People send me stuff.
Tonight I got an email that contained a link to a paper that takes on the wonky claims related to barycentrism and Earth’s climate, specifically as it relates to Nicola Scafetta’s 2010 and 2012 papers. This new paper taking on the Scafetta claims will be published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, April 2014. The author is Sverre Holm Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway.
Abstract, some graphs, and discussion/conclusion, along with a link to the paper follows.
Abstract
It has recently been claimed that there is significant coherence between the spectral peaks of the global temperature series over the last 160 years and those of the speed of the solar center of mass at periods of 10-10.5, 20-21, 30 and 60-62 years. Here it is shown that these claims are based on a comparison between spectral peaks in spectral estimates that assume that the global temperature data contains time-invariant spectral lines. However, time–frequency analysis using both windowed periodograms and the maximum entropy method shows that this is not the case. An estimate of the magnitude squared coherence shows instead that under certain conditions only coherence at a period of 15-17 years can be found in the data. As this result builds on a low number of independent averages and also is unwarranted from any physical model it is doubtful whether it is significant.
…
Discussion and Conclusion
Scafetta (2010) claimed the global temperature series for the last 160 years to have
spectral lines at 21, 30 and 62 years. Time–frequency analysis shows that the lines are
time-varying (Figs. 1 and 2) and very different from the nearly constant lines in the
time–frequency plot for the speed of the center of mass of the solar system (SCMSS)
(Fig. 3).
The supposed periodicity around 30 years in Scafetta (2010) is not really
present in the climate series at all and could be an artifact due to a combination
of model overfitting and smearing due to the time-invariance assumption which has
been forced on the data. The claimed spectral peaks by Scafetta (2010) for the global
temperature series are therefore not reproducible if proper consideration is taken of
the time-varying nature of the data. The only significant coherence between the cli-
mate series and the sun’s movement that was possible to find was at 15-17 years (Table 1). However, both the low number of independent averages that it builds on as well as the lack of a physical explanation for this coherence, makes us hesitate to claim that it is significant.
===============================================================
Looks to me like “game over” for claims of Barycentrism controlling Earth’s climate. Clearly this was a case of pulling a signal from noise that is just an artifact of the process, much like Mann’s special brand of math that made hockey sticks from just about any red noise input data.
Full pre-print of the paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.1086.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lack of cross-spectral coherence between the putative cause and the observed effect usually spells failure of the former to explain the latter. No doubt Scafetta over-reached in claiming to have found discrete spectral LINES via MEM analysis of HADCRUT3 data. That data, however, is a product of manufacture more than of measurement. And Holm’s use of periodgrams of overly short, windowed SNIPPETS of record leaves much to be desired vis a vis the reliability of low-frequency (multidecadal) coherence estimates. Wiener-Khintchine cross-spectral estimates based upon the ENTIRE length of actual measured record would tells us something more definitive. Unfortunately, the satellite record is much too short for that purpose.
By the way,
the first editorial of N.-A. Morner got published on the new PRP journal:
http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.com/?page_id=47
It strongly rebuts Copernicus publisher censorship attitudes.
Those interested in my research can download my latest general review:
The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system, N. Scafetta
Pattern Recogn. Phys., 2, 1-19, 2014
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/1/2014/prp-2-1-2014.pdf
which has been viewed and downloaded about 3500 time since its publication on 15/Jan/2014.
LOL! On one hand Nicola argues that his work is reproducible from the “read my papers” mantra, on the other he argues that Holm didn’t do it right, but he won’t say why or provide any guidance:
Nicola, you are welcome to stand by your correctness, but please just do it somewhere else, like at your new “journal” where you and your friends can review each others papers without any worry of adversarial commentary.
For my part, I’ll wait to see what happens in the real journal. For now, my interest in this amusing sideline of science is done.
He was doing it elsewhere Anthony you came here yourself, deriding his work personally and allowing space for someone else to disagree.
All the man did was show up to defend himself and you intimate he’s not welcome to do it.
You’re the one whose main deal in life is media Anthony.
