.
.My my, the rhetoric levels are running high. Sceptics to be stabbed with icicles, or at least labelled as ‘Deniers’ by captains of industry and leading politicians, unproven deep ocean warming to be guessed in ‘Hiroshimas per second’ and now Anthony Watts dealing ‘Death Blows’ to work-in-progress theories. Time to get a nice cup of tea and look at some data. 🙂
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.
View original post 401 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
One of Vuk’s plots showing the north pole geomagnetic field against Length of Day:
One of my plots showing average motion of the planets relative to the solar equatorial plane against Length of Day:
I liked Christopher Monckton’s response to Anthony’s gish-gallop of gang-warfare:
“We must not fall into the same poisonously intolerant attitude as the true-believers in the New Religion, who are unwilling to allow any discussion that they might regard as heretical. But the history of science is precisely the history of those who came along and said they did not agree with “settled science”. Mr Motl mentions Newton’s laws of gravitation as though they were inviolable, but it was a patent clerk from Switzerland, in a non-peer-reviewed paper containing some errors of notation, who demonstrated that – whether Mr Motl likes it or not – Newton’s was not the last word in the matter.
Let us be gentler with one another, and not be too harsh with those who advance theories that appear incompatible with what we think we know. The stifling of intellectual enquiry that the New Religion seeks to impose is bad enough. We must not be corrupted by it. In science, an open mind is of near-infinitely greater value than an open mouth.”
WUWT post: ‘The supposed periodicity around 30 years in Scafetta (2010) is not really
present in the climate series at all’
Monckton: ‘It would be interesting to know, for instance, what causes the 30-year periods of warming followed by 30-year periods of cooling that seem to characterize the global mean surface temperature anomaly record since 1850 that are in phase with the great ocean oscillations.’
Somebody is trying to wish away the observed reality and it’s not Monckton.
Steven Mosher says:
March 12, 2014 at 8:58 am
I’ve tried to re do scaffettas work. gavin has tried. McIntyre has tried. We all failed.
Anthony Watts says:
March 12, 2014 at 9:56 am
If somebody can reproduce his work, show why it’s either right or wrong, I’ll adjust my opinion accordingly.
“read my papers” doesn’t cut it. if McIntyre can’t reproduce it, it may very well be irreproducible.
Sverre Holm says:
March 12, 2014 at 10:14 am
If we’re talking of the paper Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and it implications” http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf then I have been able to reproduce all figures in that paper but one. That was his Fig. 8. (Power spectra of the speed of the Earth relative to the Sun and of the speed of the center of mass of the Earth–Moon system relative to the Sun).
==============================
Like Nicola Scafetta has said all along, any competent scientist can reproduce his work from his descriptions of his methods and citations of papers containing the original datasets.
On this subject, Mosher and Watts are just noise to be filtered out of (un)reasonably conducted scientific debate.
Oh dear, Anthony Watts is attacking Dr Nicola Scafetta in his post, but then censoring debate by deleting Nicola’s replies. Email to Lord Monckton from Nicola:
=========================================
Dear Christopher
thank you for your support.
It seem to me that Anthony is preventing to post my reply and comments
The paper by Holm contains serious math errors.
1) note that he does not find a 60-year oscillation in the astronomical record, his figure 3. This is ridiculous. A 60-year oscillation in astronomy has been known since ancient times by everybody.
2) my model is based on tides and the 12-year jupiter tide beat with the 10-year jupiter-saturn spring tide with 61-year oscillations. This oscillation has been found in solar records and aurora records by numerous authors since 19th century.
3) The stability of the lines in the temperature records has been tested in my papers. For example the model was calibrated in 1850-1950 and accurately predicted the patterns in 1950-2010 and viceversa.
4) The 60-year window analysis of Holm is inefficient to separate beats. His variable patters are simple beats.
Anthony is clearly trying to defame the most important research in climate of the last years.
Just read here the summary
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model
nicola
============================================
This comment from Scafetta did get posted:
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2014 at 8:54 am
Anthony, read my papers. Do not believe everything just for bias.
There are numerous persons that tried to rebut my papers and they were always found to have made serious errors in one way or in another.
Do you remember the cases of Benestad, Rypdal etc? Holm seems to be connected to these people, at least with Rypdal (father and son).
Moreover Holm is from the Department of Informatics, (no expertise in physics, nor in astronomy, nor in mathematics)!
He could not find a 60-year oscillation in the astronomical records despite this oscillation has been known since ancient times! See here
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/universo/siriusmystery/siriusmystery_appendix03.htm
And my models are based on tides not on “barycentrism”, which however is important too from the electromagnetic point of view.
Think about it.
==================================================
Nice quote from Scafetta’s link. Though the Dogon story was cooked up by the anthropologists who wrote the book, they did include some good research from elsewhere:
“In speaking of the revolutions of Jupiter and Saturn, the Neoplatonist philosopher Olympiodorus has written:3
‘That of Jupiter … is effected in twelve years. And . . . that of Saturn … is completed in thirty years. The stars, therefore, are not conjoined with each other in their revolutions except rarely. Thus, for instance, the sphere of Saturn and the sphere of Jupiter are conjoined with each other in their revolutions, in sixty years.
For if the sphere of Jupiter comes from the same to the same in twelve years, but that of Saturn in thirty years, it is evident that when Jupiter has made five, Saturn will have made two revolutions: for twice thirty is sixty, and so likewise is twelve times five; so that their revolutions will be conjoined in sixty years.”
It is not clear why Anthony wants to take snipe shots at bystanders.
Geran: It’s very simple. Anthony is attacking anyone who shows an open mind on celestial cyclic phenomena affecting Terrestrial or Solar variability, in order to further emphasise our excommunication by the wuwtian church of lukewarm climate orthodoxy.
I’m a “pariah” doncha know. He told me so in email. Lol. 🙂
It’s like the best knight in the crusade wanting to fight other knights with him rather than the enemy knights. Go figure….
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 12, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Amatør1 says:
March 12, 2014 at 2:05 pm
There is no need for the Sun to change its spin, because it can be shown that gravity perturbes the planetary orbits just enough to perfectly balance the Sun, and thus keep the solar system angular momentum constant at all times. No need to change solar spin, i.e. no mechanism to influence solar activity this way.
Like tidal theory, perturbation theory has problems which are more or less dealt with by heuristics. However, the solar differential rotation has been empirically observed to vary on timescales consistent with planetary periodicities. Venus has slowed by six minutes in 15 years, which cannot be accounted for by perturbation theory. Saturn’s radio emission cycles, thought to relate to its rotation rate, have varied over the last three decades between 627 and 648 minutes. Standard perturbation theory can’t account for that either.
The observations in my recent papers show that the spin rates of the planets in the solar system are related by simple harmonic/resonant ratios, and that they also relate to the orbital periods of neighbouring planets. Whatever you think of any theory that might be presented, the brute facts of these observations stand.
“Oh dear, Anthony Watts is attacking Dr Nicola Scafetta in his post, but then censoring debate by deleting Nicola’s replies.”
