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.
I’m hung up on the quantitative analytical methods I learned in PSSC physics a half century ago . And , being an APL programmer , I want to quantitatively understand the simplest phenomena first .
Before getting into more esoteric and speculative orbital effects , I’d like to see it demonstrated that we can detect the most most obvious and calculable .
Our distance from the sun varies from about 1.4709807e11 meters at perihelion which we just passed to about 1.520977e11 meters at aphelion , a variation of about 3.4% . Given that the temperature of a radiantly heated ball is inversely proportional to the square root of it’s distance from the source , this implies a variation in temperature from peri- to ap-helion of about 1.7% , substantially larger than the approximately 0.3% variation we have seen since the invention of the steam engine . Given that we know both the phase and the magnitude of this effect , surely we should be able to find it in the data if we can find anything . In fact , it is such classically understood factor , that an estimate of the effect of our north-south hemispheric surface spectrum asymmetry ought to be extractable by subtracting it from the data .
That’s the limit of my knowledge of our orbital parameters . Back in the early days of APL , I know a rather thorough orbital model “planetarium” was constructed . Certainly any “paleo” scale model must include with such mechanics .
Apparently the effect of the precession of the perihelion versus our hemispheric asymmetry is well known . Does anyone have a web accessible references to a quantitative analysis ?
RC Saumarez says:
January 25, 2014 at 1:04 pm
Again, Richard, as I have said many times, a quotation of what I said that you object to would make your objections clear.
I don’t recall impugning your honesty, for example. Perhaps I did, but I don’t have a clue what you are referring to. This is why I have requested ad nauseum that you pull your politeness out of wherever you’ve hidden it and QUOTE MY WORDS that you object to.
Of course, you’re a professional scientist, and obviously consider yourself too far above my lowly station to pay any attention to a polite request that you stop whining and explain what has you upset …
The problems is that when you don’t provide a single quotation, link, or any way to tell what it is I’ve done that has your blood pressure spiking, well, that means you’re just flinging verbal feces around. And since if you look around you, you’ll see that there is no one is there in the room but you, well, you’re the only who ends up smelling fragrant … but despite that, it’s no fun on this side.
Seriously, RC, since you first appeared on my threads you’ve said over and over that I’m a fool doing nothing but making mistakes … but somehow, it never seems to occur to you to identify the mistakes you claim I’m making. Instead, we are treated to an endless stream of unsupported nasty attacks like the one I quote above.
Truly, my friend, your obsessive stalking of me is creepy. How about you go somewhere that your genius will be appreciated? It’s not going to happen here, from all appearances.
Because you’ve burnt your bridges with me. Your endless regurgitation of a nasty farrago of insults of the kind I’ve quoted above, despite my repeated requests that you actually identify the problems you claim to see, has proven to me that you have no interest in either teaching or learning anything, and that you are just a spoiler trying to make trouble.
Richard, the people who think I’m a jerk already think I’m a jerk. When you fly off the handle and start spewing insults like the primal nastiness quoted above, do you think that will convince other people that I’m a jerk … or will it convince them that you are?
w.
The Pompous Git wrote –
“Indeed! And many thanks for the link to Dr John Wallis’s excellent essay. I was not previously aware of it. ”
That letter of Wallis written in 1666 concerning the tides is instructive for many reasons yet within a decade all that good work was lost due to a series of events which displaced that back and forth reasoning between analogies at a human level and experiences on a large terrestrial or astronomical scale.
What really began modeling as we know it today was the emergence of fairly accurate watches and in 1677 John Flamsteed announced to the world that he had proved the planet’s rotation was constant using a foreground reference and the daily return of a star in stellar circumpolar motion –
” Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:-
… our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical…”
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Longitude2.html
It is so difficult to quantify just how bad that conclusion is other than to bring the whole thing up to date and show its relevance to our era and what is going on presently.In our times they announce that watches are now so accurate that they no longer rely on the Earth’s daily motion yet they have altered the story to a new fiction by jettisoning the ‘solar vs sidereal’ scaffolding on which Flamsteed based his conclusion. They have created a non cyclical astronomical framework and conjured a conclusion out of thin air thereby totally ignoring the ‘solar vs sidereal’ ideology they held up to then –
“At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours,” says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA Goddard. “In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased by about 2.5 milliseconds.” NASA
I see a lot of ‘curve fitting’ terminology attached to this thread however what it really represents is fiction creation on an industrial scale and this has been going on for a number of centuries with the narrative becoming more and more unstable with time. In this respect the call for simplicity is also a call for some sanity and this does not allow for mob activity on either side of this mess.we inherited.
