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.
markstoval says:
January 25, 2014 at 1:17 am
” … Matters of style are important, … ”
—-l
I fully agree. When lecturing others on style one could argue that it is advisable to to avoid phrases such as :
” … I will never again read anything here posted by you without knowing what a real hater and foul little thing you are … ”
—-l
But his tactics are the same as the warmists; and that is the point.
—-l
Just to clarify, the tactic I specifically was referring to was that of noble cause corruption, which I don’t think he has committed. Some of the warmists’ other tactics to obscuring the true issues include ad hominem attacks, which I assume you do not approve of and would not want to be thought guilty of.
—-l
Where is the information from a trial or real investigation in this matter?
—-l
For a start, I note that in one instance he compared some of their mathematical procedures to numerology. Do you feel that this is a valid statement and that he can show good reason? Since this forms part of the factual arguments that he bases his criticism on, what are your feelings on this point?
—-l
markstoval says:
January 24, 2014 at 1:55 am
” … It would be nice if someone who knew all the groups would do a list of the various players and groups here for those of us that don’t have time to keep up properly. … ”
—-l
To clue you in would take quite a while and I don’t think the other readers would appreciate it. I can only recommend that you read the threads gave rise to this one thoroughly(preferably in a calmer state of mind.) No one here is going to prechew or predigest your information for you. Your specific line of attack has been raised before as an argument to minimise the transgressions of the parties that are seeking sympathy. That could explain why some posters are impatient with your viewpoint (which might not be incorrect so much as overstated and given too much weight.)
I think I should mention that Willis seems to enjoy getting a reaction and so far you have not disappointed, but I would say that what he really wants is someone who is willing to debate the facts of his criticism. There are probably readers here who dream about Willis getting taken down in a real debate concerning his factual statements. As you don’t seem up to it, perhaps you could recommend someone else?
Try not to get paranoid or upset about moderation – using certain keywords gets you moderated – it happens to everyone. The most important advice I can give you concerning style in debate is that it is inadvisable to appear childish or petulant – it does tend to swing popular opinion against you.
Deniswingo,
It is very interesting and an area where I have done some work. Whenever the Moon passes over the North American continent lifts by 2 inches. We have measured the variation in the gravity field directly with extremely sensitive accelerometers. Don’t know if they are right, but the science is good…
Are you sure what you’re measuring isn’t the NET gravity when the moon is overhead? If the moon is pulling your instrument up, it’s directly counteracting the pull of the earth. Now, maybe you’ve already taken the pull of the moon into account and have found a difference that you’re attributing to NA pulling a little further away from the core, but since you didn’t explicitly say so it seems like the most likely answer.
Willis – ‘yes-man’? Me? I don’t think so. I think for myself and I simply don’t like what I see here.
To me, the content and the repetition of these threads are reminiscent to some degree of the atmosphere of “The Two Minute Hate” (1984).
If you don’t see what your threads have a really nasty and obsessive tone (and believe me, they have) then that says something about your abilities in human communication and your personal qualities. If you don’t see it, then it’s certainly not because the threads are in fact expressed objectively and express nothing but a desire for quality in scientific publishing.
Clearly, you don’t see what I and some other see in this and related threads. It’s the tone of thread as a whole, including the fact that it was posted at all, that disappoints and upsets us – not just some isolated points.
Since you ask, even though I’m pretty sure you won’t get it, here are just a few lines that characterize the tone of the thread:
– I don’t know if my stomach can handle reading more.
– Victims of their own foolishness
– it was also outright stupid.
– why should I feel sorry for them
– their supporters, yes-men like your self
– random anonymous internet popups
– grasping your pearls and being aghast.
Get it now? I doubt it. Bye.
Willis referred to RG Brown’s thread in 2012 in which rgb said this :
“One is then left with an uncomfortable picture of the gas moving constantly – heat must be adiabatically convected downward to the bottom of the container in figure 1 in ongoing opposition to the upward directed flow of heat due to the fact that Fourier’s Law applies to the ideal gas in such a way that equilibrium is never reached!
Of course, this will not happen. The gas in the container will quickly reach equilibrium. ”
I think that is where rgb (and by implication, Willis) must be wrong because for a rotating, rough surfaced sphere illuminated by a point source of light no equilibrium can ever be reached and so that ‘uncomfortable picture’ is exactly what does happen.
The reason that it must happen is that in such a scenario one always finds the creation of parcels of air at different temperatures and densities next to one another at the same height.
Once that happens then they must change positions relative to one another within the gravitational field due to the differing weights caused by the different temperatures and densities.
Thus the system can never reach equilibrium, the gas must move constantly, heat must be convected downward as per Fourier’s Law and an isothermal equilibrium will never be attained. There will always be a lapse rate through the gas from surface to space and it will be a result of conduction and convection and not radiation from GHGs at height.
