Arguments
Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
What the science says...
| Select a level... |
Basic
|
Intermediate
|
Advanced
| ||||
|
The sun's energy has decreased since the 1980s but the Earth keeps warming faster than before. |
|||||||
Climate Myth...
It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)
Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.
Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008.
Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site.
The solar fluctuations since 1870 have contributed a maximum of 0.1 °C to temperature changes. In recent times the biggest solar fluctuation happened around 1960. But the fastest global warming started in 1980.
Figure 2 shows how much different factors have contributed recent warming. It compares the contributions from the sun, volcanoes, El Niño and greenhouse gases. The sun adds 0.02 to 0.1 °C. Volcanoes cool the Earth by 0.1-0.2 °C. Natural variability (like El Niño) heats or cools by about 0.1-0.2 °C. Greenhouse gases have heated the climate by over 0.8 °C.
Figure 2 Global surface temperature anomalies from 1870 to 2010, and the natural (solar, volcanic, and internal) and anthropogenic factors that influence them. (a) Global surface temperature record (1870–2010) relative to the average global surface temperature for 1961–1990 (black line). A model of global surface temperature change (a: red line) produced using the sum of the impacts on temperature of natural (b, c, d) and anthropogenic factors (e). (b) Estimated temperature response to solar forcing. (c) Estimated temperature response to volcanic eruptions. (d) Estimated temperature variability due to internal variability, here related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. (e) Estimated temperature response to anthropogenic forcing, consisting of a warming component from greenhouse gases, and a cooling component from most aerosols. (IPCC AR5, Chap 5)
Some people try to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures by cherry picking the data. They only show data from periods when sun and climate data track together. They draw a false conclusion by ignoring the last few decades when the data shows the opposite result.
Basic rebuttal written by Larry M, updated by Sarah
Update July 2015:
Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Last updated on 2 April 2017 by Sarah. View Archives
If solar activity has a sginificant impact, then if sunspot numbers remain low, we should expect to see a temperature decrease similar to that observed during the early 20th century. It is too early to tell if the recent flattening will be a top similar to the previous two.
The recent divergence between solar activity (decreasing, as measured by ssn) and rising temperature anomaly in this graph is obvious. That ssn 'increase' is over - and yet we're still warming. That's what the data show - what you 'believe' cannot negate that fact. That observation alone should cause you to question those beliefs; to cling to beliefs that so utterly conflict with data is a sign of one who is in denial.
EtR#901: "too early to tell if the recent flattening will be a top"
What recent flattening? Not seeing it here:
Not seeing any flattening here either.
Overall, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2011 was the seventh warmest July since records began in 1880, with an anomaly of 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average.
I suppose if you buy into the 'global warming stopped in ___' meme, you should see one of those threads.
In common with other stars, the sun steadily releases this energy as gamma radiation, deep within its central core, and primarily through the proton-proton reaction (ref1), the same nuclear reaction that powers the hydrogen bomb. In this simple reaction, four hydrogen nuclei fuse together to make one helium nucleus, releasing in the process 26.73 MeV (or 1.02 x 10^-22 ton oil equivalent) of energy in the form of gamma rays (ref2). Streaming out from the sun’s central core at some 10^38 per second (ref3), the gamma ray photons are continually absorbed and re-emitted as less energetic photons, eventually reaching the surface of the sun and escaping into surrounding space primarily as photons of visible light, along with sizable amounts of every other form of radiation.
It is this lethal flux of radiation that has irradiated the naked Earth for 4.5 billion years now. It is this radiation which powers, supports, initiates and drives (through genetic mutation) the numerous processes of biochemical diversification we call life. It is this radiation which directly and indirectly, creates, supports and controls the so-called biosphere of life-tolerant conditions on Earth, conditions that nourish, support, protect, evolve and eventually extinguish each species of life on this planet.