hunter says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Hunter, Dr. Roy publicly and falsely accused me of plagiarism, of not crediting Ramanathan for his ideas. It was totally bogus, and I was able to find and cite where I had indeed credited him … it’s all in the public record, fortunately.
I’m sorry my response didn’t meet the Hunter standard for how to respond when you get publicly traduced, accused of the lowest of scientific sins, plagiarism. Perhaps you are uniquely qualified to advise me on this because you’ve been in that situation … or just perhaps it’s never happened to you, and you’re just making things up and accusing me of not meeting your impossible standards.
Maybe you don’t get upset when you are publicly and falsely accused like that … and maybe you’re just posing. In any case, I don’t care, Hunter. I just want you to know that when I’m falsely accused by someone, sorry, but I’m not going to rub that person’s stomach and blow in his ear, even if that is the approved Hunter method.
So get off my case, please. From my perspective, the problem is not that I’m too upset. It is that you all are not anywhere near upset enough. You’re willing to just roll over and play dead, and not call out bad science, bad peer review, and bad editing.
How about we do it this way. Rather than you agreeing with Tantalus and him agreeing with someone else, how about you just all decide that I’m a goner with no change of redemption and just STFU? I’m not gonna change, Hunter, you’re on a hopeless quest, and this endless whining about how I’m eeevil for calling for scientific transparency because YOU DON’T LIKE THE WAY I PHRASED IT! It was too … what … unfriendly? I’m dealing with Nicola Scafetta, who does nothing but abuse me, Tallbloke who has banned me from his site, Jelbring who just spews endless accusations … and I’m the bad guy here? Are you aware of the ceaseless accusations from those guys towards me? There’s no end to it … and I’m the bad guy?
Gotta tell you, “hunter” or whatever your name might be, I’m awful tired of a bunch of random anonymous internet popups like you, folks who don’t have the balls to sign their own name to their own words, wanting to lecture me on ethical behavior. You won’t even stand behind your claims, and you think you have the high ground to lecture me? Sorry, talk to the hand, because the head don’t listen to advice on morality from people too cowardly to sign their own comments.
w.
Streetcred says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:01 pm
If you think something is wrong, let us know what it is. Because just smearing your excrement on the walls of your cage as you do above to indicate your displeasure goes nowhere. What EXACTLY did I say that has you upset?
w.
Willis old buddy, your wheels are falling off. I never would expect you to say anything along the lines of “Because just smearing your excrement on the walls of your cage”. Not sure what put the bug up your arse, but I think your better than stuping to this level of venom. I have thoroughly enjoyed your stories and your analysis, but you are really going off track lately. Drop the whole Tallbloke saga and move on, or move back, back to where you were an enjoyble read. I have no arguement with your analysies, or facts, but your overall tone is somewhat demeaning…surely I don’t need to give you examples of what I’m saying.
manny says:
January 25, 2014 at 6:33 am
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.
++++++++++++++++++
Well Manny, I was thinking of saying pretty much the same thing. I work on the cutting edge of something and there is precious little to go on except curves for data measurements. Nearly every advance comes from mentally fitting the curves and wiggles into an emerging framework. Details will follow when we get the causes and effects separated. Suggestions that cutting edge work that provides new and very useful understandings is Not Science i reject out of hand. “Wiggle matching” my foot!
Thanks to the contributors for examples from engineering and history that started with wiggly data.
I was pleased to ‘meet’ someone who assisted Landscheidt get published. Afterward he too was criticised for publishing a theory that did not have a complete, verified physical explanation for it. that is plainly a ridiculous demand.
