Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
We have the ill-fated stillborn Copernicus Special Edition as an example of how those authors went about analyzing the possible effects of astronomical cycles. Let me put up a contrasting example, which is The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change. Heck, it’s even got “cycle” in the title. Please be clear that I am not advocating for this study. or saying that this explains how the climate works. Instead, I am offering it as an example of a reasonable paper showing a real scientific investigation of the effect of sun-moon-earth cycles and conjunctions on the climate. From the abstract:
We propose that such abrupt millennial changes [rapid global cooling], seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon.
A well defined 1,800-year tidal cycle is associated with gradually shifting lunar declination from one episode of maximum tidal forcing on the centennial time-scale to the next. An amplitude modulation of this cycle occurs with an average period of about 5,000 years, associated with gradually shifting separation-intervals between perihelion and syzygy at maxima of the 1,800-year cycle.
We propose that strong tidal forcing causes cooling at the sea surface by increasing vertical mixing in the oceans. On the millennial time-scale, this tidal hypothesis is supported by findings, from sedimentary records of ice-rafting debris, that ocean waters cooled close to the times predicted for strong tidal forcing.
And here is their Figure 1, showing the peak tidal strengths for the last several hundred years:
So why do I like this analysis of cycles, and yet I was so scathing about the analyses of cycles in the Copernicus Special Edition? The answer is simple: science, science, science.
First off, they make a clear statement of their claim—they propose that periodic changes in the strength of the oceanic tides affect the global temperature.
Next, they propose a mechanism—the strong tides stir up the deeper, colder ocean waters and bring them to the surface, cooling the globe.
Next, they connect the astronomical cycles to the earth through recognized and well understood calculations. There is no fitting of parameters, no messing with fractions. There is no mention of golden ratios, Titius Bode “law” calculations, the music of the spheres, or the planetary Hum. Just mathematical calculations of the strength of the tidal-raising forces, such as those shown in Figure 1. They’ve cited their data source in the caption. Note that what they show is the accurately calculated strength of a real measurable physical force, and not some theoretical superposition of some mystical confluence of the orbital periods of random planets.
And finally, they offer observational evidence to support their claim.
Hypothesis, proposed mechanism, mathematical calculations without tunable parameters, identified data, clear methods, observational evidence … plain old science, what’s not to like.
Now, is their claim right? Do strong tides stir up the oceans and bring cooler water to the surface? I have no clue, although it certainly sounds plausible, and the forces are of the right order of magnitude. I haven’t looked into it, and even if true, it’s a side issue in my world. But it may well be true, and they’ve made their scientific case for it.
Like I said, I offer this simply as an example to assist folks in differentiating between science on the one hand, and what went on in far too much of the Copernicus Special Issue on the other hand.
w.
PS—While code and data as used would have been a bonus, this was published in 2000, which is about a century ago in computer years. However, I think I could recreate their results purely from their paper, in part because the mechanisms and calculations for planetary locations and orbits and tidal forces are well understood. So it’s not like trying to replicate Michael Mann’s Hockeystick paper of the same era, which could not be done until the code was published …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Frederick Colbourne said @ur momisugly January 24, 2014 at 7:19 pm
Galileo was not tried for heresy over his scientific ideas, but for putting the pope’s words into the mouth of a character in his book, Simplicus (simpleton, or idiot). Galileo wrote that the tides were caused by the Earth’s rotation causing the oceans to slosh about, something that was impossible were Galileo’s other ideas correct. The pope knew this and criticised Galileo for contradicting himself. Galileo knew that what he had written was bullsh!t and wrote a note to that effect inside the cover of his own copy of the book (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems).
The Dialogue was approved by the censors in 1630 and published in 1632. It was only then that Galielo’s enemies noticed that Galileo had ridiculed the pope, something the pope himself had missed when he read the book.