This is just fracking ridiculous. I can’t believe that Watts is that small minded of a person. His attacks on anything that has “cycles” is just stupid. If I was not sick with the flu I would try to post there myself. (but I already spend a lot of time in moderation)
~ Mark
Rog,
You have to love it when Sverre Holm (Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway)
can’t even find the 60 year period in the Sun’s barycentric motion. If I was a referee for this paper,
I would have sent it back to the editor recommending that it not be published until the author had actually
read an introductory astronomy text.
Think about it. The most likely way that a phenomenon associated with the Sun’s barycentric motion would affect the Earth’s climate, is one where the phenomenon impacts the Earth climate system at a fixed point in the seasonal cycle. This is the same as saying that phenomenon that is synchronized with barycentric motion’s must have it’s greatest impact at a fixed point in the Earth’s orbit. If this is the case, then it is essentially pre-ordained that the observable effects of this driving phenomenon on the Earth’s climate would exhibit a ~ 60 year periodicity [Note: I believe that the phenomenon that is synchronized with the Barycentric motion that is impacting the Earth’s climate is the extreme Perigean spring tides.]
The 60 years periodicity comes about for the simply reason that it takes three Jupiter-Saturn alignments (each separated by 19.858 years) stretching over a period of 59.574 years for the combined tidal/gravitational influences of these two Jovian planets to repeat themselves at fixed point in the Earth’s seasonal cycle.
It a sad thing to see people like Anthony letting their lack of knowledge (dare I say ignorance) and prejudices govern their thoughts on this important topic.
I Vuk’s plot, in late 1920’s LOD went negative. The only translation is the Earth rotated backwards.
You got to just love this stuff….
[Reply] No, it just dipped below long term average. Should be labelled LOD anomaly rather than LOD. Sorry for the confusion. TB
Commenter Martin Lewitt tries hard to put Lubos Motl and others straight about certain orbital phenomena here.
WUWT is encouraging *argument from incredulity*: ‘I can’t believe ‘P’, therefore not ‘P’.’
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
My 2nd comment has disappeared into the bit bucket.
Dave Etchells says:
March 12, 2014 at 2:56 pm
So, by definition, all that’s left are tides
Ah, our old friend the missing variable.
A topic for which there is plenty of in depth research in the literature is orbital resonance. Astrophysicists know a lot about it, but it seems to have passed climate pundits by completely. It is capable of modulating and exciting quite enormous amounts of force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
I do understand why some people stick to mentioning ‘tiny’ tidal effects and ignore this elephant in the room though.
Neptune and Uranus exchange considerable amounts of angular momentum on a ~1.12myr cycle according to a big orbital element integration done on a Cray supercomputer way back when.
Since the outer planets hold around 98% of the angular momentum in the solar system, their potential effect on modulating solar differential rotation shouldn’t be ignored IMO. Especially considering the fact that cyclic variation in solar differential rotation at planetary frequencies has been EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED.
Ian: Anthony seems to think he can destroy interesting and promising scientific ideas by denouncing their proponents and by saying that because he couldn’t work it out for himself, it can’t be right.
On the subject of your lunar tidal hypothesis, Oldbrew has been making some nice discoveries regarding whole number ratios between Jovian motion and the lunar nodal and line of apse cycles.
The solar system is dancing a delicately interwoven waltz, and team wassup is tripping over each others feet.
Mark: Anthony Watts is getting really wound over this stuff. Just sit back and enjoy – as much as you can with the flu. Hot toddy recommended, with a side order of popcorn. 😉
” That was his Fig. 8. (Power spectra of the speed of the Earth relative to the Sun and of the speed of the center of mass of the Earth–Moon system relative to the Sun).”
Yup. that ones not reproduceable. You can get close to the other ones but the final equation is still not reproduceable
Mosh: show us your best effort to date. 😉
The Tallbloke says: “The solar system is dancing a delicately interwoven waltz, and team wassup is tripping over each others feet.”
Nice turn of phrase. Maybe they have their mouths open and can not hear the music of the spheres. 😎 pg
Scafetta’s work is well above my pay grade.
That said, climate hind casts based on his periodicities are more accurate than the IPCC’s climate models in spite of huge sums of money expended. Anthony should vent his spleen on the waste of money on CMIP and all the other junk science models. I call it “Junk Science” because there is overwhelming evidence that climate drives CO2 rather than the reverse.
That anybody (especially Anthony Watts) should dismiss Scafetta’s work on the basis of a single paper is beyond absurd. However, I do agree with Anthony on one thing. There is no good reason to refuse to share the data and methods on which a published paper is based. It ain’t science if nobody can replicate it.
When I meet with Nicola, he is struggling to find a plausible mechanism to explain the correlations he has found. He is more aware than anybody that correlation does not imply causation.
Lord Monckton is to be commended for sounding like the sole grown up in a roomful of noisy children.
PG: They’re so busy twisting and wriggling to avoid looking directly at the data, it’s no wonder they can’t keep their balance.
American politics, like American enterprise, is “winner takes all”. Self-esteem is all about being #1: it is said in the States, that No. 2 is Loser No. 1.
The equalitarian principles of the Founding Fathers have evaporated below the 49th Parallel. They are not even aware of what a me-them, win-lose mental state they have created. Competition is something you tolerate while you determine how to destroy or absorb them. Hertz, the car rental company, turned the philosophy on its head when they said that “We’re No. 2: we try harder”. Again, only No. 1 counts.
The Watts-D’Aleo-Coleman clique wants to be No. 1 in the anti-CAGW fight. They do no want to share any podium. You’ll notice that during the recent Olympics the American channels stopped broadcasting if Americans weren’t in the metals: again, if we aren’t the winners, then a) we’re not interested and b) we’re not going to give any accolades to “them”.
As Canadians we are affected by this all the time. The Rule of Capture is what drove the oil-and-gas business for the longest time. Canadian rules reduce that by buffer zones along leases, so you can’t snuggle up and “steal’ your neighbour’s oil, it has to be legitimately on your lease. But that is against the American way: pull up the ladder, ’cause I’m inboard and want to get on my way.
For those of us who spent time unhappily on the playground, it is an attitude we recognize well: the bully.
American political bully-boy-ism isn’t just a political style, it is a promoted individual character trait. [With due respect, you could also say the same about Russia and whereever tribalism exists.]
Tallbloke I I take pseudoephedrine for flu, because the tissue shrink.
Galloping Camel: ” There is no good reason to refuse to share the data and methods on which a published paper is based.”
There’s some history to this. But first, consider that all you need to reproduce Scafetta’s figures is the JPL ephemeris, the description of what he did that’s in the paper, and the datasets he compared output from it with. He can’t publish the datasets, they’re not his to publish. He does give citations and references to them though.
Now, Mosher’s demand to be spoonfed with ‘code and data’ by Nicola. This all began on McIntyre’s blog when Mosh got rude with Nicola instead of asking nicely, and so Nicola dug his heels in. Can’t say I blame him. Fact is, Sverre Holm was able to reproduce Nicola’s work (barring one plot), and so Nicola’s position that all you need is his description as given in his papers and enough nous to drive an ephemeris is vindicated.
Moral; if you want somebody’s data and code, be polite about asking for it.