Another comment says basically a paper not peer reviewed is bunk. That statement is bunk. I understand that the ordinary person in the street thinks ‘peer review’ means ‘truth’ and ‘endorsed’ because or the way climate scientists have turned it into a bragging right (that their paper is peer reviewed therefore correct).
A publication in a journal is part of a conversation. It is not a PhD thesis that has to defend something new. I have had a mean-spirited review for a hostile reviewer and I do not have to ‘keep them happy’. They can piss off and I will ask for someone else who understands what i am talking about or is not an architect of the thing I am taking down. I have reviewed lots of papers and I do not have to sign off on the intent or the conclusions to approve it. There is far too much faith and expectations placed on this rather hum drum activity of cleaning up papers or logic or pointing out a significant question has been raised and not answered. In one such case the authors elected to delete the section that allowed the question to be inferred rather than face it because it gutted their conclusions. The Editor published the paper, reviewed. Someone can write another coming to a different conclusion.
Scientists are not priests reciting canonical texts dripping with Truth. They just write what they think at the time.
Willis is certainly capable of being an imperious ass, and he has been flogging the Copernicus team to the extent of being a one-man pile on, but to he credit he did look beyond the stain of scandal [and] flagrant pall review to examine the science, and that he rightfully found lacking. It isn’t necessary to place heads on pike poles – the science speaks for itself and it’s time to move on as gentlemen do. This seems to be another blood match for the W and that further erodes respect for him. I don’t even read his stories with any regularity but I do count the blue panels among the comments to his stories, and if I see more than four I’ll follow the scent because I do love a good train wreck.
Now I don’t care about the pal review system no matter who practices it. I have no respect whatsoever for the peer review system as practiced by climate bunk buddies so when I saw the crime unfold in this topic I yawned. I’m a shunning crew of one, and for my purposes that is enough. Peer review is old school fraud intended to create activity in the exchange of the coin of the realm. The idea that a peer reviewed and paywalled paper does not include adequate information to reproduce the science is the stake in the heart of the journals that practice the charade.
But I care deeply about the science and so too does the W and for that I thank him for his deconstruction of this tabloid-class story and hope he moves his sometimes imperious ass on to more meaningful things soon.
Argh – pharking live speel checker will be the death of the language!
Regarding the book “Minimalism, the new philosophy” by Dr William S Hatcher, I found the same text in a new cover with the title, Minimalism: A Bridge between Classical Philosophy and the Baha’i Revelation” at http://www.amazon.ca/Minimalism-between-Classical-Philosophy-Revelation/dp/9889745127
It is a bit too mathematical for a lot of people but in a nutshell Hatcher divides all effects into two possible sets: those that are caused and those that are uncaused. He argues that all effects in the ’caused’ set are caused by something which is itself an effect of a prior cause, leading ultimately back to a single, causeless effect – the first effect, for example a Big Bang. By demanding logically a cause for this initial effect that produces the universe as we see it means that the cause of this primal effect must be located outside the system, ie outside the universe. Whatever it was is literally unknowable.
The point about ‘a previous universe’ does not address the point about the initial effect: the sudden existence of first universe.
We are surrounded by unexplained effects. Anyone who can correctly predict, by wiggle matching or Excel model the beginning of a D-O event to within a year has my respect. I want to read about it in a journal and I don’t give a hoot whose A-frigging-GW model it contradicts. I quite frankly don’t care who peer reviews it as long as the language is comprehensible and the method clear. I want to hear from the author, not the reviewers. Let’s let the innovators constrain a few of the causes of what affects the climate.
manny says:
January 25, 2014 at 6:33 am
When did I ever say that a mathematical model that predicts the future is NOT useful? I’m not clear what your point is here, Manny.
As to the tide tables, since at one point in my life I was producing tide tables for the Solomon Islands, I can say that people do indeed understand them …
w.
Steve says:
January 25, 2014 at 10:26 pm
I don’t get it, Steve old buddy. People come on here and abuse me as hard as they can, no terms are too strong. I’ve taken endless harassment in the last few days, I’ve been accused of everything but mopery on the skyways … and you haven’t said a word about that. Not one damn word from my old buddy Steve.