Galileo, in criticising the pope, had left himself open to his enemies, who were not the cardinals of the church, but his fellow academics (The Pigeon League). The cardinals decided that ridiculing the pope was not heresy, but brought in a verdict that Galileo was “vehemently suspected of heresy”.
There is perhaps a lesson here, but not quite the one you were attempting to convey by repeating the mythology.
Resorting to an elitist argument to debunk someone else’s creative thought is not essentially any different from what is happening in reverse with so called climate change science. It matters not whether these much maligned papers were curve fitting exercises or not. Their creators may not be able to take these initial findings further, however you never know, someone else might have an epiphany and create a whole new area of research and discovery. They may in fact be on to something no one else sees at the moment, and they are struggling to express it within the pure scientific method.
If you read the history of Faraday – Maxwell – Einstein in sequence you will appreciate that the General Theory of Relativity actually owes greatly to the Special Theory, to Maxwell’s four equations of electro-magnetism and hence to Faraday’s semi chaotic thinking on magnetism. Faraday was untrained in either mathematics or science. Faraday broke completely new ground contrary to established scientific theory but he couldn’t express it in the terms the scientific community required and he was ostracised. Maxwell in turn pursued these ideas mathematically and had an epiphany, and of course Einstein took these ideas into completely new territory with the Special Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory. Einstein later created his General Theory covering gravity. But no Faraday – no General Theory of Relativity.
String Theory similarly grew from a researcher accidentally finding a mathematical connection between the General Theory and Maxwell’s equations which impressed Einstein but went no where until by chance string theory (by several names) emerged as the current front runner for the theory of everything which had eluded Einstein and everyone else. (Who new we lived in 10 dimensions).
The beginnings of chaos theory emerged from the meandering thoughts of a weatherman who played with some embryonic computer programs trying to solve multiple non linear functions. As an aside, this is still impossible to do for weather (and hence the forecasts break down after 3 to 7 days) and I am constantly astounded that it is thought that long term weather or climate is ‘modeled’. It can be in a sense replicated, but not predicted.
My point is, don’t censor creativity, even if you think it inconsequential, or you might inadvertently limit human endeavour.
I’m afraid that I’m finding W’s level of self importance above my threshold of tolerance.
markstoval says:
January 24, 2014 at 5:37 pm
markstoval, to date you have not identified a single thing I’ve said that you disagreed with, despite repeated requests not to just continue making vague mud-slinging attacks. I suppose some day we might find out what it is you are upset about. To date, however, you’ve given us no information.
Regards,
w.
“Angular velocity of the moon” should be a lower case omega, not gamma.
Rookies.
Jarryd Beck says:
January 24, 2014 at 6:37 pm
Jarryd, before letting your amazement run away with you, perhaps you missed my posts here and here. Also, see my comments here on Tallbloke’s paper here and here.
Finally, we can’t say what’s happening in Scafetta’s paper, because it’s not science at all, just an advertisement—he’s refused to reveal his code and data, so we don’t know what he did. That’s four papers … I don’t know if my stomach can handle reading more.
w.
The Pompous Git:
Yes. That is a old tired record isn’t it. It is actually not a myth. It is a tragic lie that even when it is revealed for what it is, it is still perpetuated.
Willis, I read the paper as soon as I found the Journal existed and I too was impressed with the careful analysis and the wealth of support that exists for its conclusions.
I suffered two shocks later: the cancelling of of the entire issue which was another act of CAGW insanity and the second was the caustic and dismissive response to the articles displayed on WUWT not because of their content which was apparently as yet unexamined, but on the basis of their titles, perhaps abstracts. in other words they were literally judged by their covers.
That is inexcusable.
There is nothing in the AGW narrative that comes close to the precision of the claims, the evidence, and the logic of this paper on super tides.
Lief dismisses everything to do with this topic as “wiggle matching”, by which I mean that exactly the same forces and type of effects evidenced on Earth happen on the Sun with observable consequences.