The scientists you insult and laugh at are the ones whose work you’re not qualified to even peer review much less mock.
REPLY: Well you are entitled to your opinion, and I’m entitled to mine whether you like it or not. At one point I thought his work had merit, but no longer. Like Mann, Scafetta has adopted a “not falsifiable” mentality over the years, culminating right here, so it really doesn’t matter anymore. – Anthony
As we discovered with the so called scientists who started the CO2 craze: those who can’t: blog.
Those who can
aren’t allowed to talk on the formers’ blogs.
That is the way of the media sap.
There is a known 9:1 resonance between the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.858 years) and the period of change of the radius of curvature of the Sun’s path about the solar system barycenter (178.77 years). This resonance was described in detail by Paul D. Jose in his 1965 Astronomical Journal paper,
http://www.giurfa.com/jose.pdf
Jose also tabulated differences between sunspot minima and maxima averaging 178.55 years over a span of more than 343 years. Coincidence? Perhaps, but given the also apparent 3:1 resonance between Earth global temperature and the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn, there would seem to be coincidence upon coincidence here. In any event, the periodic motion of the Sun about the solar system barycenter is very real, as is the Jupiter/Saturn/Sun synodic resonance.
tallbloke says:
March 12, 2014 at 3:21 pm
Especially considering the fact that cyclic variation in solar differential rotation at planetary frequencies has been EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED.
I don’t think so. You may enlighten me. A pertinent link would do. To be valid, more than one planet must be involved as you mention frequenci(es). Of course, combinations of frequencies don’t count either.
@Doug Huffman says:
March 12, 2014 at 4:32 am
Sorry to say but your link ( http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf) >>>Error 404 – Not Found
Is the poste dlink correct?
Thanks.
Anthony Watts says:
March 12, 2014 at 7:39 pm
LOL! On one hand Nicola argues that his work is reproducible from the “read my papers” mantra, on the other he argues that Holm didn’t do it right, but he won’t say why or provide any guidance.
Anthony, what are you saying?
I used method “A” (using a full record analysis) and found a specific result. Holm fully confirmed and fully reproduced my result as he stated above, but proposed a different method “B” (using a short window analysis methodology) and claimed to have found a different result. So, what?
I can tell you that I can fully reproduce Holm’s results quite easily.
However, I already explained you that Holm’s method “B” was not even able to confirm an evident astronomical oscillation, the 60 year cycle, that misleads one of his conclusions. Holm’s method “B” would likely also contradict the lunar origin of the ocean tides, by the way.
However, you jumped to the conclusion and made the decision that Holm is right. Fine!
It is you who must explain us why you think that Holm method “B” is more appropriate than my method “A” in finding the right result.
Let us listen your scientific reasoning.
Anthony,
I agree there is probably very little to barycentric work.
But for you to treat people who have been your friends and who largely agree with you on most issues the way you do on this is ironic.
Saw this on Rog’s blog and will put same note here:
“Rog, you might like to remind people that I have given an explanation for why certain planetary motions do affect the Sun through a previously not considered GR effect on Solar photons. This explanation gives results somewhat similar to barycentre but significantly different. In this case the result is possible to fully understand and make estimates of the amount of the effect. As you know, it is related to the z axis motion of the Sun as that is the only direction in which these GR effect on photons accumulate over time (as Solar rotation largely cancels out other components).
I also expect that the same calculations performed on Earth’s internals will explain the Earth’s magnetic field reversals. Certainly there is a massive energy exchange of the outer planets with 1.1 million year period and this period also shows up in Earth magnetic reversals.”
To give a little more details, Einstein showed that horizontal photons are accelerated (change in direction vector) twice as much as in Newtonian gravity. When this effect is calculated for photons in the Solar core (and they spend 10^4 to 10^7 years there according to various sources … surely it can be known more accurately) there is a significant acceleration of the core towards the massive planets. Most of this acceleration is canceled out over a solar rotation, except for the component in the direction of the solar poles (z direction) and this accumulates for years due to massive planets being above and below solar equator.