So then, I object strongly to anonymous jerkwagons making scurrilous uncited false accusations about me … and you pop up to tell me I’m the bad guy for calling them out. Still not one single word against the scurvedogs making the false accusations from my old buddy Steve, though …
You seem to want to jump in with both feet. OK, old buddy, so how about you jump on the charming folks making the slimy accusations for a while, and just leave me alone for a while, instead of jumping in on their side? Isn’t that what a buddy would do?
w.
We must be winning the AGW debate / war… we’re starting to attack our own…
Willis, I generally like your articles. I also have to “second the notion” that the overall tone of articles since the PRP event has been negative and sometimes borderline nasty. To quote your actual words would require large chunks of the relevant articles (as “tone” is a distributed thing) and frankly, not add much “evidence”. (Since “tone” is also largely in how the responder responds. Note the ongoing trouble folks have ‘hearing’ sarcasm without a /sarc tag… and one man’s ‘simple fact’ is another man’s ’emotional attack’… Is observing someone doing a stupid thing a clinical observation? Is saying “He did the stupid thing.” an attack? Well… it depends…)
So no, no quotes from me. But just the observation that the negativity of attacks is wearing thin. Where I used to have a spike of joy at seeing your name on an article and relished the human experience story or the clear reasoning; now I find a pang of “Will it be more attack gak?’ (Gak being my ‘inner word’ for things that make my throat tighten and stomach start to heave…)
No, I do not expect you to take responsibility for my feelings. I’m the only one who can do that. (Everyone chooses and creates their own feelings, IMHO.) But I can be a “witness” to them and note that others have the same. I just don’t like watching one person attack another. I think this article would have been improved without the reach back to the PRP annoyance.
Oh, and on a more humorous note: How dare you not credit me with the dozens of times I’ve posted links to the article that this posting is about! (ref. a prior comment on another thread 😉
Starting in 2011 in this article:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
and continuing even this week:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/the-moons-orbit-is-wrong-it-can-change-a-lot-and-tides-will-too/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/a-remarkable-lunar-paper-and-numbers-on-major-standstill/
The reality is that I’m just glad to seeing it get some more visibility. Is it right? I don’t know either; but I lean toward “yes”. Though as I’ve said before, many things all arrive together so you can’t sort them out via correlation. It might be a minor player. Only time and math will tell.
E. M Smith et al,
Criticisms of Willis’s tone are misplaced. Willis is standing up clearly and taking a stand for scientific integrity, ethics, and logic. Given the continuing defense of the indefensible, this has turned into a Sisyphean game of whack-a-mole. This is not a live and let live situation. The PRiPpers have embarrassed the CAGW skeptic community and given almost unlimited ammunition to the Pro-CAGW camp.
This must be dealt with, clearly, loudly, and directly.
I have great admiration for Willis being willing to put in the time to dissect these embarrassments. His efforts are of direct benefit to us and the world. If he doesn’t speak the insipid language of diplomacy and sweetness, so much the better.
It is said that the difference between a New Yorker and a San Franciscan is that when a New Yorker says #%W^ you, he is really saying “Hello” and when a San Franciscan says Hello he is really saying #%W^ you. I live in San Francisco, but I prefer New Yorkers.
E.M.Smith says:
January 26, 2014 at 2:03 am
“We must be winning the AGW debate / war… we’re starting to attack our own…”
It’s sad, but I think I’m agreeing with you. In the past Willis has done some truly excellent work e.g. on extinctions. But something seems to have changed.
Willis emphasises the importance of science, and I certainly agree. But, sadly, he gives the impression that anyone who disagrees with him is not being scientific. So, how good was his science in his piece about the correlation between sunspots and the rate of sea level rise?
I’ve read the paper. It’s not perfect, but I would say it’s considerably better than many other papers analysed at WUWT e.g. MBH98 and Mann 2008 (upside-down Mann), the Parmesan butterfly extinction paper and many others.
Willis was absolutely right on one issue: the author gave R values for some other graphs, but not for the sunspot – sea level graph. It’s highly suspicious, and it’s possible the author did calculate the R , found a low value and so did not publish it. If so, it’s disgraceful.
