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.
Just looking at that graph above, I am embarrassed for our level of science. I think that is Anthony’s point. Those utterly simplistic curves look like something out of a junior high school math text book. At least to me they do. Which brings me to this:
Regardless of how high our mathematicians’ “higher math” is, it isn’t high enough. In almost every application of math in complex systems, you see this ubiquitous effort to simplify the complexity of the system in order to crowbar it into math that our scientists can use. And they use the best math they have. The math just isn’t adequate yet. (Not that THIS paper is one of our best efforts or best applications of the math we DO have.)
And it isn’t just because they are doing good and loyal reductionism. The math is constraining even reductionism. Even the smaller pieces of the various puzzles are still complex – regardless of what the researchers might tell you.
I don’t say this as a slam against scientists or science. Mathematicians need to give scientists better math tools. And since they don’t even know that the math is coming up short, the mathematicians aren’t doing anything about it.
Statistics? IMHO statistics is where it wall went wrong. Science was making grand strides – up to about the time they started applying statistics. Quantum physics had a good deal to do with that, in all probability. Quantum physics is looked at as the end all and be all of scientists doing science. But the idea that particles only have a certain statistical likelihood of being where we think they are or in the energy state that we think they are in – this is a dead end for science. As it is turning out to be. Physics hasn’t come up with jack on the last 40 years. Look it up. String theory? It’s all math, and math that cannot be tested in the real world. Again, the math is coming up short. Dark matter and dark energy? They only exist in the math. They’ve never been detected in the real world, empirically.
Statistics is math in which assumptions deliver the goods – or the bads – depending on the assumptions. Blame it on the assumptions? Maybe, but everybody here should be familiar with how the data gives whatever answer the researcher desires to find. Any math that can give you whatever answer you are looking for IS NOT MATH. Or isn’t any math worth its salt.
The math is the focus of the weakness, and it is the focus of the disconnect between theory and reality. That is the other side of it. Inadequate math is leading science astray, both in shortcomings re complexity and in statistics.
As a young high school grad, I was heading for college to study either math or physics or cosmology. I was amazed later on at how little there had been available left to study, in either of the first two there really wasn’t much between me and the level achieved at the farthest frontiers yet achieved. While that might have meant there might be a lot out there for me and others to discover yet, it also meant that we weren’t very far along. It was one of the biggest disappointments of my life – my own real life “Man behind the curtain” moment. It isn’t that the math isn’t over my own head – yes, it IS – but it is not THAT much over my head. The idea that I’d already learned most of what schools had to offer – that was a wake-up call.
So I discovered that scientists really aren’t doing that much groundbreaking work. Reading journals papers will tell you that. The concepts and the conclusions are not very often very much above what a good secondary school student would come up with for a science fair.
And why? When you break something down into its constituent parts, study them and then put it all together, you don’t often get what you started out trying to understand: the whole. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. When they began with the reductionism/rationalism thing back in the 1800s, they were starting out from pretty close to rock bottom. (There has probably been 10 to 100 times as much science done since then as before.) Then they HAD to simplify, even if their brains were as capable as ours are today. But with the relatively stark bare-bones concepts of science that existed, they had to tackle it at a level at which they could make some progress. The whole was over their heads (and it still is, IMHO), so in their wisdom – a wise choice at the time – they decided that they would make best progress in fundamental understandings if they looked at things at a dissected level. I AGREE WITH THAT – you have to build a foundation first.
But we are past the foundation-building level. We need to be able to deal with complex systems with complex tools – tools that will allow the whole to remain intact while we study it. But our current level of math won’t allow us to do that.
We simply need better math tools.
Otherwise you get people with higher degrees doing work like this paper Anthony rightfully laughs at.
Tantalus says:
January 25, 2014 at 9:55 am
“When challenged in such a way I was taught to ask the question “What do you see that I don’t see?”. ”
Curiosity it always a good thing.
The surprising thing is that many who support AGW have none at all!
I believe quite strongly that Gravity plays a much larger function in Climate than most have given it credit for.
A very powerful force indeed.
Tantalus says:
January 25, 2014 at 9:55 am
“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.”
You have not investigated the happenings here sufficiently. It is not whether these guys are onto something (although there are a few things that point to them not being onto much), the main story is how pals peer reviewed each others papers and facilely okayed them for publication and other editorial abuses. That they may not be up to much in the pointed end of science is refusal to provide code for their work. Now why would someone do that? Ask Michael Mann, Phil Jones, etc the same question. None of these guys fought the good fight and soldiered on. It was open gates for them.