The mathematical result bears some resemblance to COM calculation with an extra term depending on how far planet is above or below solar equator. This calculation does work and is a known physics fact, although some physicists are confused about it.
hunter says:
March 12, 2014 at 8:53 pm
Anthony,
I agree there is probably very little to barycentric work.
But for you to treat people who have been your friends and who largely agree with you on most issues the way you do on this is ironic.
************************
My work is complex and based on multiple effects.
There are two possible forces: Gravity and Electromagnetism.
Gravity acts mostly through tidal forces, Electromagnetism through the relative speed movement between the sun and the planets which is approximately described by the barycentric speed of the sun. The two effects are coupled and superimposed.
Those who like Anthony oppose barycentrism are arguing having in mind the gravitational forces alone but they are ignoring the existence of Electromagnetism.
Anthony is making a mess due to his ignorance in physics.
Moreover, many times I told Anthony that when I refer to gravitational forces I am thinking to the tides. My papers on the tides are quite explicit in this but Anthony never got it and misleads himself and the readers of this blog .
REPLY: Well that’s your opinion, and you are welcome to it, even though it is rooted in your own inability to see that the theory, even if true, is inconsequential. As Mosher predicted, you are doing everything but questioning your own work.
@ur momisugly Hunter, I am privy to some things that you are not, and thus that forms part of the basis of my change in opinion. For Nicola’s benefit I’ll leave that issue alone, but please note that while I’m calling Nicola’s paper into question with this post, he’s getting personal, essentially calling me too stupid to understand his work. That’s a difference worth noting. With this new Holm paper, he should be questioning whether his work is correct or not, instead of asserting it is. Per Feynman, always question yourself first as you are the easiest person to fool.
– Anthony
REPLY: Well that’s your opinion, and you are welcome to it, even though it is rooted in your own inability to see that the theory, even if true, is inconsequential. – Anthony
************
Anthony, I miss the logic of your argument. Expand your argument or acknowledge your errors.
Moreover I have not yet listen from you your reaction to the confirmation of my calculations by Holm, a fact that demonstrates the argument by Mosher (that is “Scafetta’s calculations can not be reproduced”) repeated again and again on your blog and on other blogs for years to be only a slander of a charlatan taking advantage of the lack of scientific knowledge of your readers and of yourself.
What do you have to say about this?
Are you understanding that during the last 2 years you have pushed away real friends and give credit to questionable individuals?
REPLY: Science is not friendship Nicola. Look, we’ll go round and round for days, so I’ll just make this the last comment on the issue. My position has been that Barycentrism/solar motion influences on Earth’s climate is falsified, and Holm has done a good job of showing why. You’ve done nothing to change that other than to claim everyone but you is wrong. That’s not science, but vanity.
BTW, to address your claim of ignorance, I’ll paraphrase a famous character: “I may not be a smart man, but I know what B.S. is”. – Anthony
Ray Tomes says:
March 12, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Ray,
Photon pressure is an Interesting possible factor in asymmetric sunspot development.
Also, I just read this:
60 Year Cycle in Global Sea Level
http://www.widgetserver.com/syndication/l/?p=1&instId=3c79823c-f41e-48f1-a609-54d59a91bd42&token=d85605a273f98d00089e4482cf369e97a54d8b0700000144b9d2c5a9&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F11%2F07%2F60-year-cycle-in-global-sea-level%2F
Very interesting and, I feel, relevant to the present discussion.
Barycentrism describes the “why”. It describes the mechanism. Perhaps that is the problem, looking for the mechanism ahead of the prediction.
Early humans learned to predict the seasons long before they learned “why”. We still can’t answer “why” for a great many physical events, yet we can predict them with great accuracy.
Instead of Why, answer Who, What, When, Were. When you can answer those question, Why doesn’t matter.
Why is the sky blue?
1. because it reflects blue light
2. because it had to be some color, and that happened to be blue
3. because that is the way god made it.
What relevance is “why” when there is no way to determine which answer is correct?