Basically, Willis looked at the graph, noted some problems (e.g. the lack of correlation right at the start of the graph), did the R2 calculation and found a low value. And that was it, end of story. Was that good science?
No, not even close.
There is clearly an apparent dramatic correlation between sunspots and sea level rise (but whether it’s real and provides evidence of causation is what the debate’s about). Don’t take my word for it, listen to Steve McIntyre:
“The maxima and minima of the solar cycles seem to match the fluctuations in sea level rise rather uncannily. While the resemblance is impressionistic (I don’t have a digital version of Holgate’s series), offhand, I can’t think of any two climate series with better decadal matching. I think that this resemblance is pretty obvious. ”
Note:in the paper under discussion the authors used different SLR data, but the correlation is basically the same.
I think this debate is partly philosophical: do you believe the evidence of your eyes or do you rely entirely on mathematical analysis?
I would suggest the best answer is both – and be sceptical of both at the same time.
I also suggest that science has several important parts: observation, common sense and analysis.
I’m sure we can all agree that observation is of paramount importance and has been for many centuries.
But many scientific discoveries depended more on observation and common sense than on analysis. Think of Galileo peering through his telescope at Jupiter. His observation that it was accompanied by four moons was based on common sense and did not depend on any kind of mathematical analysis. Of course, analysis became increasingly important with the passing centuries, and rightly so e.g. Newton’s law of gravitation.
So, I believe that common sense and analysis are both important in science. If they arrive at completely different conclusions, then the message is clear: the investigator needs to dig deeper.
In Willis’ account, common sense and analysis give completely different conclusions. To be brutally frank: if anyone who has genuinely looked at the graph states that there is no sign of correlation then I don’t think we live on the same planet. Steve M made it very clear.
So: we need to dig deeper in order to bring common sense/observation and analysis into agreement.
I’ve made a start. First, I’ve found that the Internet is littered with warnings about improper use of the R2 method.
A good example:
“Again, the r2 value doesn’t tell us that the regression model fits the data well. This is the most common misuse of the r2 value! When you are reading the literature in your research area, pay close attention to how others interpret r2. I am confident that you will find some authors misinterpreting the r2 value in this way. And, when you are analyzing your own data make sure you plot the data — 99 times out of a 100, the plot will tell more of the story than a simple summary measure like r or r2 ever could.”
https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat501/node/32
Here the author emphasises the importance of plotting the data and eyeballing it.
Steve M does the same: he often describes how, when looking at a new paper, he simply plots the input proxy data and eyeballs it. In the case of the hockeystick, many of the proxies show strong MWP and LIA tendencies, but after Mann had “analysed” this data the MWP and LIA had somehow gone missing. After McIntyre and McKitrick did their research we now know exactly what was wrong with Mann’s analysis.
It also appears that R2 is of no use unless it is a linear relationship. If the relationship between sunspots and SLR is complex and non linear then it’s likely that R2 will fail completely. R2 is also very simplistic. It will almost certainly fail to spot correlations between specific features, of which there are many in this graph. In contrast, the human eye is excellent at spotting correlations between specific features as opposed to an overall trend.
So, it looks like dismissing any causal relationship between sunspots and SLR just on the basis of the R2 calculation is deeply flawed.
A low R2 suggests that very likely the apparent correlation was caused purely by chance. To me that seems very unlikely – how many times would you have to plot random red noise before it even showed a distinct cyclical form, let alone with the right period? My guess is that you’d need tens of thousands of random plots before you obtained one even remotely as good as the plot under discussion. But that’s just a guess.
Fortunately, there’s a standard method that’s often used to assess correlation or causality: Monte Carlo plots. Simply generate thousands of random plots and assess what proportion had a similar apparent correlation. I would strongly suggest that Willis does this and reports his findings. I’ll probably try it too.
I also don’t think it to be good practice to base this kind of analysis on scanned data. Getting sunspot data should be easy, but is the Holgate data available? If not, it should be.
