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.
Willis,
It’s great when you can do all those things:
– make a claim
– propose a mechanism
– show data
Obviously something to strive for whenever one can. However, I think you are too hard on those that just say “Hey look at this interesting periodic synchronicity. Could there be something there?” Someone has to make the first step. It would seem a shame to hold everyone to standards that require they have to be able to explain everything they see before they can show any data whatsoever. Finding patterns and publishing data allows others to look at it and see if there is something to it or not.
I agree there is a danger of false correlation and ‘astrology science’, but it’s limited and mostly harmless. Many interesting phenomenon (Milankovitch cycles synchronicity with ice ages for example) would never have been published for all to think about if we demanded they had to have a solid empirically provable mechanism fist. Many other interesting theories (string theory, Higgs-Boson particles, actually most of modern physics really) would not have been published if it was held to your standard. Science is data, but it is also creating wild theories that direct others of possible areas where to look further (i.e. most of modern physics today).
Keeling and Whorf 2000 is a very interesting paper, Willis. Thanks for digging it up. Do you happen know if it was peer reviewed? It’s my understanding that many PNAS papers are not. Just curious…
With respect to the 2008 paper above, WUWT ran a thread in 2010:
a later version of the work…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/22/solar-to-river-flow-and-lake-level-correlations/
Willis E did not contribute to the commentary at that link.
Mosh, Willis, McIntyre, and others have been asking Scarfetta (sic, but I love it), for data and code since around 2008. His answer: Read my papers!
“Conversely, how can there be any demonstrable effect that is cause-less?’
Since “effect” means “result of a cause”, it is logically impossible to have an effect without a cause. However, there is no such logical constraint on events and phenomena. An uncaused event is a logical possibility. Uncaused events may be nomologically impossible, but I do not know how we could establish the relevant law of nature.
“there is only one effect without a cause which is the Universe itself.”
The universe might well be a phenomenon without a cause (and for economy it would be reasonable to consider it so) but it is quite possible that it does have a cause. (A previous universe, perhaps. Or maybe an accident in a Celestial High School Chemistry class.) We simply do not know.
“Analysed properly, as in the book “Minimalism, the New Philosophy”
I cannot find any reference to this anywhere aside from your posts.
Interesting that the peaks seem to be about the same interval that it takes for the planets to do a complete cycle i.e all the planets in a line – all the planets in a line.
Willis some information..
Just like I said earlier. I agree with Pointmans view on this..Cool it
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/cool-it/
@ur momisugly RoHa
My search for Minimalism, the New Philosophy found Home Decorating Secrets You Can Use To Transform Your Home Into The Palace You’ve Always Imagined!: How To Renovate The Interior Of Your Home The Way A Home Decorating Television Expert Would!. Perhaps that was the work being referred to 😉
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 24, 2014 at 10:25 pm
” … 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. …”
—-l
I consider the greatest risk to be that someone is not held to the same standards as those with a generally “opposing” view, since “he is one of us.” Corruption starts with this step ( or “looking the other way” as another poster suggested. )
Willis might be over-compensating, but I would rather see that, than have sceptics commit the same errors that I disapprove of in the warmist tactics.
I note that many posters seem to be hesitant to debate the factual statements Willis makes – if he is incompetent or unqualified, as some posters seem to think, it should be no problem to show that these arguments are unsound 🙂 They prefer to focus instead on his style and motives. It does give his accusations of handwaving and vagueness some ground, so maybe a different approach would work better to convince those who are reading that he is mistaken.
If you google “alignment of the planets” you come up with all sorts of new age garbage. No doubt the authors of the papers wanted them taken seriously. If so it is a shame that they were not iron clad in their publishing and review procedures. It may well be that there is something in their theories. However by allowing such a PR disaster, they risk tarring all skeptics with the brush of “voodoo science” and ammunition of the likes of Lewandowsky. So whether the science has merit or not, this is an unforced error.
Willis said:
“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.”
Well said.
Sceptics are well aware alarmists routinely manipulate, ‘homogenise’, or torture data to get the required Thermageddon result. That is why they usually do not like to disclose all data and code, as expert sceptics will unpick the results and rightly ridicule what has been done. Pal review in alarmist papers is just a front to try and provide respectability for whatever was written.
The point is very simple: sceptics should not sink to alarmist levels and thereby discredit the entire sceptic argument. I originally thought Copernicus should have been censured for what they did, but that was before I read a couple of the journal’s articles……enough said.
“I note that many posters seem to be hesitant to debate the factual statements Willis makes – if he is incompetent or unqualified, as some posters seem to think, it should be no problem to show that these arguments are unsound 🙂 They prefer to focus instead on his style and motives. It does give his accusations of handwaving and vagueness some ground, so maybe a different approach would work better to convince those who are reading that he is mistaken.”