After shoot ups with Willis, I am on automatic moderation at WUWT. My initial comment on that thread passed moderation but was later deleted. It was not just having a jab at those claiming the death of barycentrism, but also those like myself claiming AGW done and dusted. I fear my sense of humour was not appreciated. Perhaps the title “No Virginia, the oceans won’t freeze without DWLWIR” wos wot dun it…That or the suggestion that now someone truly brilliant better explain the Little Ice Age.
I have responded to the [snip] at WUWT with a slightly more conservative comment –
“Perhaps my point could be better made without reference to any of my own work. The point here was an issue of, dare I say it, “pattern recognition”. The pattern that can be observed in this “death blow” to barycentrism is not dissimilar to previous “debunking” papers. Many readers will recall some papers rushed through pal-review dealing with modelling and Forbush decreases. Papers claiming a death blow to the Svensmark hypothesis rushed into publication before even initial results of the ongoing CLOUD empirical experiment were available.
With regard to solar science, we are currently engaged in a grand ongoing experiment dependant largely on empirical observation. Just as Dr. S had to wait years to see his prediction of SSN ~70 proved correct for cycle 24, there is another 2 decades to go with regard to empirical verification or dismissal of planetary influences on solar cycles.
There is one (of a very long list) unfortunate side effect of the whole global warming scare that effects all sides. A desire for answers in a rush, rather than correct answers.
The sun is slow. For some answers we will have to wait.”
I’ll see if that one passes moderation….although I probably shouldn’t have used the term “pattern recognition”… 😉
Doug: two quick stories.
1) US runner beats Russian runner in a head to head road race. Pravda reports: “Brave Russian competitor comes second; Yankee comes in next to last.”
2) US propaganda coup; order 200m condoms from Russian manufacturer, specified to fit 9″ dicks. Russia sends the consignment over in boxes marked “medium”.
Doug Proctor says:
March 12, 2014 at 11:28 pm
“… Hertz, the car rental company, turned the philosophy on its head when they said that “We’re No. 2: we try harder”. Again, only No. 1 counts.”
>>>>>>>
Nope, it was Avis that had the slogan. Hertz was the #1. Avis was #2.
I left this on Anthony’s Blog
********************
Sverre Holm says to Antony:
March 12, 2014 at 10:14 am
“If we’re talking of the paper Scafetta, “Empirical evidenceforacelestialoriginoftheclimateoscillations
and itsimplications” http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf then I have been able to reproduce all figures in that paper but one. That was his Fig. 8. (Power spectra of the speed of the Earth relative to the Sun and of the speed of the center of mass of the Earth–Moon system relative to the Sun). Reproduction or not is not the point of my criticism of the paper, it is the method used and the assumptions that have been made.”
Holm’s statement is very important.
1) Holm stated that he was able to reproduce all my major findings and figure. The only problem he had was with figure 8 about the ~9-year oscillation of the solar-lunar tidal oscillation. To solve this problem Holm may try to read some introductory Astronomy book and he will easily figure out the existence of a ~9-year oscillation in the solar-lunar tidal oscillation.
Holm’s acknowledgment is very important, and I thank him for his testimony, because demonstrates people such as Mosher, Anthony, Willis etc, who have systematically claimed on this blog that my results are not reproducible, wrong.
Holm has testified that my results are reproducible with the appropriate study and competence, as I have always said. By the record, I never gave Holm any data nor codes. He could figure out these things by himself because evidently he is a competent person.
Thus, Holm has clearly demonstrated that more than one person on WUWT and on other blogs have systematically claimed to have a scientific knowledge that they clearly do not have.
2) Holm stated “Reproduction or not is not the point of my criticism of the paper, it is the method used and the assumptions that have been made.”
So Holm’s criticism is based on physical interpretation and mathematical analysis methodology.
This can be discussed.
Essentially the issue is: Which methodology is more appropriate? My analysis or Holm’s analysis?
Does my analysis contains flaws or is it Holm’s analysis that contain flaws?
I stand on the correctness of my analysis and methodology and interpretation.
I leave the reader of the blog to figure out the issue by themselves.
As I pointed above by addressing just one point, Holm was not able to find the 60-year astronomical oscillation in his figure 3. Which led him to not find the coherence between these cycle and the temperature cycle.
This points out one major issue with Holm’s analysis because the 60-year astronomical oscillation is macroscopic, it was known since ancient times and it is in phase with the temperature oscillations as shown in my papers. On this point it may be useful to read the comment from Ian Wilson who has an astrophysical background:
Other issues are present.
Was bad enough having to tolerate svalgaard and his lovely personality…bookmark deleted. There are plenty of blogs out there that haven’t collected kabals as of yet, and still have open minds and respect alternative theory re an obviously not understood system (earth climate). Can’t wait to the AMO go negative and neutron monitors to break records with the next solar min. Great minds will implode…
I cannot find 60y either.
WUWT has become a lot like RealClimate over the last year, I half expect some lame Willis hit piece tomorrow.
awakening:
redcords (March 13, 2014 at 2:59 am) wrote:
“WUWT has become a lot like RealClimate over the last year […]”
WUWT = RealClimate
The transparency is increasing.
2 wings of 1 message, tailored to move different core audiences
I see Moshpup the English Major comes by and, in poor English, announces that a graph he does not understand is not reproducible!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You also have to love that Antknee has posted a paper on his pet noctilucent clouds. It announces that the clouds are under tidal influences! Wonder if they tried to reproduce the findings??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“Nice turn of phrase. Maybe they have their mouths open and can not hear the music of the spheres. ”
When your ears are covered by your cheeks…
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.
It looks like AW deleted your link from his webpage- at least he didn’t list you with SkS under his ‘Unreliable’ list. His site has become just as bad as RC- just chaff for the troops.
@Tchannon
If you understand the difference between a scalar and a vector then the 60 year cycle is obvious to anyone who cares to look.
@ Ian Wilson:
Are you talking about the lunar cycle?
tallbloke wrote: Moral; if you want somebody’s data and code, be polite about asking for it.
That thread on wuwut attempts the unprecedented: how many commenters are needed to Not study scientific papers and (publicly available) NASA data? Almost none.
I’ve rescued a long comment from Nicola which had dropped into the spam bin. I suspect that because Anthony Watts has been marking his comments as spam, wordpress has picked that up and applied it on other wordpress blogs. It’s now approved, but I’ll repost it as the most recent comment now, as it has been lost in the flow:
Nicola Scafetta says:
Submitted on 2014/03/13 at 1:03 am
I left this on Anthony’s Blog
********************
Sverre Holm says to Antony:
March 12, 2014 at 10:14 am
“If we’re talking of the paper Scafetta, “Empirical evidenceforacelestialoriginoftheclimateoscillations
and itsimplications” http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf then I have been able to reproduce all figures in that paper but one. That was his Fig. 8. (Power spectra of the speed of the Earth relative to the Sun and of the speed of the center of mass of the Earth–Moon system relative to the Sun). Reproduction or not is not the point of my criticism of the paper, it is the method used and the assumptions that have been made.”
Holm’s statement is very important.