Fortunately the raw sea level data is available at PSMSL
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/150.rlrdata
There is an obvious problem right at the beginning of the plot. Holgate shows the nine plots:
http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf
Right at the start of the graph the values are all over the place: Auckland has a strong falling trend while Honolulu has a strong rising trend. Clearly, they can’t both be indicating a global trend. In his paper Shaviv noted that there could be problems with the earliest part of the SRL records.
There are some other problems in correlation as noted by Willis. But it’s certainly possible there are problems with the data and the relationship between sunspots and SLR (if real) is almost certain to be complex. This isn’t quantum mechanics, it’s climate science, where every constant is a variable and everything is a function of everything else.
So: was Willis right to completely dismiss any causal relationship between sunspots and SLR?
No, absolutely not. He placed too much reliance on a possibly unsuitable analysis tool and ignored the evidence of his eyes. That’s not good science.
But I think the relationship, although it’s actually quite a likely one in view of a lot of research (particularly Svensmark, but much else besides) is still unproven.
To prove that the graph was probably due to random chance, show me the evidence. Show me the Monte Carlo plots.
Chris
tallbloke says:
“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…”
From your paper:
“..the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. It is bounded on either side by the period of five Jupiter Neptune synods (63.9 yr), and five Jupiter–Uranus synods (69.05 yr).”
Which you lifted straight from my work and have given me no credit for it, and without explaining the role of Saturn which goes from one square to the opposite square at five synods, the five Jupiter–Uranus synods on their own mean nothing.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/ian-wilson-the-vej-tidal-torquing-model-can-explain-many-of-the-long-term-changes-in-the-level-of-solar-activity-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57568
Jeff Cagle:
I am responding to your post at January 25, 2014 at 5:48 pm to say that I agree with your statement saying
Yes, indeed so.
But some people are complaining that Copernicus closed PRP in defence of the IPCC and/or to stifle scientific publication of a subject on which PRP had commissioned a Special Edition. On face value these complaints are ridiculous. Importantly, despite your suggested alternatives, I do not see any viable business alternative which was available to Copernicus in the situation with which they were presented. Please note that the important word is ‘viable’.
Richard
Hi Willis.
I’m starting to write my rebuttal to your attack on Professor Jan-Erik Solheim. I looked at your post again to find a link to the data you generated by digitising the plot of Solar Activity vs Holgate’s Sea Level curve, but to my astonishment, it appears you didn’t supply the dataset as supplementary information in your post.
Please could you upload and link it so I can replicate your R^2 findings.
Many thanks
Richard Coutney.
See the first and primary reason given by Copernicus on the front page of PRP before they had second thoughts and altered it.
http://www.webcitation.org/6Mhpi0uiZ
We followed similar peer review procedure to other journals publishing special editions. I’ll publish proof of this if you like. Some others won’t like the outcome though. I’ll make it clear in the post who goaded me into it with extensive quotes of your hypocrisy.
Charles the Moderator said:
The take-away from this is this blog practices pal moderation (evidence abounds, of course, but this statement of yours codifies policy as practiced). Pals such as the W can be as nasty to the readership as they wish if they are on message. I wonder if that is what you meant to convey. The science certainly doesn’t require it.
Tallbloke – I presume you know Courtney sits on the editorial board of the journal that published Willis’ thunderstorm paper and which he likes to wave as evidence of his creds in the world of peer reviewed science. That doesn’t stand as proof of pal review regards his paper and I make no accusation, but it looks bad enough from an appearance perspective that I can’t be convinced by either of them that it can’t have taken place. That is the down side of even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The best thing to do in a ‘debate’ with Willis is to let him wash over you in full flood and just politely return to the issue in hand.
Sometimes he gets the point, sometimes not, but others can judge.
Personally, I think he does have a couple of mental blocks when it comes to conduction and convection within non-radiative gases but the internet never forgets so if one does have a good point which Willis doesn’t accept then whatever the power of his invective it is there forever for all to see.
Mind you, it would be nice if he were more restrained 🙂
Poor dp, Charles doesn’t bow down to you and say what you’re demanding to hear, so of course!, the fix is in.