That heat constantly being convected downward by the reconversion of PE to KE is the missing element in the global energy budget cartoons and once it is included the ‘need’ to assume a surface warming effect from DWIR disappears.
Nice article about the tides Willis. The next question to be asked would be, why the standard model of gravity does not explain the tides in any way shape or form. Neither does it explain the universe as per the standard model, 95% of matter is missing. Thus the recent fudge of dark matter and dark energy.
Perhaps some thing is missing, that is subtle but more powerful than gravity in our understanding of the processes that control what we see. Never throw out the baby with the bath water.
it is quite a complicated thing, we have a physical mechanism, but we don’t not how to calculate the quantitative effect…
nature had time to synchronize but nature has strength to destroy synchronization.
The answer will be empirical, but from my point of view it is exactly the same with models and agw.
And because the answer is empirical, the accuracy of data is a central issue.
From the paper:
“Consistent periodicity was demonstrated by averaging the times between inferred cool events over 12-kyr time intervals. This ‘‘pacing’’ of events was found to be restricted to a narrow range between 1,328 and 1,795 years, with a grand average of 1,476 +/- 585 yr.”
The middle value is 1561.5yr, planetary theory predicts ~1542.5yrs.
“This time-difference describes a pattern consisting of a generally declining difference interrupted by an abrupt upward shift that occurs 61 times in a simulation of 283.674 kyr (not all plotted): hence, an average period of 4,650 years.”
Planetary theory predicts 4627yrs.
I see it highly unlikely that tides have driven major temperature change through the Holocene, and looking at the data has decided it for me. That 1974 peak tide period is at the the leading edge of the 1975/76 climate shift.
Well, since this thread has become analogous to a Miss Manners class, I offer the following: You Scrabble players who are euphoric about “syzygy” apparently plan to come to the table with a y in your pockets. There are only two y tiles in the Scrabble letter set.
Willis, a mathematical model that predicts the future accurately is useful, regardless of who created it, why and whether the underlying mechanism is understood. For example, tide tables have been used for decades. They are very accurate, people on boats trust their lives to them but no one really understands them and no one cares.
My suspicion is that the GW alarmists are ignoring the Ice Core stories as they do not support the storyline. A cursory visual look at the Greenland and Antarctic data sets would match reasonably close for a long term study Does anyone know of a study that has tried to develop a Holocene-long, global-wide temperature trend using the set of ice core datasets?
markstoval et al.:
When the PRP fiasco broke it was generally assumed that there had been censorship by the publisher, Copernicus. Our host posted an article condemning the apparent censorship and I made a series of strongly worded posts in that thread which supported the PRP-Team and opposed the apparent censorship.
Then the reality was exposed. The PRP-Team had agreed to provide a peer reviewed Special Edition of PRP and in accepting that they accepted the written rules for publication provided by Copernicus. But they flagrantly disregarded and violated those rules. This provided Copernicus with a problem which they solved by axing the small-circulation PRP and, thus, stopping the publication of the Special Edition.
The revelation of what had happened was an eye-opener. I reversed my view and explained why on the WUWT thread. Subsequently, our host reversed his view for the same reason, and he provided an article which explained his change of view.
The behaviour of the PRP-Team has serious effects.
It has brought discredit on the long-standing campaign of AGW-sceptics for proper scientific conduct. All AGW-alarmists now say that we have no grounds for complaint when we do it too. But a main reason for some of us being active AGW-sceptics is our desire to halt the lowering of standards for scientific conduct, and the action of the PRP-Team has been a ‘stab in the back’ for us. Willis is one who has been campaigning for open exposure of data and, thus, is among those of us who have been ‘stabbed in the back’.
We have called for the PRP-Team to acknowledge what they did and to express regret which would enable some reduction of the damage they have done. Willis is one who has been explaining what the PRP-Team did.
The PRP-Team have responded by pretending they did nothing wrong and pretending that – somehow – they are innocent victims. They claimed it was “all about the science” and people should consider their science which they claimed had been “censored”. Also, they claimed that support of the action of the publisher was because people wanted to stop discussion of a solar/climate relationship and/or suppression of opposition to the IPCC. Importantly, some of the PRP-Team and their supporters have made untrue smears and attacks (both public and private) of those who are calling for the PRP-Team to acknowledge their actions and to express regret for them.
The PRP-Team did abuse the trust of the publisher, Copernicus, by flagrantly breaking the rules the PRP-Team had accepted. This is a matter of documented fact.
Copernicus had no option but to stop the Special Edition as a result of the PRP-Team having broken the rules. This is a matter of business reality. And it is an understandable business judgement for Copernicus to have closed the journal completely as a result of the bad publicity which was inevitable from the stopping of the Special Edition.