1) Holm stated that he was able to reproduce all my major findings and figure. The only problem he had was with figure 8 about the ~9-year oscillation of the solar-lunar tidal oscillation. To solve this problem Holm may try to read some introductory Astronomy book and he will easily figure out the existence of a ~9-year oscillation in the solar-lunar tidal oscillation.
Holm’s acknowledgment is very important, and I thank him for his testimony, because demonstrates people such as Mosher, Anthony, Willis etc, who have systematically claimed on this blog that my results are not reproducible, wrong.
Holm has testified that my results are reproducible with the appropriate study and competence, as I have always said. By the record, I never gave Holm any data nor codes. He could figure out these things by himself because evidently he is a competent person.
Thus, Holm has clearly demonstrated that more than one person on WUWT and on other blogs have systematically claimed to have a scientific knowledge that they clearly do not have.
2) Holm stated “Reproduction or not is not the point of my criticism of the paper, it is the method used and the assumptions that have been made.”
So Holm’s criticism is based on physical interpretation and mathematical analysis methodology.
This can be discussed.
Essentially the issue is: Which methodology is more appropriate? My analysis or Holm’s analysis?
Does my analysis contains flaws or is it Holm’s analysis that contain flaws?
I stand on the correctness of my analysis and methodology and interpretation.
I leave the reader of the blog to figure out the issue by themselves.
As I pointed above by addressing just one point, Holm was not able to find the 60-year astronomical oscillation in his figure 3. Which led him to not find the coherence between these cycle and the temperature cycle.
This points out one major issue with Holm’s analysis because the 60-year astronomical oscillation is macroscopic, it was known since ancient times and it is in phase with the temperature oscillations as shown in my papers. On this point it may be useful to read the comment from Ian Wilson who has an astrophysical background:
Other issues are present.
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:
“I stand on the correctness of my analysis and methodology and interpretation.
I leave the reader of the blog to figure out the issue by themselves.”
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.
========================
Norman Woods says:
March 12, 2014 at 7:59 pm
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
====================================
Norman Woods says:
March 12, 2014 at 8:02 pm
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.
Anthony Watts appears to be unable to tell the difference between Holm’s successful replication of Nicola Scafetta’s results and Holm’s subsequent criticism of the results using a different method. A method which in turn Scafetta criticises, on several counts. But this is perfectly normal procedure for criticism and rebuttal in scientific discourse. The problem at wuwt is that Anthony Watts DELETED and CENSORED Scafetta’s scientific criticism of Holm’s methods earlier in the thread. That’s blatantly dishonest.
Anthony Watts also takes the opportunity to have another misguided poke at PRP, and the fact that authors of the special edition on the solar planetary theory provided reviews of other special edition author’s papers, in addition to the external reviewers. But this is perfectly normal procedure for special editions, as Watts would be able to find out if he chose to inform himself instead of of indulging in the dangerous sport of shark-jumping in the dark.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2014 at 8:50 pm
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.
Hah! Watts has chosen to have the final word and close the thread. No matter, we can carry on discussing it here.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 12, 2014 at 10:35 pm
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
==================================================
So, Anthony Watts can’t answer Nicola Scafetta’s valid point about team wassup’s long continued false accusations that his work is not reproducible from his papers. And he claims Holm has done a “good job”, when Nicola correctly pointed out the problems with his analysis but Anthony Watts deleted his earlier comment containing that scientific criticism. Nor does Anthony Watts offer any argument to back his assertion “that the theory, even if true, is inconsequential.”
Hardly a convincing “Death blow” to the solar-planetary theory. 🙂
Ray Tomes says:
March 13, 2014 at 4:28 am (Edit)
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.
Hi Ray,
I have for a long time been intending to do a post on your z-axis theory. Could you do a write-up in word .doc for us? (please say yes!) Or shall I wait until I find the time (heh!) to put one together from the old bautforum posting? The 1.1myr coincidence between the longterm angular momentum exchange between Neptune-Uranus and the Earth’s magnetic reversals is tantalising. Have you done a write-up on magnetic reversal anywhere?
Sera says:
Submitted on 2014/03/13 at 4:59 am
It looks like AW deleted your link from his webpage- at least he didn’t list you with SkS under his ‘Unreliable’ list. His site has become just as bad as RC- just chaff for the troops.
Yes, I noticed that. I’ve adjusted my link to his blog appropriately. 😉
By the way, is anyone else having trouble loading wordpress pages? I think they are suffering an attack, judging by the amount of spam pouring in.
Sverre Holm say on his blog :
http://blogg.uio.no/mn/ifi/innovasjonsteknologi/content/hvor-ble-det-av-sammenhengen-mellom-sola-og-klima
“….Jeg er jo ingen klimaforsker, men jeg har jobbet mye med sammenhenger mellom signaler.”
Ok…. I have a new play (data) for you !
y=∑A*cos(2*∏*(x-x0)/T-p)
and
Add… 60 years is not statistically significant !
🙂
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n2/full/ncomms1186.html
Here, we show that distinct, ~55- to 70-year oscillations characterized the North Atlantic ocean-atmosphere variability over the past 8,000 years.
Click to access y2787e01.pdf
The same 60-70 year periodicity has also been characteristic for the long-term dynamics of some climatic
and biological indices for the last 150 years (Klyashtorin 1998).
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17451000802512283
Long-term changes of Atlantic spring-spawning herring and Northeast Arctic cod commercial stocks also show 50–70-year fluctuations that are synchronous with the fluctuations of climatic indices.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005474
The intensity of the vortex was found to reveal a roughly 60-year periodicity affecting the evolution of the large-scale atmospheric circulation and the character of SA/GCR effects.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052885/abstract
The phase of the 60-year oscillation found in the tide gauge records is such that sea level in the North Atlantic, western North Pacific, Indian Ocean, and western South Pacific has been increasing since 1985–1990.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD900461/abstract
The first mode is oscillatory, with t in the narrow range 60–80 years. The spatial pattern of this multidecadal mode implies coherent oscillations over Europe and over northeastern North America, with maximum amplitudes in Europe; over northwestern North America this mode is absent.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6465/abs/367723a0.html
Singular spectrum analysis of the surface temperature records for 11 geographical regions shows that the 65–70-year oscillation is the statistical result of 50–88-year oscillations for the North Atlantic Ocean and its bounding Northern Hemisphere continents.
Click to access 58010035.pdf
While 20th Century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities—one from 15-to-25 years, and the other
from 50-to-70 years—the mechanisms causing PDO variability remain unclear.
I have a comment in moderation,
thanks
Link just deleted with no “Tansendent Rant” listing? Dear oh dear. What are things at WUWT coming to?
I’d almost suggest jealousy. Just lukewarm pap now. No longer cutting edge. No chance of getting the right answer. And no exciting visits from the Norfolk plod… 😉
Anthony Watts and his fellow followers appear to dislike the idea of our climate being significantly affected by phenomena outside of our planet normal processes. It seems heresy to some that our local star affects this planet and that other planets impacts on the variation on this star. IMO this is not a sensible position when investigating such a wildly variable (and data noisy) system as climate.