Some folks have an insane jealousy of Willis, want to knock him down a few pegs but are out of their depth and typically end up making out with the floor by the end.
Other folks seem to view themselves as the thought and manners police. They order Willis to do this and do that, when he doesn’t comply we get various forms of hissy fits from the “angels”
The last time I checked, no one is ever forced to read anything written by Willis.
@DP:
No, not “pal moderation”. At least 2 “pairs” of moderators are at odds with each other on different points (including this one). To their great merit, the moderators check their opinions of things at the door and moderate mostly on “tone” of a comment. Thus my comment about “tone” being a bit edgy. It is that ‘out of character’ aspect that caught my eye. There is no moderation based on “what you think”, but the comment is supposed to stay polite and professional (as much as possible, and with leeway to letting a discussion develop rather than stifle on the first snarl).
So what any one moderator tends to think is balanced by what some other moderator tends to think. Most of the time. As near as I can tell, Anthony picks moderators from a broad pool, and for exactly that reason. Some hard core skeptics, and some “lukewarmers”. Some who give a bit of leeway to ‘the sun did it’, and some staunchly against. Some… but you get the idea.
Also note that “moderation” is far less frequent now. I remember “in the old days” ALL comments went to moderation. Somewhere along the line a ‘white list’ system started and now most comments bypass all moderation. Faster, but less likely to catch a “colorful” remark before it hits the screen.
At any rate, that’s my opinion of moderation here; having observed if for many years. (Gosh… just realized it’s a bit over 1/2 decade now… measuring in ‘decades’, even fractional ones, is one of my touchstones for when things are ‘a long time’ 😉
@Charles The Moderator:
So I’m the Poster Child for all of us made a bit squeamish by the shift away from ‘polite and professional, avoid personal attacks’ more toward emotion and ‘to the person’? OK, fine with me. I tried to present my feelings in a reasonably polite way, with due language of “diplomacy and sweetness”; but then you don’t prefer that… Sorry, I’m going to disappoint then, as I will not indulge the antithesis… And being from neither San Francisco nor New York, but a farm town in the country, when I say “Hello”, I mean “Hello”. I rarely say “#%W^ you”, as “them’s fight’n words” and where I grew up you needed to be ready to duck a swing, a knife, or worse. Mostly I just give a polite flat look, and find a way to head for the exit while keeping an eye out. But if it really needs it, then that’s what I’ll say. In short, what I say means exactly the surface meaning. Though politely most of the time.
Now your entry to the ‘fray’ is interesting. I’ll be “keeping an eye out” and heading for the exit after this, as I’ve said my piece. But you have given an official stamp of approval to vilification.
The ends justified the means, in what you said. Because in your opinion some skeptics doing what the Warmers do all the time (self and pal review) is somehow more evil and causes us great damage but them not at all. I can not agree with that.
It is part of my “be the mirror” philosophy. ALL sides get the same ground rules all the time. Someone steals from me, they give me permission to steal my item back. Someone pulls a knife on me, they give me permission to use a knife. Someone is rude to me, they ask rudeness in return. I have tried many times in my life to live the assymetrical rule set (“turn the other cheek”) and it just gets you two busted chops. It is a standard ploy of many authoritarian systems to have asymetrical rules; a “heads they win tails you lose”. The only reasonble response is to refuse to play that game. (Nothing like finding a “I get this” in a contract and changing all the “I”s to “We”… suddenly “we both get this” causes the other party to realize they can not game you. Done it many a time. It works. Well.)
So we come at this from very different premisses. You, that we must take the moral high ground and be more impeccable then they. Me, that we are the weaker player so simply must take the rules as given by our opponent and respond in kind. “Be the Mirror”. One does not follow rules of the Boxing Federation in a back ally. Does that mean it is wrong for me (and those like me) to be bothered by a negative tone, and an attack ‘to the person’? I hope not, as that means you are telling me what it is permissable for me to feel…
So, enough of this. It’s a nice warm day in Florida, and I’ve got a chicken to BBQ. Willis has heard my feedback. It can help, or be ignored; but nothing I can do can shift that outcome.
