Nicola Scafetta has emailed me to let us know he has a new paper in press which adresses critiques of our solar-planetary theory. I can’t do justice to presenting this work by illustrating this post with figures from the paper using my cellphone, but this a seriously impressive piece of work which Nicola generously shares with Talkshop readers via a link below the break. Nicola writes:
I just would like to share my latest paper
Nicola Scafetta, 2014. Discussion on the spectral coherence between planetary, solar and climate oscillations: a reply to some critiques.
Astrophysics and Space Science in press.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-014-2111-8
For those who followed this research, the paper strongly rebuts some interesting critiques of the planetary theory of solar and climate variation made by Holm andCauquoin et al. that emerged in the literature during the first months of the 2014. (It also rebuts the very improper and unprofessional criticism made by Anthony Watts)
In any case, for those interested the paper can be downloaded from here
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/art_10.1007_s10509-014-2111-8.pdf
Nicola Scafetta
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“It also rebuts the very improper and unprofessional criticism made by Anthony Watts”
Could someone please refresh my memory as to what that criticism by Watts was?
In my comments on the Rain post below https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/rain-is-this-cause-for-concern/comment-page-1/#comment-92506 I mentioned cycles of around 22 years. Scafetta talks about temperature records some of which have been fiddled and may not be accurate. Many rain records are longer than temperature records and less likely to have been manipulated or homogenised. Clouds which are associated with rain should influence temperatures. Dry periods with clear skies are more likely to also be hot periods. I understand Indians and Chinese have looked at Monsoon records in association with solar cycles.
I asked the question should not rain variation and trends be a better indicator of regional climate change.?
Rain records reflect the rain-producing clouds and circumstances that give rise to rain-producing clouds. What you are wondering is if they are a proxy for either temperatures or cloudiness in general. The problem with this is shown by using rain records in, say, Palm Springs. The rain there results from certain types and strengths of wind systems coming east from the Pacific. The rain record in Palm Springs (snow, also, in the hills) is a reflection of these other things.
Proxies are like analogies. Useful but with limits. Perhaps it is better to slide away from proxies as direct reflections of something else – as Mann tries to do with his tree rings – to use them as Ven diagrams are used, finding the common portion that tells us about the central problem we are interested in. Of course this is still not true. The reality – the climate – is all of the circles, not just the overlapping part, but getting a mental handle on what is going on is very difficult, what with all the “normal” outliers and variation that is intrinsic to the system.
That being said, I sure would like to see rainfall stats. Rainfall is very, very local (my experiences in Alberta hiking have astonished me by showing how microclimates exist), but still, a local connection to other parameters may be good locally as a proxy, while not good more generally. I think a great deal of AGW is a regional change being mathematically misrepresented as a global change, a redistribution of energy, especially in the Arctic. Cloud cover that is regionally different but globally the same could well be a significant influence on “global” temperatures, but not show up because of the mathematical smearing.
And you are right about the adjusting. The rainfall as measured shouldn’t be changed. Unless the claim is that the old gauges evaporated more than the new ones, which, hah! means that any data is going to INCREASE historic rainfall records, not decrease them (unless the old “inch” is also considered different from the new inch, which machinations I wouldn’t be surprised to see).
How to schedule calendar corrections??…
duration of mean tropical year (Year 0):
365.24231 days
harmonic nearest 1 day:
365.24231 / 365 = 1.000663863 days
beat:
(1.000663863)*(1) / (1.000663863 – 1) = 1507.33486 days
(1507.33486) / 365.24231
= 4.126944823 years (leap year)
nearest subharmonic of terrestrial year = 4
beat:
(4.126944823)*(4) / (4.126944823 – 4)
= 130.0390117 years (correction for leap year drift)
That’s where this comes from:
=
if (year is not divisible by 4) then (it is a common year)
else
if (year is not divisible by 100) then (it is a leap year)
else
if (year is not divisible by 400) then (it is a common year)
else (it is a leap year)
=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year
I haven’t looked into the history of why it was decided to not do the correction every 32.5 years, but they certainly made a mess of the calendar by inserting this 130 year (on average) signal.
I should clarify that by “day” I mean solar days.
[…] Fonte : https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/nicola-scafetta-coherence-between-planetary-solar-and-clim… […]
Reblogging on daltonsminima
http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/2014/11/16/nicola-scafetta-la-risposta-ad-alcune-critiche/
Paul Vaughan says: November 16, 2014 at 1:42 pm
“How to schedule calendar corrections??…”
Thank you!
“I haven’t looked into the history of why it was decided to not do the correction every 32.5 years, but they certainly made a mess of the calendar by inserting this 130 year (on average) signal.”
I think they uses the best info available, when Pope Gregory, insisted on a method of keeping Easter within bounds of where it is supposed to be. I hope the results do not tax your very nice computer to much! Now explain leap seconds, please.
Quoting from the paper:
‘The three-frequency solar model produces at least four main theoretical beat frequencies including those at about 61 years (beat between 9.93 and 11.86 year periods), 114.8 years (beat between 9.93 and 10.87 year period), 130.2 years (beat between 10.87 and 11.86 year period) and about 983 years (combined beat among the three harmonics) ‘
—
The 61 year cycle can be derived another way.
Each Jupiter-Saturn conjunction moves 117.147 degrees retrograde from the previous one.
126 x 117.147 is 14760.525, just over 41 x 360 degrees (14760).
126 J-S conjunctions take 2503 years, which also represents a whole number of Jupiter (211) and Saturn (85) orbit periods (211 – 85 = 126).
2503y / 41 = 61.04878 years
One twelfth of the 2503 year period is ~208.6 years corresponding to the de Vries cycle.