Surely a better scientific position is to replicate Scafetta results, and from there investigate the limits and any flaws in his techniques. Also to investigate the underlying reasons for the results and determine testable methods to validate (or otherwise) the basic physics involved.
Arbitarilly changing the method and getting different results – as Sverre Holm has done – does not extend our knowledge of the subject bar the fact that different (null) results come from this variation in methodology.
As Nicola Scafetta said on WUWT ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/11/death-blow-to-barycentrism-on-the-alleged-coherence-between-the-global-temperature-and-the-suns-movement/#comment-1589043 )
[…] found his windows too narrow to see the big picture through, as Nicola Scafetta pointed out in a comment deleted by Anthony Watts. When considering climate swings on the timescale of interest, in this case, around 60 years, we […]
TB said: ‘The 1.1myr coincidence between the long-term angular momentum exchange between Neptune-Uranus and the Earth’s magnetic reversals is tantalising’
A 1.1 million year period was identified by Rhodes Fairbridge as ‘a complete planetary line-up’.
‘To achieve a complete planetary line-up, one has to go to 1,101,000 years (6160 x orbital symmetry progression). What is quite remarkable about this value is that it is precise round number in terrestrial (anomalistic) years. This is true also for the various beat frequency values, thus, the Saturn-Jupiter laps of 19.8593 years is exactly 55,440.0 in 1,101 million years.’
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html
Btw 55440 = 55 x 21 x 48*
(*144 / 3)
He closed the thread!
I was surprised that Mr. Watts closed the thread. That is an unusual (dare I say unprecedented?) move on his part at WUWT. It looks like Anthony Watts is not really interested in real debate on scientific issues, especially after he says “the debate is over” and we “have a consensus”.
Anthony is different from Al Gore in what way exactly?
Reblogging on Daltonsmnima and reporting to Dr.Guidi (Climatemonitor)
Mark: my collection of saved complete webpages from wuwt closed threads on this topic runs to at least half a dozen. Anthony has been conducting a war of attrition against us for the last 4 years. I’ve held my peace as long as I could, but since the false flag attack on our work escalated in January, the gloves are off.
Roger, did you see this paper linked to on the WUWT thread by Robert I Ellison – Chief hydrologist says:
March 12, 2014 at 5:16 pm
http://tmgnow.com/repository/solar/percyseymour2.html
You probably noticed already, but you are off the WUWT blog role links.
Poor “Pinocchio” Anthony, he closed the comments once he realized that the only thing that Holm demonstrated for certainty was the hypocrisy of Mosher and of others of his band supporting for years Mosher’s slanders and false accusations against me!
In the past, Anthony refused to answer my question about whether Leif could be a fair anonymous reviewer of my papers.
Anthony is not able to respond tough questions, evidently.
About Holm’s result I framed correctly the problem above. Which methodology is the appropriate one? My method A or his method B?
I say my method. Let us see who get the scientific motivation. 🙂
‘I was surprised that Mr. Watts closed the thread’
Mosher will have to do his unicorn hunting somewhere else 😉
Guys, I would not worry about the opinions of Anthony Watts or his groupies. WUWT is a science gossip column and has nothing to do with an open exchange of scientific concept.
My wife and I have known about him for over 25 years. He was a cow town TV personality and is a fairly good weather guesser, but not someone we wanted to spend time with. Even then he was followed by a cloud of admirers and kind of a jerk. If anything he has mellowed with age.
For myself, I see a celestial ocean of energy exchange from body to body, all tied together with bands of EMF including gravity. I can’t imagine it NOT being so. Massive bodies in “free fall” that is sort of stable while in orbits around our star that orbits the Galaxy! Gravity alone just doesn’t make it happen. Every thing is connected. Barycentric periodicity is an observation of fact, the mechanism of this energy exchange is in question. pg
Well now, this looks mighty interesting. Move over Einstein. 🙂
The planetary spin and rotation period: a modern approach
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-013-1556-5
Full paper free here
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4720
“Ian Wilson says:
March 13, 2014 at 5:06 am
@Tchannon
If you understand the difference between a scalar and a vector then the 60 year cycle is obvious to anyone who cares to look.”
The definitions of those words vary in technical fields, which is highly confusing, why I rarely use them. (eg. vector: one dimensional array). I tend to see all meanings of words, causes me hell trying to comprehend context when a writer or speaker is in their own bubble. This applies to all of us, me included.
Am I right in assuming you refer to real plane and to complex plane?
These problems are in four dimensions. (4th is time)
I’ve asked about the source of the 60y before, always getting a runaround but there is a twist.
Let me explain.
One of the plots I saw yesterday, same result as I produced a few years ago when I was looking into claims. Now this particular one (computed here after doing the complex math) is the same as an origin of 60y I managed to half extract from someone after months of badgering them to get out what they meant.
Read carefully, this contains no 60y but if Nyquist is violated a small artefact at 60y appears.
This took days of computer time, not an area I want to inhabit so I’ll let those with larger and faster computers do that one. I do though want to know what is true.
Or maybe you mean something else.
tchannon says:
March 13, 2014 at 4:40 pm
There two origins of the 60 year cycle.
1) derives from the trigon of the J-S conjunctions in addition of the fact that the orbits are not perfectly circular.
2) derives from the tidal beats between the ~12 year J-orbital tide and the ~10 year J-S spring tide.
Both origins are discussed in my papers and are very easy to get.
I finally discovered that the tread from Watts Up … in a way has continued here and I hope I am not too late with my comment.
First:
“Nicola Scafetta says:
March 13, 2014 at 1:03 am
Holm’s acknowledgment is very important, and I thank him for his testimony,”
– thanks! I think you got it right when you nail it down to Method A (yours) vs Method B (mine) for discovering coherence.
First I’d like to say that I have no problem with 60 year oscillations. That’s why I refer to Schlesinger, Ramankutty, 1994. An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65–70 years. Nature in my paper.
But the method I use is a standard magnitude square coherence estimator which is used in order to compare signals. One example is whether propeller noise or machine noise is the main contributor to noise that affects a sonar, or another example is whether two different sensors measuring the intracranial pressure in the brain give coherent results or not. The source of this method is among others ref 1 in my paper: Bendat, J., Piersol, A., 1980. Engineering Applications of Correlation and Spectral Analysis.
The strict engineering definition of coherence requires some 8-10 or more independent averages in order to give statistically valid results. A major part of the paper is about this. In fact with just a single sample, it will give a coherence of one for all frequencies independent of the data. This is of course a meaningless result.
Compared to 8-10 degrees of freedom, a period of 60 years in a time series of about 160 years simply does not have enough data support to give statistically significant results. I realize that I could have analyzed longer series based on some proxies, but since the 2010 Scafetta paper did not do that, then neither did I.
Scafetta has a somewhat other definition of coherence (“method A”). But I for one cannot see that climate data is any different than other data and that it should not require the same amount of degrees of freedom in order to support statements about coherence.
tallbloke wrote: The planetary spin and rotation period: a modern approach.
But, but, but, mainstream got mucho budget for the discovery of gravitational waves (e.g. the German-British Wave Detector; not that they found one wave in the loud(?) noise, therefore new budget is used: LIGO and Virgo detectors are upgraded).