The historical fellows you describe are something else. I trust your intrepid ancestors who validated plate tectonics were the English pair – I’ve forgotten their names, but I don’t recall they gave any kudos to Alfred Wegener – who was vilified for decades and died before Plate Tectonics came on the scene. I had always felt that changing the name from the beautiful poetry of “continental drift” to the dental mechanics-type Plate Tectonics was to distance themselves from the one who could not have failed to inspire their work. This is even worse than the editorial chicanery in the present discussion.
I think you are being rather hard on Scarfetta.
I’ve just read some of his papers that seem reasonable at first sight. He is explicit about the data that he uses from the public domain.
As regards his computer programs, the calculations are pretty straight forward. Anyone can do calculations relatively easily. Most people don’t enjoy scrabbling through other people’s code and repeating the calculations makes one concentrate on the issues.
If one thinks he’s wrong, one can repeat the calculations. If one gets the same result, one can be confident that the calculations are correct. What significance one places on them is a matter of judgement.
RC Saumarez says:
January 25, 2014 at 10:35 am
This is exactly the argument made by Michael Mann about why he shouldn’t have had to reveal his code for the Hockeystick … code which was eventually discovered, and found to be terribly flawed. He, of course, didn’t want his code exposed either, and curiously, RC, you could be channelling him to a “T”.
I don’t understand your objection to scientific transparency. You claim to be a scientist, I think you are one … so why the hostility to calls for transparency?
But let’s follow your advice out to the end. Suppose I try to replicate Scafetta’s results, and I come out with a different answer … what then? I say “Scafetta, you made a mistake”, and he says “Show me where I made a mistake”.
Now me, I figure I’ll follow the famous Mann/Saumarez advice and not reveal my code either, after all RC says that’s right and proper to do. So I say to Scafetta, “No way I’m showing my code to you. RC said that anyone can do calculations relatively easily. He advised that if you think I’m wrong, you can repeat my calculations. It’s up to you to show me that I’m wrong” …
I’m sure you can see the deadlock that leads from the even-handed application of your advice, RC. If we all hide our code, which you seem to think is not only acceptable but proper behavior, science grinds to a halt. I can’t point to the errors in Scafetta’s code, he can’t point to the errors in my code, all either of us can say is, “I’m right, and you haven’t been able to show that I’m wrong!” … which of course is the whole point of hiding code, so no one can find flaws in it.
Clearly, that system won’t work. Which is why major journals have policies requiring the archiving of code as used. They may not always enforce them, but they are there specifically to stop people like Mann, Scafetta, and yourself from refusing to disclose how you do what you do.
As Steven Mosher said, unless you provide the code and data as used for your claims, I’m under no obligation to pay any attention to you, because you are not providing scientific results, you’re just advertising.
Seriously, RC … do you truly think that science could work if everyone hid their computer code?
w.
Tantalus says:
January 25, 2014 at 9:55 am
Tantalus, I understand your frustration. However, there is a difference between innovation and numerology. I hold views that are different from the mainstream, so pushing innovative ideas is what I do all the time. I understand the challenges they face.
As you point out, these views start with conjecture. However, if we are scientists then the next step needs to be the search for a mechanism that supports the conjecture, and then search for the math to be able to quantify the mechanism, and then search for evidence to support the entire edifice. And this, of course, is the path of science.
On the other hand, you could take your conjecture and use a 20-tunable-parameter curve-fitting model to replicate it. Or you could find “evidence” and not actually measure and test it mathematically and statistically. Or you could just wander off into numerology …
Unfortunately, that’s what we find in the Special Edition … the problem is not that their ideas are innovative. It is that they are claiming that they have established the veracity of their ideas in the normal scientific manner, when they’ve done no such thing.
Finally, when they signed on as Editors and Peer Reviewers, there are a number of things that they agreed to do, like not appoint reviewers nepotistically, and to see that all code and data was available so that the work could be replicated. They not only broke those rules, they stomped them into the ground and spat on them … now I’m supposed to feel sorry for them when the lifeguard said get out of the pool?
Best regards,
w.
PS—In fact they lucked out, they’ve gotten huge publicity for their ideas which they could never have obtained if the journal had been published … so if their ideas are good, Tantalus, they will still rise to the top, and even faster from the notoriety. I doubt that will happen, though … for scientific reasons …
RC Saumarez says: Replication is paramount. Assumption that you know how they made the calculations is nonsense and filled with pitfalls. There are thousands of ways to skin a cat but if you want to show me the skinned cat then tell me how you did it.
Willis, thank you for your attention, which I am not sure I deserve. Having read your response several times I have to say that there is not one sentence with which I disagree.