It is specious to claim that the PRP-Team are innocent victims. Copernicus is the innocent victim of the misbehaviour by the PRP-Team, and all AGW-scepticism has been harmed, too.
It is demonstrably untrue that demand for the PRP-Team to acknowledge what they have done is a veiled campaign against the possibility of a solar/climate relationship. It is a matter of record that
(a) I assisted Hans Jelbring to obtain publication of his hypothesis and
(b) I gave very great assistance to Theodor Landscheit in getting his seminal barycenter work published including a re-write of his paper to turn it into language suitable for publication (we remained friends until his demise).
I did this so their ideas could be widely assessed. And now people claim my concerns at actions of the PRP-Team are me having an “agenda” of opposing a solar/climate relationship. Incredible!
The excuse that stopping publication of the Special Edition was “all about the science” has been addressed by considering the papers which would have been in the Special Edition. Willis has provided a series of reviews on WUWT so the “science” that would have been in the Special Edition is being assessed. And in the above article Willis demonstrates that it is the nature of the papers in the Special Review which is problematic and not any opposition to the idea of a solar/climate connection.
The PRP-Team supporters now claim this addressing of the science is a “campaign” against the PRP-Team. No! It is the address of the science which they previously claimed they wanted.
Anth0ny Watts, Willis Eschenbach and I each has long record of exposing the flaws of the IPCC procedures and science.
The assertion that our attempt to uphold good scientific standards is in support of the IPCC is too ridiculous for it to need refutation.
So, markstoval et al., stop your campaign of unsubstantiated smears and turn your campaign of vilification on the PRP-Team. They deserve vilification unless and until they admit what they have done and express some regret for it.
Richard
markstoval – You are coming across as unhinged and an embarrassment.
Perhaps you should take note of your own conduct first.
The freedom fighter becomes the tyrant.
This is something that seems to have been completely missed by most. Whatever issue, and I suspect there were many, finally prompted Copernicus to act is absolutely irrelevant. They didn’t want their reputation destroyed by the publication – end of story. No company in a competitive market would.
There has been so much nonsense written on the subject that I have dumped more than a few ‘blogs’ from my ‘bookmarks’. The usual conspiracy nonsense, the standard ‘victim’ crap from the usual sources and even a missive linking Copernicus to the holocaust. You just couldn’t make this stuff up.
No. This is exactly the point re “wiggle matching” – anyone competent in mathematics can do it. Just develop some software that keeps adding periodic waveforms together until you match your target waveform. Write a ‘scientific’ paper and whine continuously as, one by one, people expose your work for what it actually is.
Gkell1 said @ur momisugly January 25, 2014 at 3:36 am
Indeed! And many thanks for the link to Dr John Wallis’s excellent essay. I was not previously aware of it. I must now reread the Dialogue 🙂 Galileo was certainly wrong to dismiss Kepler’s lunar hypothesis, but it would seem it was also wrong of the pope (and the Git) to dismiss Galileo’s “sloshing”.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney:
It is specious to claim that the PRP-Team are innocent victims. Copernicus is the possibly innocent victim of the misbehaviour by the PRP-Team, and all AGW-scepticism has been harmed, too.
Fixed it for you. The general problem with focusing on people instead of arguments is that it causes people to try to figure out who is “guilty” and “innocent.” No need for that. It might well be that PRP is guilty — of pal review, of failing to produce data and code — and that Copernicus is also guilty of trying to shut down debate. Or not.
It’s a shame that PRP provided the excuse for it, though. And that was Willis’ point. This was an “own-goal.”
The question moving forward is whether to sympathize with the misdeeds of PRP, and I say, tell them to cut it out.
@ur momisugly Willis:
Here is a sampling of your own words which serve only or almost only a rhetorical effect in the article Congentical Cyclomania Redux.
“Our friend Nicola Scafetta is back again…”
“Just roll that around in your mouth and taste it, “eighteen tunable parameters”. Is there anything that you couldn’t hindcast given 18 different tunable parameters?
Anyhow, if I were handing out awards, I’d certainly give him the first award for having eighteen arbitrary parameters. But then, I’d have to give him another award for his mystery ingredient.”
“Now, I don’t even know what to say about this method. I’m dumbfounded.”
“I truly lack words to describe that, it’s such an awesome logical jump I can only shake my head in awe at the daring trapeze leaps of faith …”
“Heck, with that many parameters, he should be able to make that sucker tap dance and spit pickle juice …”
“Now, you can expect that if Nicola Scafetta shows up, he will argue that somehow … ”
“half-ast-ronomical explanation…”
I’ll stop there. All of these quotes are mixed in with a genuine argument (that I happen to agree with).