Excellent find tallbloke.
Sverre: Welcome to the talkshop, where the science discussion ranges widely, and politely. Your publication history is very interesting. The safety of patients demands a cautious engineering rigour. With noisy climate data, and with less at stake in safety terms, we take a more adventurous approach.
I hope we’ll find time for a discussion of electromagnetic resonance.
The problem is one cannot equate the climate to one factor , and x plus y will not equal z when it comes to the climate. Climate signals can easily become obscure by other climate signals , in addition there are climate thresholds that have to be accounted for.
Climate is non linear , random and chaotic therefore trying to use a cyclic approach per say will always break down sooner or later even if such cycles exist.
I don’t doubt the basis of Nicola’s theory but the way he tries to correlate it to much to what the climate should or should not do due to these cycles. It is just not that simple.
To many factors are out there some very important ones such as the the beginning state of the climate , the strength of the earth’s magnetic field combined with the state of solar activity. Not to mention where the earth is in reference to Milankovitch cycles when looking at the large picture.
For example volcanic activity which seems to be tied into low prolonged solar activity can change the climate pattern in a very distinct manner if severe enough and erase any potential climate cycles from other means or at the very least make them much harder to find.
There are more examples, which makes it very hard almost impossible to try to get the random, non linear chaotic climate to fit into some neat cycles on an ever ending basis.
I believe weak solar/earth magnetic fields over a prolonged period of time through direct and secondary effects will bring about a cold climate, and conversely strong solar/earth magnetic fields over a prolonged period of time will bring about a warmer climate.
Nicola as I said earlier today on the most recent topic on this site, I would not in the least care about what Anthony and his group has to say or not say about your theory.
Leif especially coming to mind. They are full of themselves and arrogant.
I think much of what you say is very useful in this climate debate, and keep working on your thoughts and theories.
To Holm,
first thank you for your interesting work. I am able to reproduce your results but I do not agree with your final interpretation. In any case, I find your work interesting because it surely helps to clarify some issues.
About what you say, the major problem, however, is not the standard magnitude square coherence estimator that you use, but whether the general methodology that you used is efficient to detect the signal in the first place.
Properly detecting the signal is the prerequisite for determining whether it may or may not be coherent with something else. If the signal that you extract from the data is just an artifact of the methodology you used, then it is not surprising not to find the proper result. In interpreting complex signals using statistical methods one needs to take into account a lot of details, including the properties and limits of specific methodologies in particular when applied to short sequences. And make some choice among the possible methodologies.
You methodology was able to detect a quasi 60-year oscillation in the temperature record but not in the astronomical record. Thus, it has no problem in detecting the dominant cycle (the 60-year cycle is the dominant temperature oscillation) but it has evident problems in detecting less dominant cycles (the 60-year cycle is not the dominant cycle in the speed of the sun).
This simple fact would have required a deeper investigation on the efficiency of the technique of analysis before making interpretations.
Right now I can simple state that in my papers there are multiple tests to determining the reliability of my analysis.
Tim Channon: “One of the plots I saw yesterday, same result as I produced a few years ago when I was looking into claims. “
Which plot? Linky?
2011, time machine …a good concept of the nicola
“….does not understand the fact that it is not possible accurately calculate and predict the tides using the fundamental law of physics because of the enormous physical complexity of the problem, which is not limited to only know the existence of the gravity but also requires a detailed knowledge of a lot of other things including thermodynamics, fluido-dynamics and the fundamental local resonances. To overcome this ignorance issues Kelvin proposed a harmonic model based on astronomical cycles without putting any physics in it, but using astronomical geometry. Doodson simply expanded the argument of Kelvin. That the method of Kelvin does not require any modern quantitative physics but only a qualitative argumentation based on empirical astronomy is proven not only in the same works of Kelvin on the topic but also by the fact that an equivalent methodology was adopted since ancient times to predict the tides…”
Just a friendly word of advice, I enjoy planetary and solar science and various other fields including engineering. Never be disrespectful of criticism, or insult a person for their sceptical critique of your science. It’s bad Carma guys! (or what ever it’s called!) 🙂
It’s a very interesting debate. Rog, I suggest taking on-board sceptical concerns as well, the planetary theory and various other ideas can, and I’m sure will evolve, but not independently. If an idea has merit it is better to understand its faults, diagnostically improving an idea will make it sound.
Tallbloke,
Similar to Fig 3 at WUWT
If this is done poorly and a magnifying glass is used a 60y will appear.
I have a vague recollection of playing around with non-linearity to see if a 60y would appear.
If I had found something, anywhere, I would be delighted. I cannot prove a negative so I continue to keep an eye open.
Yes I have looked more at z-axis too. What I haven’t done because of time and resources is plane rotations. I’ll leave that for people better able to do the maths and with the computing resources.
Timcannon says he may have found a small wiggle at 60 years but, you will need a magnifying lens to see it. 😆 IIRC an early determination of the about 60 year cycle was the price of grain due to harvest quantity and quality. Now as a grain farmer of many years experience precipitation was much more important then the growing season temperature or length. More important, rain in the winter and spring, Dry summer and fall. A wet summer-ergot. Wet fall-rot. dry winter-poor growth. Dry spring- no crop. This is a Ocean evaporation derived thing, not air temperatures. pg
Thanks Tim and PG. the general, and admittedly somewhat speculative way I consider it is this: The plot I showed on the next thread exhibits 10Be wiggles averaging around 54.4 years. The oceanic paleoproxy exhibits wiggles around 53yrs (in an earlier paper sanchez says 55yrs). so there is evidently some coherence. Given the well investigated existence of 55-66 year oscillations in the PDO and AMO, and 45 & 74yr oscillations in north Atlantic records and proxies (temperature, beach ridges, ice rafted debris etc), it looks to me like resonance of some kind is in play. As my plot at the top of the comments indicates, this may be related to the disposition of the outer planets above and below the solar equatorial plane affecting solar variation, and above and below the ecliptic, affecting terrestrial variation. The Jupiter-Saturn conjunction takes place at nearly the same place in relation to the height above or below the solar equatorial plane every 59.6 yrs. That position precesses over a 2400yr period – the Halstatt cycle evident in the C14 and 10Be proxies.
The Solar data exhibits an oscillation around 90yrs, the Gleissberg cycle. That’s in a 2:3 with 60yrs, and a 1:2 with 45yrs. Many orbital and conjunction periods in the inner solar system have whole number returns at around 44.7yrs. 45yrs is in a 4:3 with 60yrs. The solar ‘double Hale cycle’ is also around 44.6yrs. Every 3 solar cycles (half the AMO 66yr oceanic cycle) there are two magnetically north and one magnetically south dominated cycles, or vice versa. That creates a 66yr cycle through the sun-magnetosphere interaction.
