sunspot number share a periodic influence. Not that one drives the other. Rather that they are both influenced by something shared. Gosh knows what that is.
The data shows that and despite Willis’ narrow application of statistics on the broad set the pattern remains.
It is contingent on us to discover what the connection is.
I find it remarkable that something so obviously a pattern has to be so viciously dismissed with such lame application of stat analysis. Seems to me there is a politic at work here that is outside my experience.
So be it.
There is a pattern, I call it like I see it. The weakness then is not in my eyes but in Willis’ inability to extract the periodic behavior and THEN apply the regression analysis. Maybe he can’t. I can’t at the moment. But it is there.
I suggest a good frequency analysis be done. My eye says there is a fundamental, and maybe a low F modulation and a linear superposition. That is what I would filter out, if I had the time.
George in Pennsylvania,
Do you think you are up to a Fourier type analysis? Seems to me the data set to a bit small for that but I bet you’ll get something. As for the donuts and my mass, something tells me there is also a connection.
To Willis:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/sunspots-and-sea-level/#comment-1545217
There Willis says: “However, I just did a quick search of both the first WUWT post and the Shaviv paper that you reference … neither one of them contains the graph under discussion. But its not just that … neither one of them even mentions sunspots once.”
Willis further proved the case that he does not know how to read a scientific work, he simply jumps around and he is quite confused on basic scientific concepts.
This is the figure of Solheim that Willis reports in his post:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/sea-level-change-and-sunspots.jpg
Here sea level changes and sunspot number oscillations are compared.
Here is the figure of Shaviv reported in WUTW post that I linked above:
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/research/calorimeter/calorimeter2.gif
Here sea level changes and a solar irradiance reconstruction, which Willis does not know is made mostly with the sunspot number record and presents the same cycles, are compared.
Here is the figure of Archibald:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/sea-level-rate-of-change-and-solar-cycles-510.jpg?w=640
where sea level changes and solar cycles are compared.
Those who understand a minimum of these things realize that the three figures are exactly the same thing because the issue was to compare sea level changes and solar cycles. If the solar cycles are expressed in sunspot number or in total solar irradiance is the same, evidently. But Willis did not get it, and Anthony doesn’t it either!
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2014 at 5:22 am
This specific curve fitting is based on two well known sets of data
And that is where the pseudo-science comes in. You have not described in detail how the two sets of data are combined and by what process they should be combined.
lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:11 am
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2014 at 5:22 am
This specific curve fitting is based on two well known sets of data
And that is where the pseudo-science comes in. You have not described in detail how the two sets of data are combined and by what process they should be combined.
……………….
Aaahh, memory is sometimes like a hazy sunset…
See email Dec 10 2012
from vukcevic to leif@….
Alternatively, you can derive same waveform directly from your aurora data, since aurora contains both solar and Earth’s magnetic oscillations.
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:04 am
Aaahh, memory is sometimes like a hazy sunset…
See email Dec 10 2012 from vukcevic to leif@….
That is how I can state it is pseudo-science
Alternatively, you can derive same waveform directly from your aurora data, since aurora contains both solar and Earth’s magnetic oscillations.
No, they don’t. Only solar.
Dr.S.- No, they don’t.
Vuk – Oh yes they do, see my comment with the ‘OldLadysHelo’ link
vukcevic says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:20 am
Vuk – Oh yes they do, see my comment with the ‘OldLadysHelo’ link
already here you disqualify yourself from serious consideration.
You can take that from this world-famous expert on solar-terrestrial physics and aurorae.
Paul Westhaver:
Your post at January 23, 2014 at 6:16 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/sunspots-and-sea-level/#comment-1546284
either misunderstands or willfully misrepresents my post at January 23, 2014 at 2:49 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/sunspots-and-sea-level/#comment-1546134
There is NO RELATIONSHIP to investigate. I explained this.
You are being deceived by appearances. I explained this, too.
The two variables each have similar periodicity but there is NOT a causal link between them.
Please read what I wrote. I have provided a link for you to jump to it from this post.
Richard
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 23, 2014 at 6:39 am
Thanks for that, Nicola. I had said that the current author didn’t do the math to establish whether or not his model was a good representation of reality.
Your claim was that his graph about sunspots could be traced to a paper by Nir Shaviv which doesn’t say a word about sunspots. Your further claim was that the lack of a mathematical analysis in the Solheim paper was fine, because all of the needed analysis was in the original Shaviv paper, viz:
How does that work? You’ll have to connect the dots for me on that one, Nicola. Do you simply transfer the R^2 and the p-value from one graph to the other, despite the fact that neither of the two things that Shaviv is comparing are the things that Solheim is comparing?
Shaviv shows the correlation of TSI with the Douglas sea level record, while Solheim shows the correlation of sunspots with the Holgate sea level record. The Douglas sea level record is from 9 tide gauges, and starts in 1900 and ends in 2002. The Holgate record is from 24 tide gauges, and starts in 1909 and ends in 2000 … are you seriously saying that we use Shaviv’s figures regarding the correlation of TSI and the Douglas 9-gauge sea level data, pretend that they are actually the figures for the sunspot and Holgate 24-gauge sea level relationship, and call that science???
Yeah, I suppose you are.
However, if you think the answer is “Yes”, if you think we can use Shaviv’s results as a proxy for those of Solheim, you haven’t looked at the two sea level change datasets … here they are:
Yeah, that’s impressive … the R^2 on the data sets is only 0.2. And you think that the mathematical results from one can simply be substituted for the results of the other? Really?
Nicola, I have to say, that is easily the most convoluted, childish, devil-may-care attempt I’ve ever seen to explain away the fact that someone didn’t do a basic necessary mathematical analysis to back up his claims. He didn’t do the math, Nicola, the reviewers let it slide, the Editor didn’t care … and now we get this farrago of excuses from you, and a claim that because someone once did something kinda sorta similar, that we can use their numbers? This is your idea of science?
And you wonder why your special issue got shut down …
w.
Richard,
With respect, you may well have intended to flame my post or refute it but you, in fact, confirmed what I said.
I have no control over what you say. You said what you said.
You are in no position to say that ther is no relationship when there is clearly one recognizeable by an 8 year old child. ( I asked one who was nearby what they saw)
It seems that even the least inform among us see that there is a common behavior in the thwo plots and that they look alike.
It is contingent on science (scientists)to investigate the reason we think that is so. To dismiss an obvious relationship as a trick of the eye or brain is shoddy incurious science.
I see what I see. I see a relationship to something.
Your state agreement OR refutations are no substitute investigation and analysis.
I see a pattern.
Plain and simple.