How can such obvious and measurable causes not have effects? Conversely, how can there be any demonstrable effect that is cause-less? Analysed properly, as in the book “Minimalism, the New Philosophy” there is only one effect without a cause which is the Universe itself.
Both A and B are just prior to the Maunder and the Dalton gms. That would raise the possibility that there is another gm in the near future.
Frederick Colbourne says:
January 24, 2014 at 7:19 pm
I don’t care particularly why Copernicus closed the journal, because I would have closed it my self. The editors and peer-reviewers were in total violation of their agreed upon responsibilities and duties. As a result, they all approved each others papers, gave each other a pat on the back, and published. The result was garbage. At that point, Copernicus had little choice but to engage in heavy damage control.
Frederick, the authors and editors were the peer reviewers, and the peer reviewers and editors were the authors. They are the ones who agreed to be bound by the normal rules, then they smashed those rules to bits … and now you want to paint them as the victims? Victims of their own foolishness, perhaps. Did you expect Copernicus just to look the other way?
Anyone who is surprised by Copernicus’s actions doesn’t understand that they are a business. As such, they cannot afford those kinds of shenanigans, it would be fatal to their operation.
And if Copernicus did this to silence them, you’d have to say it was a resounding failure, so it’s not an issue of freedom of expression, listen to them howl, their freedom to put their ideas forwards is in no way curtailed, … but I don’t think that’s why Copernicus did it.
Finally, what the authors and editors stated about the IPCC was not a heresy. It was a vague, uncited, unreferenced, handwaving claim. It did not identify what they were saying the IPCC got wrong. It did not say how their work showed the IPCC was wrong about whatever it was.
Instead, the authors’ claim was the equivalent of them saying “Our pile of paper shows the IPCC pile of paper is wrong, so there” …
So I object to their statement, not on the grounds of heresy, but on the grounds that it is a meaningless unprincipled vague claim that is not scientific in the slightest—it is just an idle boast, without patrimony, citation, or meaning. Not only was it unsourced and unsupported, with no scientific justification or support … it was also outright stupid. Why spit in Copernicus’s face? And why should I feel sorry for them after they did so?
So yes, I’d have done just what Copernicus did. And no, I don’t think this has anything to do with the consensus, nor with freedom of expression. It has to do with a business’s response to execrable science, unsupported attacks, and slip-shod, pathetic peer review and editing. Anyone who is surprised shouldn’t be. That’s what happens when you agree to play by the rules and then break them.
w.
dp says:
January 24, 2014 at 7:44 pm
I’ve made a host of strong scientific objections to their papers. If you think I’m wrong, show us, that would be interesting. Your opinion that I’m the bad guy, on the other hand, is far less interesting, since you’ve failed to support it with even the simplest example, quote or citation …
w.
@Willis “That’s four papers … I don’t know if my stomach can handle reading more.”
Oh please! For a sailor you have a weak stomach. None are as bad as some Nature articles which have equally inaccessible data and code.
Scarfetta: Put up the necessary or shut up. I wrote to you with a good suggestion. I can’t defend you if you don’t play by the rules.
Willis wrote:
“And finally, they offer observational evidence to support their claim.”
——————————–
Hi Willis,
did you compute a p value to compare the plot above with a detrended temperature record ?
Visual inspection suggests it is zero. And I can’t even see a common pattern
Crispin in Waterloo says:
January 24, 2014 at 9:53 pm
That’s just petty nastiness. I’ve written two posts detailing very precisely the bogus claims and the lack of math in two of the papers. I’ve pointed out that instead of having a “wealth of support” as you fatuously claim, in a third paper Scafetta won’t even reveal his codes or data, which means it has no support, and that it is not science, it’s just an advertisement … and clearly, you can’t tell the difference.
I’ve also pointed out the huge problems with Tallblokes paper as well, see above for the links to descriptions of his venture into numerology.