Summarising:
33 is in a 2:1 with 66 (AMO)
44 is in a 3:2 with 66 (AMO)
45 is in a 4:3 with 60 (PDO)
45 is in a 2:1 with 90 (Near Gleissberg)
53 is in a 1:4 with 212 (near de Vries)
55 is in a 1:5 with 11 (Schwabe solar cycle), 2:5 with 22 (Hale cycle), 3:5 with 33 (Half AMO), 4:5 with 44 (Double Hale, inner solar system return), 6:5 with 66 (AMO), 8:5 with 88 (near Gleissberg) and is 1:1 with Roy Martin’s ‘solar cycle clock’.
60 is in a 3:1 with 180 (Jose cycle), 1:3 with the J-S conjunction period, 1:2 with Saturn’s orbital period, 1:5 with Jupiter’s orbital period, and 1:1 with the J-S ‘triple conjunction’.
All these periods and resonances interact, and slip phase or librate, and so the signal wobbles around in period and amplitude. But the overall result is that a wobbly ‘standing wave’ appears near 60 years in terrestrial data. (cf: Wyatt and Curry’s ‘Stadium wave’ paper).
Sparks: Just a friendly word of advice, I enjoy planetary and solar science and various other fields including engineering. Never be disrespectful of criticism, or insult a person for their sceptical critique of your science. It’s bad Carma guys! (or what ever it’s called!) 🙂
We’re not disrespectful of properly formed scientific criticism.
It’s a very interesting debate. Rog, I suggest taking on-board sceptical concerns as well, the planetary theory and various other ideas can, and I’m sure will evolve, but not independently.
We are collaborating with a highly qualified group of people. Look at the list of co-authors to the PRP special issue’s conclusions paper. However, it’s evolving independently of the crap dished out by team wassup. Their scattergun stats methods are useless, and their lies about ‘irreproducible’ results have been shown up for the defamatory nonsense they are. Watts has been hoisted on his own petard. He tried to use Sverre Holm to kill the solar-planetary theory, and Sverre Holm blew up their “Scafetta’s work is not reproducible and he refuses to spoon-feed us his data and code” schtick they’ve been pushing for the last four years instead.
Our Carma just ran over Watts’ Dogma. 😉
If an idea has merit it is better to understand its faults, diagnostically improving an idea will make it sound.
Agreed. This is not achieved by coming to a field with no background knowledge of the systems, applying a single stats technique which obtains a null result, declaring the idea dead, and then walking away though. To take a leaf from IPCC parlance, we have ‘multiple lines of evidence’.
As of yesterday, your blog has been stigmatized by the mother ship, having been evicted from the normal blogroll down into a separate “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory”:
Nik: yes, I know.
I’ve modified our link to wuwt appropriately 🙂
The 60-year oscillation is easily observable in multiple astronomical records and there is no need to do any calculation to see it
I need to say that I do not understand the problems of tchannon.
Moreover, as I said many times the 60year oscillation is macroscopic in the tidal beats.
tchannon may try to plot this function
f(t) = cos(2*pi*t/10) + cos(2*pi*t/12)
for t=0 to 200
and he will see a huge 60 year beat oscillation
TB says: ‘Every 3 solar cycles (half the AMO 66yr oceanic cycle) there are two magnetically north and one magnetically south dominated cycles, or vice versa. That creates a 66yr cycle through the sun-magnetosphere interaction.’
Let’s say the full sunspot cycle (SSC) is 22.14 years, the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction period (J-S) is 19.859 years and the lunar node cycle (LNC) is 18.6 years. From that we can say:
(1) the ’60 year period in the Sun’s barycentric motion’ is 3 J-S = 59.576y
(2) your ’66yr cycle through the sun-magnetosphere interaction’ is 3 SSC = 66.42y
(3) the Yndestad lunar cycle ‘sub-harmonic’ is 4 LNC = 74.4y
We then find that the ratio of (1):(2):(3) – meaning the number of each period needed for them to match in time – is 10:9:8, the implication being as you suggest that these types of processes* don’t run in isolation.
* one planetary, one solar, one lunar
Nicola but the climate is non linear, random and chaotic and if one looks back over the past 20000 years one will see this to be the case. There may be 60 some odd year climate cycles but they can be obscured or overwhelmed, if not the climate would never change abruptly or cross thresholds which bring the climate into and out of glacial periods.
More important then the 60 year climate oscillation is the BEGINNING STATE OF THE CLIMATE, which has much to do with how fast or how much of a change the climate will undergo in x amount of years.
I believe in the angular momentum exerted by the planets will exert a solar influence. Geoffry Sharp has done great work in this area also. The question I have is to what degree, and are there other factors involved? For example would the magnitude degree of change of solar polarity away from the poles being completed at times of magnetic reversals influence solar activity?
So you have the planets giving a 60 year climate oscillation due to their influence on the sun. I can by that, but other factors are out there which makes a climate forecast going forward based on this and this alone very risky. For example the same solar force exerted on the climate can have an entirely different climatic out come because the climate is non linear and subject to thresholds.
In addition the following can cause the same solar forces to also give an entirely different climate out come.
Beginning state of the climate being paramount, but also the given strength of the earth’s magnetic field which can either amplify or moderate solar effects, the earth position in relation to Milankovich cycles, the concentrations of galactic cosmic rays in the vicinity of earth that have the potential to enter our atmosphere during low prolonged solar magnetic periods.
Then depending on the degree of magnitude change and duration of time of the solar change there are all sorts of climatic secondary effects that could arise from a change in solar activity ranging from volcanic activity, to enso ,to more clouds due to cosmic rays, to ocean heat content changes etc etc. which in themselves may or may not contribute to a significant change in the climate.
In closing I will say this IF the degree of magnitude change on the sun and duration of time of that change is strong enough and long enough then I think solar changes will bring about significant climate changes.(Thresholds thru direct or secondary effects) Recent examples would be the Dalton and Maunder Minimum.
The sun drives the climate therefore a change if significant enough has to impact the climate.
My criteria for a significant solar impact for cooling of the climate is as follows:
Solar flux avg sub 90
Ap index avg sub 5.0
Solar wind avg, sub 350 km/sec
Euv Light at 100 nm sub 100 units, and other wavelengths of UV light off many percent.
Solar irradiance off .015% or greater
IMF down to 4.0 nt or so
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500
Duration of time 10 plus years.
WOW
A.W. has certainly shown he is a disciple of Leif S. I have had my run ins with L.S. over whether or not the sun is ‘Constant’ (TSI varies ~0.1% or less.)
I brought up a paper and posted it which got immediately shot down by L.S. as being “Old” and having been “Rebutted” A more recent comment by Leif Svalgaard says @ October 14, 2012 at 1:10 pm
“….Then there is the notion of Modern Grand Maximum. I think there was no such thing. See e.g. (wwwDOT)leif.org/research/TIEMS-Oslo-2012-Svalgaard.pdf
The paper in question:
Not being a solar physicist I do not have the wherewithal to rebut L.S. even in my own mind and as is now obvious anyone who does not agree with L.S gets roundly attacked over at WUWT.
Luckily just recently someone posted a very very good paper that completely tromps L.S. into the ground.
A History of Solar Activity over Millennia.
Ilya G. Usoskin
Sodankyl ̈ Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit)
FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland
Click to access 0810.3972.pdf
It is long (94 page) but it really makes it obvious that L.S. is defending the IPCC position that the sun is not influencing the climate beyond a miniscule amount.