However, I am not concerned directly with the content of those papers; as you say, time will tell. I suppose that what has really disturbed me is that I have become to revere WUWT as a rare repository of sagacity, which I see as combination of wisdom, curiosity, lucidity and respect for ones fellows. This time I am dismayed at what I perceive (maybe wrongly, I agree) at what I see as the evidence of wholly disconcerting and unexpectedly closed minds and unnecessarily bad manners. That is what I don’t like.
I have been silent as to the content of the papers or to the reasons for the closure of the periodical because I have nothing to say on the matter. That is not my focus of attention. Time will be the arbiter.
On a different tack, you introduce the topic of computer modelling. I have been involved in engineering in two very important uses of mathematical modelling. As a young man I was on the periphery of the prediction of the behaviour of the then new commercial nuclear power reactors. The computers (two of them), which filled an entire office block, employed enough thermionic valves to justify the full time employment of a man to change the “soft” ones, or those that had completely expired. Even then, in the early sixties, the models had no validity until their output was proved against the characteristics of the real reactor at Calder Hall. After numerous iterations, once the validity was understood – the code was then locked and no unauthorised and unvalidated changes were permitted.
Later in my life, modelling was used to predict the ultimate strength and also the fatigue characteristics of offshore oil platforms, both in their entirety and of their components and sub-assemblies. Exactly the same criteria applied – no predictive skill = not valid = not usable. Only validated code could be used; nobody was permitted to mess with it.
The uncontrolled and unprincipled lack of control of the operation of the “Anthropogenic Climate Change” modelling is a total disgrace to scientific endeavour.
How do they get away with it? What can we do?
T.
Tantalus:
At January 25, 2014 at 12:39 pm concerning the misuse of computer modelling by AGW-alarmists, you ask Willis
I hope you will accept my injecting my own answers.
We consistently campaign for proper scientific practice by EVERYBODY and revile misconduct by ANYBODY. Until there is unity on that then miscreants will continue with improper scientific conduct.
This goes to the heart of the present controversy which I explain in my summary in this thread at link
Richard
@Willis Eschenbach.
Thank you for telling me about transparancy in software. I deal with sudden cardiac death and the instruments that have have developed have 70,000+ lines of code. Before these can be used this has to be verified. This is a complex process and requires considerable attention to detail in coding and testing and has to be scrutisied in detail by EU and US regulatory authorities
I also deal in invasive electrophysiology of high risk patients using engineering methods. Do you really believe that I could behave in the manner you suggest? Furthermore, much of what I have developed has been done in teams where we test and scrutinise eachothers’ work
When have I ever said that code should not be made available?
Problems in coding are generally discovered when results are found to be anaomalous. It is often easier to rework the problem than sort through code. Serious problems are often coded in serious languages and use serious numerics. It can be extremely difficult to find the coding errors in large programs without extensive testing. If there is found to be a problem, it is quite reasonable to ask for the code or to request that an established test problem is run on the code. This is a very deep problem that is occupying a large number of computer scientists and it is recognised that verification of large computer programs is a serious intellectual problem that has not been solved.
I note your criticisms of my scientific credentials and my honesty. I would simply remark that you come over as an opinionated, intemperate,ill-educated boor who has no understanding or experience in either science or maths. This is becoming increasingly noticed as more people are seeing through the superficiality of your posts, your lack of real track record and are repelled by your rudeness and the arbitrary insults you hurl at people.
@GregB.
Scarfetta’s calculations require a knowledge of orbital mechanics of a small number of bodies . This simply requires a knowledge of orbits, which are established and some I agree the results could be calculated in a number of ways but less, I suspect, there are of skinning a cat.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney:
“Are you really trying to claim that Copernicus was not the victim of actions taken by the PRP team?”
Not really. I’m saying that bad behavior by PRP does not automatically clear Copernicus.
Phil points out there are only two y’s. But there are blanks to assist in the making on a triple word hopefully.
Jeff Cagle:
Thankyou for your reply to me at January 25, 2014 at 1:10 pm which says in total
Not really. I’m saying that bad behavior by PRP does not automatically clear Copernicus.
Unfortunately, that does not fulfill my request for explanation.
Clear Copernicus of what?
Copernicus made the only sensible business decision when confronted with the actions of the people who had provided the Special Edition. Or perhaps you can suggest an alternative and sensible business decision Copernicus could have made?
Richard
Jeff Cagle:
Please forgive my formatting error in my reply to you. Hopefully you can still read it. Sorry.