Matters of style are important, and Willis has made a crusade of criticizing the late physics journal and demonstrated a glee that they were shuttered and closed down. If one can not see that from the posts from Willis over the last several days then one has his eyes shut. Why the joy that one physics journal was closed down when there looks to be little that they did that many, many others have not also done? Is it because they were looking at cycles?
A good example is the beginning of this latest post. He could have simply started off by saying that this paper that he based this post on was “good science” regardless weather you agreed with it or not without bringing up the whole affair yet again. That would have set a positive tone for this thread; but instead he took yet another shot at the closed down physics journal and all the scientists who were involved. You may find that “the way we want to do things here” but I find it disgusting.
Another good one is his post to me where he claims I have not let him know what has upset me with his recent crusade. Yet I have been plain that the continual attacks are unseemly. We don’t really know what happened there. These men are being smeared at WUWT on a now daily basis.
I don’t like the attacks and think that a few here are petty and small minded in this whole matter. But, it is a free country and if the host likes this sort of thing at his blog then so be it. But I will remember this episode for a long time and especially next time one of this inquisition are themselves attacked unfairly or without all the information being known.
“Willis might be over-compensating, but I would rather see that, than have sceptics commit the same errors that I disapprove of in the warmist tactics.”
“over-compensating”? Ya think? But his tactics are the same as the warmists; and that is the point. Where is the information from a trial or real investigation in this matter? All I really have is that Lord Monckton thought that the journal was worth keeping open and that in his generally reliable opinion the journal was shut down unfairly.
As a side note; I have read here a long time and made only a few comments over time. I have almost always agreed with Willis’ positions and am truly disappointed at the latest developments here at this blog. But as the old Sufi teaching story tells us — this too shall pass.
I thought that the NoTricksZone post on this matter nailed it pretty good: http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/24/monckton-blasts-prp-journal-shutdown-21st-century-equivalent-of-nazi-era-book-burning-by-a-vicious-campaign/
Mods.
As expected my latest comment when into the moderation hole.
“markstoval, to date you have not identified a single thing I’ve said that you disagreed with”
I have and you know it. I disagree with the continual smearing of the people who posted in that journal and the glee that it is shut down. I get it that you are overjoyed that the journal was shut down and that you feel great about that. Good for you.
There are many on the skeptical side that are not happy that the journal was shut down and I suppose that colors our views of the glee you have shown over its demise, but I am hoping that sometime before spring you stop taking pot shots at those scientists. Ah, …. spring of this year of course.
I now understand this comment at NoTricksZone:
“It’s becoming increasingly clear that a certain WUWT contributor is having perhaps too much influence at the number one skeptic blog, a blog to which we owe so much to. As talented as that person may be, it seems odd he would take it upon himself, given his relatively scant scientific credentials, to tell the rest of us which science is to be believed. One paper or two doesn’t make a person the authority. There were other self-anointed climate science quality czars who came out of the woodwork and over-extended. …“
markstoval
Don’t confuse glee with standing up for principles and shouting down the voices of hypocrisy.
Don’t confuse persistence for persecution.
It is extremely disappointing for those standing up for principles of ethical scientific research to see their former allies defending the indefensible. Since those former allies continue to spout nonsense and hypocritical, Machiavellian, tribal, rationalizations, people like Willis have to make the point, firmly, logically, and repetitively, that there is no there, there.
They did it first is not a justification for publishing substandard work, especially when the substandard work you publish is much, much worse than the other side ever published.
They did it first is no justification for violating the principles of peer review.
They did it first is no justification for withholding data and code.
They did it first is no justification for purposely misleading the publisher.
They did if first is no justification for circling the wagons and dismissing all criticism.
The defenders of the PRiP clique truly sadden me. One does not want to be allied with hypocrisy, especially when one has worked for years for the opposite. Perhaps now you see why Willis is relentless.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing.
markstoval said @ur momisugly January 25, 2014 at 1:30 am
Where does willis tell us “which science is to be believed”? Don’t be shy. The paper referred to in the headpost is given as an example of what appears to be prima facie reasonable science. Willis specifically says: “Please be clear that I am not advocating for this study. or saying that this explains how the climate works.” You may very well interpret that statement as a directive as to what to believe, but then you’re fairly obviously in a logic-free zone.
markstoval says:
January 25, 2014 at 1:30 am
markstoval, I’ve asked you a number of times to specifically identify what I said that you object to. I’ve requested that you quote my words so we could know what you are referring to.