Energy is radiation. Radiation is energy. The ultimate source of both is nuclear. It is that simple in nature. Humanity’s real problem comes with the politics of energy, a vastly more complicated and intractable issue altogether. An issue it seems, which dare not be stated in four hundred words, far less solved.
ref 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction
ref 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_energy
ref 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
[DB] Rambling dissertations aside, do you have a point with this?
Sunshine Records must go back many years, in many places.
Are there any global analyses of sunshine hours from the various sources?
I'm also not sure what you mean by 'sunshine hours'. Are cloudy days excluded? If so, at what 'level of cloudiness'? If cloudy days are not considered then the number of hours that the sun shines on various parts of the Earth is entirely a factor of the planet's orbit and inclination... and thus should not be showing any significant long term variation.
In any case, satellite readings of total incoming solar radiation should be far more accurate than whatever measurement is being suggested here.
• Variations in the intensity of the sun’s magnetic field with cycles including the Schwabe (eleven year), Hale (22 years) and Gleissberg (70-90 years).
• Effect of the sun’s plasma and electromagnetic fields on rates of the earth’s rotation, and hence the length of the day.
• Effect of the sun’s gravitational field through the 18.6 year Lunar Nodal Cycle, causing variation in atmospheric pressure, temperature, rainfall, sea-level and ocean temperatures, especially at high latitudes.
• Known links between solar activity and monsoonal activity, or the phases of climate oscillations such as the Atlantic Multidimensional Oscillation, a 60-year long cycle during which sea surface temperatures vary about 0.2°C above and below the long-term average, with effects on northern hemisphere air temperature, rainfall and drought.
• Magnetic fields associated with solar flares, which modulate galactic cosmic ray input into the Earth’s atmosphere. This in turn may cause variations in the formation of low-level clouds. This causes cooling: a one per cent variation in low cloud cover producing a similar change in forcing to the estimated increase caused by human green-house gases.
• The 1500 year-long Bond Cycle, as a result of which the three most recent warm peaks of this cycle had a major effect on the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods
As Robert Carpenter (2010) has stated: “That many of the mechanisms and possible mechanisms by which the sun influences Earth’s climate are poorly understood is no justification for ignoring them.” Of immediate relevance is the fact that solar cycles longer than the eleven year average are followed by later cycles of lesser intensity, and with it a cooler climate. According to Archibald (2010), Cycle 24 may produce cooling of up to 2.2°C for the mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere. This may have already started.
Dr. Vincent Courtillot, who is a professor of geophysics at the University Paris-Diderot and Chair of paleomagnetism and geodynamics of the Institut Universitaire de France, has pointed (2011) to the failure of climate models in relation to the sun. He notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about 0.1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet.
John Penhallurick
It should be noted that the IPCC has examined potential additional effects from the sun such as the purported effects of Galactic Cosmic Rays (modulated by the solar magnetic field). However, most of the items on your list have no known causal mechanism whereby they could effect climate. Why changes of the length of the day should cause warming or cooling is completely unexplained, but you are here to criticize climate scientists, not for ignoring your alternative theory, but for not inventing it for you as well.
Further, some of the items are not even solar related. For example the Lunar Nodal Cycle is, surprise surprise, a Lunar, not a solar effect.
More bizzare is the inclusion of Bond Cycles (conjectured climate cooling events) as being a solar cycle. They may be, but the evidence for that has not been presented, and simply naming a climate cycle as a solar cycle is not evidence. Tellingly you equate the Bond cycle to warming events, whereas it is a cycle of cooling events with a quasi-periodicity of 1470 years. Of course, given that Bond events are multi-century events and that the last one peeked 1400 years ago, if they theory of Bond Cycles is any good, we should be in the middle of a massive cooling event at the moment, not a warming one. Ignoring all theory, however, you simply take the name, invert the sign and suppose that it is coming centuries early (based on your incorrect suposition that the MWP being the last event) as an explanation of the modern warming because, evidently, for you straw is preferable to following the clear evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
[DB] If you wish to discuss the science of the OP, fine. Shamelessly self-promoting your book here is not. Future comments of this nature posted here will simply be deleted and your commenting privileges may be revoked.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
The scorning criticism By Tom Curtis of jpenhall46 is erroneous (and provable to be so.)