Jelbring? Jelbring is still touting his long-falsified theory discussed here … he still claims he is right about the atmospheric mass causing warming, despite Dr. Brown’s most interesting and devastating evisceration of his work. Any man who continues with his BS after his work has been gutted like a fish is not a scientist in any sense of the word—scientists admit when they are wrong.
In other words, your accusation that the papers were “judged by the covers” is totally refuted by the facts and shown to be baseless. All you’ve proven is that you have judged me by the cover …
w.
Manfred says:
January 24, 2014 at 10:05 pm
Thanks, Manfred. No, I didn’t compute anything. As I said my interest was not in defending the paper, and no paper is perfect. My interest was in pointing out how science is done, not in the details of their exposition.
Best regards,
w.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
January 24, 2014 at 10:04 pm
OK, swabbie, you take the wheel then, you can analyze the next paper while I puke over the gunwale to leewards …
No, some of them are worse than anything I’ve ever seen in Nature. However, I have quite often dissected and falsified studies from Nature as well, and excoriated them for the same faults.
People seem surprised or offended that I apply the same standards to Scafetta and Tallbloke that I apply to Michael Mann or Peter Gleick. I make every effort to apply the same rules and tests to every scientific paper I analyze. Either you provide the data and code as used, or it’s not science.
Have I been too harsh on the skeptics? Well, I’ve likely been harder on them then on Michael Mann … and that is because I expect more of the skeptics. You see, I expect Michael Mann to hide his data and code, and he never fails to deliver. I don’t expect skeptics to do that, and I really didn’t expect them to publish scientific papers without requiring full disclosure and transparence. In addition to being required by Copernicus policies, not requiring what is needed for replication is not science of any kind. It reflects horribly on all skeptics when they to try that same kind of a scam that the AGW alarmists have run in the past. So yeah, that’s in the mix as well.
w.
My reference to the wealth of support referred of course to the paper we are both discussing, not Scarfetta’s which I also read. Because it contained a conceptual error I looked up his email address and wrote to him with a suggestion. I didn’t find it necessary to insult him in public to discuss it.
Nastiness?
I judge your posts by their content. Some are good, some are great. I compliment you for bring tonight’s paper to greater prominence. Full marks for that.
I am somewhat taken aback by the pomposity and aggressive nature of the rebuttals to criticisms of this guest post, particularly if this CV is accurate.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html
@Willis
“It reflects horribly on all skeptics when they to try that same kind of a scam that the AGW alarmists have run in the past. So yeah, that’s in the mix as well.”
i agree with you on the data thing, completely. As to “the mix” I for one understand and cut you some slack but you can’t have the whole hank.
Your support for this article was clinical. The refutatations are more effective if the knife remains sharp.
Bewitch
be assured i will not visit that link – your post bears the odour of ad hominem
do you have something worthwhile to contribute?
Already have Crispin. Thanks for asking.
Has this paper been accepted for publication?
Solar Forcing of the Streamflow of a Continental Scale South American River
P. J. D Mauas, E. Flamenco, A. P. Buccino
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Mauas.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3882
“we find a strong correlation with the sunspot number, in multidecadal time scales, and with larger solar activity corresponding to larger stream flow.”
The correlation coefficient is r=0.78, significant to a 99% level. In shorter time scales we find a strong correlation with El Nino. These results are a step toward flood prediction, which might have great social and economic impacts.
From the above?
Is this real?
Paul Westhaver said @ur momisugly January 24, 2014 at 9:43 pm
Tragic lie, yes, but a myth nevertheless. From the OED:
Additionally, myth seems often intended to justify some attitude or other. In this instance, that the Roman Catholic church persecuted Galileo and suppressed science when in fact the opposite occurred. Galileo had the full support of both the pope, an ex-student and friend, and Robert Bellarmine, head of the Inquisition. Without that support team Galileo likely would have been tortured and condemned for heresy.
One suspects that “Bewitch” is either Poptick, or a sock-puppet…