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.
That is actually taken out of context for why the IPCC line was quoted. The publishers were told that the journal would not be used by climate skeptics to focus on climate related issues. Instead that is exactly what PRP concluded in their special edition. The IPCC line Copernicus quoted was used as an example of why this agreement was not upheld. My firm belief is that if PRP wanted to have a focus on climate related issues than you need to make that clear when you setup the journal.
I was told the publishing of the names was because they were concerned about a conflict of interest, in which case they should not have been reviewing those papers. Intent at this point doesn’t matter because the perception will always be of pal-review. If you want your work to be taken seriously you cannot fall into these traps and must be much more careful.
It is well worth reading Nils-Axel Morner’s account.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/nils-axel-morner-an-unbelievable-decision/
An Unbelievable Decision
Nils-Axel MÖRNER
Handling editor of the Special Issue of PRP
Nils-Axel Mörner, born 1938, is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He was also president of the International Union for Quaternary Research Commission on Neotectonics. He has added around 100 peer reviewed papers to his career total of around 500 papers since he retired in 2005.
Here is the actual conclusion that was cited as the reason for cancellation:
Implication 2
Several papers have addressed the question about the evolu-
tion of climate during the 21st century. Obviously, we are on
our way into a new grand solar minimum. This sheds serious
doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warm-
ing as claimed by the IPCC project.
Keep in mind that Prediction and Replication, not Peer Review, establishes truth in science. If it turns out that we are headed for a solar minimum then this magazine cancellation will be cited in history books as yet another example of the long history of suppression of new ideas by the established scientific community of the day, along with examples such a continental drift, milankovitch cycles, and heliocentric solar system.
Some quotes from Max Planck
“New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.”
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
That account does not address any of the actual charges.
An interesting observation from: The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause
of rapid climate change
“A cause for such greater regularity in tidal forcing might be
resonances of other bodies of the solar system, especially the
outer planets. We are struck by the close correspondence of the
average period of the 180-year tidal cycle of 179.5 years (1/10 of
that of the 1,800-year cycle) and the period of the sun’s rotation
about the center of mass of the solar system of 179.2 years, the
latter a manifestation of planetary resonances (13).”
The near integer resonance in the solar system is not a product of chance. This provides a means to predict the future of chaotic systems that is currently not possible from first principles.