Richard
I agree with the comment Tantalus has made regarding the strange and unfriendly tone centered around the actions regarding the PRP fiasco. Willis has done this before with Dr. Spencer and probably others.Skeptics are no more immune to the Orwellian actions of “Animal Farm” or the daily hates of “1984” than anyone else. Willis is an amazing story teller, and frequently offers well written essays on climate issues. That does not make him any more incapable of error in judgement or manners than anyone else.
respectfully,
hunter
richardcourthey,
Why are you rewriting history regarding copernicus?
They made it perfectly clear from the start as to why they over reacted as they did.
They plainly stated that someone had complained about an observation regarding the implications of the work and AGW.
That some skeptics are assisting in a pro-AGW rewrite of history by calling this action a ‘cold hard business decision’ as you and Willis keep repeating, to say the least.
richardscourtney,
and please forgive my bad typing
hunter:
re your post at January 25, 2014 at 2:06 pm
I am not offended by your “bad typing” which is better than my typing.
I am not “rewriting history”. I am stating documented facts.
The issue is as I summarised in my post in this thread at here
Please read it and take especial note of its final paragraph.
Richard
Gary Pearce says: –
[i]The historical fellows you describe are something else. I trust your intrepid ancestors who validated plate tectonics were the English pair – I’ve forgotten their names, but I don’t recall they gave any kudos to Alfred Wegener – who was vilified for decades and died before Plate Tectonics came on the scene. I had always felt that changing the name from the beautiful poetry of “continental drift” to the dental mechanics-type Plate Tectonics was to distance themselves from the one who could not have failed to inspire their work. This is even worse than the editorial chicanery in the present discussion.[/i]
Gary, the people I refer to are not “historical fellows”. My late wife worked as a post graduate bacteriologist with Andy Anderson at the Central Public Health Labortatory in Colindale in the early 1960’s. Anderson was a driven man who demanded quite unreasonable efforts from his staff. Many times I had to reconstruct her psyche from his demands. He was a quite unreasonable and psychologically driven man; he was despisedby the conventional thinkers , but he was right.
My daughter worked as a PhD Geophysics student with Dan McKenzie at Cambridge when continental drift was being transformed into plate techtonics. I’m afraid I don’t relate to the “poetry” of continental drift, which was an interesting conjecture with not much evidential support. To my mind plate techtonics is a quite wonderful and indeed magnificently poetic example of science at its very best.
Nobody, least of all Dan McKenzie, disrespected Alfred Wengener, but plate technonics is not at all the same as continental drift.
I am the lat person in the world to disrespect dreamers.
With respect, even if you are a dreamer!
Tantalus
Nothing like the BS that is being perpetrated in this Blog to turn one right off following it. Has WUWT become a ‘reincarnation’ of SkS ?
Tantalus says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Gary Pearce says: –
Fair enough, I apologize for the tone and the carelessness of my remarks (I’m bundled up with the flu and a bit cranky). Interestingly my daughter is a PhD Geophysicist, too who did post doc with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and with Scripps. She’s just begun teaching at university in Bogota.
I’m a geologist and engineer, still working in mining consulting 10 or more years after normal retirement. I don’t know what else I’d rather do.
Cheers,
Gary
@ur momisugly richardscourtney:
Yes, I could read it, thanks. Just to make sure we’re being clear: my first comment noted that Copernicus is “possibly innocent.” And I would stand by that and say that they acted within reason – but on the harsh end of reasonable courses.
Other reasonable courses were open: demanding retractions, or demanding changes going forward.
So why the harshness? Maybe they felt cornered. Or maybe, they were pressured to make an example. Or maybe, they felt that the only honorable course was to jettison the journal.
Some of those motives are innocent, some not.
Here’s the point: criticizing or questioning Copernicus does not imply defending PRP.
A great deal of classical physics was curve fitting, and a lot of it was found to be incomplete. Proportionality constants were found to actually be functions dependent on one of the variables, and simplifying assumptions were found to rarely hold true in intensive experimentation, yet these first approximations became the foundations of the more complex future. That being said, we still found physical meanings for each of these proportionality constants that could be measured somewhat independently. That is how we determined that they were not necessarily constants all the time and that there was more to the story. If these “planetary influence” theories can show that their curve fitting is in direct proportion to some physically measurable characteristic of each body’s orbit and mass, and that the gravity effect with some complex interaction with solar tidal forces, then maybe I’ll look at them. Mr. Fourier showed quite distinctly that any signal can be reproduced with an infinite sum of harmonic components, and reasonably reproduced with significantly fewer components, so “curve fitting” to random sines and cosines is probably not helpful – unless you want to make a computer game.
@ur momisugly The Popous Git.
Thanks for that. I must say, though, that transforming your home into a palace doesn’t sound very minimalist to me.