I especially liked these passages considering L.S. and his buddies are now ‘Adjusting’ the sunspot number history.
In a discussion on Muscheler at WUWT L.S. posted this chart with L.S. corrected Sunspot numbers (in blue) – (wwwDOT)leif.org/research/Muscheler-Temps-SSN.png
The whole chart: (wwwDOT)leif.org/research/Corrected-Wolf-Sunspot-Numbers.png
From this comment at WUWT : wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/2012/10/19/muscheler-retracts-offers-a-new-excuse-for-why-solar-activity-cant-be-responsible-for-post-70s-warming/#comment-1114376
Given the current discussion this information might be useful.
Leif should stick to his field which is astronomy not climate.
Thanks for the post Gail.
Salvatore Del Prete says…
I can not recommend that paper more. It is readable by a lay person and lays out the entire history and also has:
3.7 Verification of reconstructions
and
3.7.1 Comparison with direct data
@tchannon
It is not hard to visualize the ~ 60 year periodicity in the Sun motion about the Solar System’s centre-of-mass. Try imaging a stationary three bladed propeller, as seen from front on, with each of the blades of the propeller separated from the other by 120 degrees. In this picture, the centre-of-mass of the Solar System (CMSS) is the centre of the propeller (as seen from front-on). It takes the Sun ~ 20 years to move out away from the CMSS along one of the three propellers and then back in again. Hence, it takes three of these 20 year outward and inward motions of the Sun for it to return to the same position in space with respect to the CMSS [i.e. same position with respect the stars as seen from the CMSS]. These are the trefoils that I. Charvatova mentions in her work.
If the distance/speed AND DIRECTION of the Sun from CMSS [which is a vector quantity] plays a role in influencing the Earth’s climate then their should be a dominant periodicity of 60 years.
However, if you only considered distance/speed of the Sun about the CMSS [which is a scalar quantity
if the direction from the CMSS is not specified] then you will only get a dominant periodicity of 20 years.
TB: another one for the collection – 4 Hale cycles = 3 Saturn orbits.
Having just read this, inc. comments above, I’m a little surprised and disappointed with what appears to be censorship in depriving Dr. Scafetta the opportunity to respond (and rebut) a post addressing his work over at WUWT, and furthermore WUWT appearing to be a tad cowardly with the closing of comments, possibly linked to anticipating heat after Prof. Holm was making clear he had been actually been able to reproduce much of Dr. Scafetta’s work. I appreciate the underlying analytical work performed by Dr. Scafetta which has established oscillations/harmonics, while accepting there is more work required wrt. establishing attribution. However, based on accounts above I feel an explanation would be in order from Anthony.
The tone of the WUWT article title and text purporting a “death blow” was also unnecessary and tabloid in style. Scepticism is about allowing people to review what is in front of them and make their own minds up, not being shoved a certain ‘line’ down their throats, insulting their intelligence in a way. A bit equivalent to saying Svensmark has received a death blow because Lockwood et al. didn’t factor in short term ‘noise’, inc. ENSO and volcanic events. None of us like such when we are on the receiving end of ‘alarmists’, so “do towards others what you expect others to do to you”. Thanks for raising attention to this Tallbloke, no individual site should be considered an “authority” that is above scrutiny itself.
I see the WUWT / Tallbloke battle on cycles and barycentres continue.
Fitting that Tallbloke exits from WUWT .and vice versa..
climate cannot be devoid of the solar system.
Climate is intertwined with the workings of the solar system and maybe even our galaxy
Well done Dr scafetta. You are a legend!!
There are some things going behind the scenes at WUWT.
Take Mosher, for example: Again and again countless times he has blatantly continued to post falsehoods debunked many times (including in what is seen in my link here) including in his presence, like claiming Forbush decreases don’t affect cloud cover. (By now I don’t tend to engage him directly most times, especially as he’d just repeat so in later threads anyway, and my time is limited). That doesn’t surprise me, as it is the oldest trick in the book: sheer repetition of a falsehood spreading belief, by originators having the advantage of unlimited time to burn, with him among multiple WUWT analogues of Wikipedia’s extreme postcount (edit-count) Connolley.
But what is more curious is recent management decisions of Anthony Watts, as he in contrast is against the CAGW movement in reality as well as in superficial pretense. Someone like Scafetta, of far, far lesser post count, (who personally I think imperfect but sincerely making some interesting observations) is considered a “thread bombing” problem? More likely, those threads had one or a handful of comments somewhere by Scafetta while the usual suspects spammed them with a large number of posts per thread. While I’d prefer that Scafetta uploaded for convenient examination all of his source data rather than requiring extra work, it is not like his opponents have done that universally either, and cases where they have skipped such include where it matters most of all.
On another topic, Gail Comb’s excellent paper link here reminds me of how Ti-44 data might be added for a triple proxy demonstration of rise in solar activity up to the recent Modern Maximum in solar activity and temperature (now starting to end), along with Be-10 and C-14. A method applied in my usual solar-climate illustration, http://img213.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62356_expanded_overview3_122_1094lo.jpg (updated a few weeks ago to debunk a method of misapplying correlation stats unfortunately seen on WUWT), is to show solar activity history by a variety of indicators and proxies, even down to solar cycle length. A core technique of the CAGW movement is fudging data presentation, such as turning a twin peak pattern in temperature and solar activity over the past century into a hockey stick rewritten version of the former, so generating superficially high deviation between them.
Thanks Henry: It’s worth noting that Scafetta is a professional scientist who publishes in peer reviewed journals. As such, he is limited in what datasets he can upload. They’re not his datasets. So he cites the originating authors, and it’s up to anyone who wants to replicate his work to either go to the supplementar information those original authors supplied, or approach those authors directly if they haven’t archived.
Team wassup like to bash Scafetta, but how often do they run articles on papers where there is no direct access to the datasets? All the time.
It’s blatant hypocrisy.
When Scafetta challenged Anthony asking him to respond to Sverre Holm’s confirmation that his work can be reproduced from the descriptions given in his papers, despite allowing Mosher to lie about this for years on his blog, Watts responded by saying “science isn’t friendship Nicola”. he then closed the thread.
Well Watts is right in a way. The friendships in team wassup certainly don’t produce science.
Gail, Thanks so much for A History of Solar Activity over Millennia. It’s a pleasure to read Ilya G. Usoskin – a genuine communicator, as are you.
I’ve always appreciated the tone and moderation (or lack of) and content at the talkshop.
Thanks Tallbloke. 🙂
“Ian Wilson says:
March 14, 2014 at 5:43 pm
@tchannon
…
”
Your last paragraph is where the problem lies. The gravitational sum does nothing.
Some time ago I spent ages looking every way I could dream up at barycentre data, no result.
Tim C. It may not be the gravitational sum which is the effective factor. The other possibilities include but are not limited to:
The orientation above or below the solar equatorial plane.
The orientation with respect to the galactic centre
If the effect is predominantly electromagnetic then either of these could be important. I’m hoping Ray Tomes might do a guest post on his z-axis hypothesis.