Now, your rhetoric is your own business and perhaps you have good reason for it. But for me, I found it distracting and off-putting. A strong argument doesn’t need a blustery cloak, just a dispassionate and clear presentation. I get that this is a blog and not a journal, but I would guess that you lose more readers than you might wish with the tone. We caught your disapproval after the first five times.
Not only so, but it strikes me that the skeptic-and-lukewarmer community is probably not in a position to start splintering into sub-tribes. Why raise everyone’s blood pressure?
Thanks for considering this.
I suggest we all read, or reread as appropirate, PointMan’s blog article recently reposted on Tallbloke’s Talkshop. We all need to take a deep breath, calm down, and behave like scientists and not like immature grad students fighting for recognition. Keep your eye on THE PRIZE.
I must say I have been greatly saddened by the petty bickering going on among a few of the regulars here. It has been so bad that I am close to removing the site from my bookmarks.
The link to the original didn’t work for me.
Next, they propose a mechanism—the strong tides stir up the deeper, colder ocean waters and bring them to the surface, cooling the globe.
Lots of good science proceeds without mechanisms, such as Newton’s inverse square law for gravitation. That’s the topic about which he wrote that he did not “feign” hypotheses. The gravitational constant had to be estimated later from data, or as we say nowadays, it is a “tunable parameter”; Gauss also did scientific work that involved “curve fitting”.
I am glad that you found a paper that you like. I’ll check back later to see whether I can download it.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 24, 2014 at 10:25 pm
Crispin in Waterloo says:
January 24, 2014 at 10:04 pm
“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.”
Well said Willis. The Team and associates already employ transference, accusing skeptical authors of being guilty of all the sins CO2 warmers have committed anyway. This terrible advertisement for skeptical science now makes transference unnecessary. These few skeptics have done immeasurable harm at a critical time. we should be blasting them and disowning them everyday. They aren’t even repentant. They think what they did was fine (sound familiar). If I were a diabolical and unprincipled warmist, I could do no better than pretend I’m a skeptic and do something as egregious as this. I’m surprised at some of your detractors here.
richardscourtney: Then the reality was exposed. The PRP-Team had agreed to provide a peer reviewed Special Edition of PRP and in accepting that they accepted the written rules for publication provided by Copernicus. But they flagrantly disregarded and violated those rules. This provided Copernicus with a problem which they solved by axing the small-circulation PRP and, thus, stopping the publication of the Special Edition.
I missed that. Where can I read about it?
Martin A, What you don’t seem to get is that until these papers are properly peer reviewed they are pieces of science fiction that are properly criticized as being an abomination to due process.
In a fairly long life as an engineer and scientist I have several times been a close witness to the metamorphosis of derided conjecture into centre-ground certainty.
The first was the involvemen of a geophysicist relative who was involved in the research that developed the speculative but inexplicable notion of continental drift into the wholly believable and proven plate tectonics.
The second was the involvement of a very close relative in the science of the interation between bacteria and bacteriophages, which at that time (the 1960’s) were an exciting discovery. Leading the research was the formidable Dr E S Anderson, who discovered that proliferating bacteriophages could carry across snippets of DNA not only to other strains of the same bacterium but also to other bacterial species. He became seriously worried (paranoid, even) that this could be a mechanism for the development and transmission of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Anderson was subjected to vilification and derision but fifty years later we have MRSA and we wish we hadn’t.
My experience is that quantum steps in the understanding of obscure phenomena never come from those at the centre of affairs – it is always the awkward oddball who sees the new reality. These people are to be valued and respected, even when the may prove to be wrong. When challenged in such a way I was taught to ask the question “What do you see that I don’t see?”. It works.
The most valuable attribute of an engineer is to know when to say “I don’t know”.
Since finding WUWT some years ago I have lurked and learned, to my great benefit and for which much thanks. I must say that now am both surprised and disappointed at the apparent unwillingness to accept that innovation, whatever the source, starts with conjecture and that the advancement of scientific knowledge is always at the margin where uncertainty is greatest, where convention is stretched and where acceptance would cause disruption to the status quo. Just because a new perception does not burst fully formed from the forehead of the originator of a troublesome conjecture is not grounds for a distinctly graceless dismissal.
I wish it hadn’t happened and I don’t like it.
Matthew R Marler:
At January 25, 2014 at 9:38 am you ask
Obviously, you have not followed the matter until now. You can read about it at many places including The Copernicus-PRP fiasco: predictable and preventable
Richard
Phil R says:
January 24, 2014 at 6:33 pm
syzygy!
Great Scrabble word! 🙂
Terrible Scrabble word, there are only 2 ‘Y’ tiles!
Jeff Cagle:
Re your post at January 25, 2014 at 9:13 am.
Are you really trying to claim that the publisher, Copernicus, was NOT the main victim of the actions by the PRP-Team?
As I read your post, that is what I understand it to be saying. Please explain.
Richard