Please do note: I am not saying it is wrong for Willis to feel as he does, or to believe the behaviour of others was wrong. Just as I am not saying it is wrong for you to feel as you do or believe that great damage was done or that the folks who did the ‘pal review’ did a bad thing. I’m just saying there is a polite way to say that which does not carry angre and is not an attack or ‘to the person’. Then again, I’m not that fond of New York Style…
@chris Wright:
Well said.
BTW, Willis has his own form of “Be the Mirror”. He responds to negative tone with slightly stronger negative tone (but nearly the same). You see that in things like the reflection of the word “buddy” above. I find it charming to watch as it is a technique I frequently use. As we have some interesting life parallels, I know he knows how handy it can be. Blending with many cultures around you is strongly helped by that tendency. So not knocking that at all.
But there are times when being a 1/2 silvered mirror is better. Reflect some, but not all, of the emergy. Act to dampen strong emotions, not amplify them. The web is one of those places. Folks regularly add loads of emotion that are not in the words of the writer. It takes some extra care to prevent that. It’ hard to do, and often fails. Oh Well…
What’s changed? IMHO it is just that Willis has posted a lot more articles. His daily “intake” of the load of insult and flack (as comes on ALL articles) will have risen a lot. It is very hard to avoid being defensive when that level exceeds the individual tollerance. At some point, the total “incomming” just overwhelms. I had a couple of articles posted here, and found the effort of “defending” them significant and to some extent irritating. I’d not want to be carrying the load that Willis is carrying. I’m pretty sure I’d be even more “hair trigger” in the responses and even more “reflecting” of the negativity. I had several folks tell me some article or other of mine ought to be posted here, and my response was just that Anthony had carte blanch to repost any of my stuff. The reality, too, was that I also didn’t want to promote it and have another round of insults to deal with.
In short, I think of Willis as a “friend at a distance” with a lot of shared life path and attitudes, and my comments were more in the way of a friend saying “Have a cool one and come at it later” than any kind of criticism or attack. (At least, I hope it came across that way…)
@tallbloke:
Take a look at:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/a-remarkable-lunar-paper-and-numbers-on-major-standstill/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/the-moons-orbit-is-wrong-it-can-change-a-lot-and-tides-will-too/
It is a brief survey of a couple of places that the lunar orbit is not as predicted. This ties in with the “Supertides” posting by Clive. IMHO, this gives a mechanism for planets moving the sun, that then moves the lunar orbit, which at key extreme points, moves the oceans and tides in strong ways. That, then, shifts the weather. (And, incidentally, would explain things like New Zealand sea level trend being different from Hawaii… the “Sea Level” changes from place to place over the planet based on where the moon goes most…)
I don’t have a lot of answers in them, but it does point at some interesting data to ponder. And some unexpected lunar aspects.
E.M.
Many thanks, I’ll read your posts and give you some feedback. I’ve been finding some interesting links between Lunar motion and Jupiter which haven’t been explained before. There are named librations which have no underlying theory. In 2014!
Pointman
Actually Willis, I didn’t think you needed my help as I thought your explanation of the facts pretty much won the argument. It’s the tone I’m objecting to, and quite simply what used to be a good objective read is now gone off to some other place I’m not familiar with.
As a person who writes as much as you do, certainly you have to expect your going to get darts thrown your way, and at least in my view, you seemed to have some very good arguments on your side. I actually thought you carried the argument, and didn’t see any need for a somewhat defensive and sarcastic tone. A return dart or too is fine, but letting this degenerate into the “Wack-a-Mole” slug fest, is again, beneath you.
Can I understand your being a little peaved at some of the attacks, Yes I can. Can I understand it getting the better of you, no, not really…I am actually surprised. My objection here is watching a single contentious thread, spread it’s way into other threads, so that in effect, that one thread is starting to affect the tone of all subsequent threads. I don’t think that”s a good thing.
I visit this site often for my late night read on the sciences..thought provoking and relaxing, especially when interspersed with your stories of land and sea. The last few days have been more like watching pulp fiction before nodding off…not very conducive to a good nights sleep.
I’m a big believer in “This too shall Pass”