Instead, you just keep repeating your vague accusations, like that I am “smearing” people, without coming up with one single solitary example of such claimed smearing. I don’t think I’ve smeared anyone. You obviously do … but I’m still waiting for even one example.
So no, what I said is still true—to date you have not identified a single thing I’ve said that you disagreed with. You’ve just repeated your accusations, with no more substance than before.
w.
charles the moderator said @ur momisugly January 25, 2014 at 2:28 am
If there is one thing that truly characterises this website, it is the soundness of moral principle in our host, most of his guest contributors and many of the commentators. The abandonment of moral principle would seem to indicate that rather than being allies, they were merely looking for a trough to feed from. So sad that it was taken away from them.
Lewis P Buckingham said @ur momisugly January 25, 2014 at 2:34 am
For those curious enough, a search of this website on “pompous git meme” should suffice. It was an interesting conversation…
“As talented as that person may be, it seems odd he would take it upon himself, given his relatively scant scientific credentials, to tell the rest of us which science is to be believed.”
You don’t have to be a mechanic to know your car is broken.
Why do so many people insist that only “qualified” persons can identify the existence of a fault? The pro-AGW camp has been making that fatuous claim for as long as I can remember. I am a bit surprised to see it popping up here.
markstoval says: January 24, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Will these attacks on that journal now be a regular feature of this blog? Can I expect this to be like the Friday Funny feature and see some further attacks from Willis once a week?
I am amazed at Willis and his spewing bile over the Physics journal over and over. Amazed.
Yes, not a pretty sight.
Interesting and a distinct possibility of being correct. Certainly nor a process considered in the climate models.
Martin A says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:55 am
What’s not a pretty sight are random anonymous internet popups like markstoval making vague accusations of my unspecified wrongdoing, and not backing them up with examples despite repeated requests.
However, their supporters, yes-men like your self, are even less pretty … like I did with markstoval, I invite you to quote what I said that has you grasping your pearls and being aghast. Unlike him, perhaps you’ll actually do it.
w.
The Pompous Git wrote –
“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”.”
At last somebody with enough common sense to partition a political decision from a scientific or theological one. It does not excuse the Church from the effects of that decision which still plague this era by effectively jettisoning its astronomical heritage for some moral dictatorship and leaving the valid objections unresolved.
Perhaps the most influential work in respect to the tides occurred 23 years before everything went sideways with Newton’s overreaching agenda,this originally took the form of a letter from John Wallis to Robert Boyle in 1666 where Wallis uses experimental analogies in tandem with planetary dynamics and lunar influences to outline his ideas as to why the tides change daily,monthly and annually.
http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/1-22/263.full.pdf+html
Most readers who live on the Western Isles of Europe now know that the huge storms that rolled in during late December and January wiped out beaches and man-made defenses because of the orbital influences on tidal fluctuations but the same readers here positively refuse to accept the uneven surface rotation to the central Sun which is most pronounced as the planet starts to speed up from 6 months of slowing down. This surfaces in part on page 277 of Wallis’s commentary where he freely admits that he doesn’t have an idea what the cause behind the natural noon variations are but today that secondary surface rotation can be identified to a 100% certainty and when allied with daily rotation causes the seasons,annual variations in the tides and so on.
It is actually possible to talk like men and disagree,not to defend an agenda but to come to a cleaner and clearer technical and historical view and why we inherited exceptionally poor ideologies built on others that were equally poor. To untangle knots means sometimes going back to simplicity and see where the tangles occurred.
Willis Eschenbach on January 24, 2014 at 9:40 pmJarryd Beck says:January 24, 2014 at 6:37 pmAs I am yet to see an actual reasonable scientifically-founded refutation of the recently much talked about patterns in physics papers, I am amazed at the amount of hatred that keeps pouring their way.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 hereand 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.
OK Willis, I write a post summarizing your attempt to defame Prof Jan-Erik Solheim with a straw man argument over a single figure in his extensive and interesting paper.
And another on your ludicrous attempt to ridicule R.J. Salvador’s intriguing solar-planetary model which successfully hindcasts 1000 years of solar variation as represented by Max Planck Institute chief Sami Solanki’s 14C reconstruction.
And finally, after I’ve defended my esteemed colleagues, I’ll defend my own contribution. It’s a pity you didn’t have a go at the more interesting sections further into the paper where we get to the cyclicities which interact to produce periodicities which match climatic periods such as the AMO or the Hudson Bay beach ridges, but I appreciate that cowboys in a hurry to shoot from the hip won’t have the attention span required to fully absorb a paper before launching into a tirade of ignorant abuse.
In the meantime I advise everyone else to download the papers and form their own judgements, rather than take this vengeful (he hates being banned) cowboy at his word. They are all still published and available from Copernicus here.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html