Bring on the proof! Solid evidence is always preferable to empty claims.
(-snip-)
[DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
If you want to discuss the science here then discuss the science. State your case and provide your evidence. Provide links to more details if it is too much for a single post. This is not rocket surgery, it is basic conversational skills.
"Buy my book to learn the Truth" is not at all the same thing.
No, I did not try to sell anything, I offered a free pdf of the 'proofs'. (-snip-) Anyhow, here is a small taste. If you are still interested you can pursue the rest.
Earth's Period (No. 1 Constant)
Divided by 4
(Obliquity, No 2 Constant) = Quarter Year
Multiplied by 27
(Ratio, No. 3 Constant) = 6.75 Years
(Regional Drought Cycle)
Multiplied by 11.028148 Yrs
(Sunspot Wave Frequency,
No. 4 Constant) = 74.44 Years
( Quarterly Sub-cycle of a
full 297.76 year Sunspot
Cycle)
Divided by 4
(Obliquity, No. 2 Constant) = 18.61 years
(Metonic Cycle of the
Moon's Nodes.)
Multiplied by 27
(Ratio, No.3 Constant) = 502.47 Years
(Full Tree-ring Cycle,
3x167.49 Year Tree-ring
Sub-cycles.The 167.49 Year
Sub-cycle is in turn made
up of 9x18.61 Year Metonic
Cycles of the Moon.)
Multiplied by 11.028148 Yrs
(Sunspot Wave Frequency,
No. 4 Constant) = 5,541.3135 Years
(Which equals 2x2,770.6567
Year Glacial Cycles,
See J Bray.)
Multiplied by 11.028148 Yrs
(Sunspot Wave Frequency,
No. 4 Constant = 412,495.34 Years (=?)
Divided by 4
(Obliquity, No 2 Constant) = 103,123.83 Years
(Precession of
'Perehelion and Aphelion')
"According to Strahler,(Ref. No.17.) the rotation rate of the Sun differentiates at a slower rate from lower to higher latitudes. It seems to me that we ought to be investigating the latitude of the Sun which is rotating at the 27 day rate." (A S Gaddes, 1990.)
[DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
"I offered a free pdf of the 'proofs'."
If no peer-reviewed published citable sources exist your claims devolve to "climastrology". QED.
The evidence you provide in @914 is not the least bit helpful without some context. It is just a Number Salad. Please provide an outline of your argument because at this point I have no idea what it is your numbers are supposed to show me.
The temperature of the Earth climate is determined by the amount of energy in it - which in turn is driven by the rate of energy in (sunlight, throttled mostly solar output and Earth albedo) and the rate of energy out (throttled by temperature, IR emissivity of Earth to space).
You seem to be claiming that current temperature changes are driven by cyclic phenomena, not CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Unless these 'cycles' determine the rate of energy entering or leaving the Earth's climate, somehow modifying insolation (in ways that are not currently detected by TSI studies), albedo (again, in ways not currently detected), or IR emissivity to space, they are essentially "climastrology", "numerology". Tamino has discussed this exercise, and has most appropriately labeled it Mathturbation.
Given sufficient data and imagination, it's possible to fit any natural phenomena to 'cycles', but unless there is a physical basis affecting energy rates you are looking at correlation without causation. How do these various cycles physically affect the energy balance of the climate - in some measurable fashion? Without that, these 'cycles' are simply a pointless intellectual exercise...
A.S. Gaddes never speculated what the 'catalyst' or 'Weather Factor'was, emanating from the Sunspot Latitude of the Sun and affecting the Earths climate as exactly predictable 'Dry Cycles'.(Recent work seems to indicate there is something to the production of ultra-violet and ozone affecting the Jet Stream.) The work does not predict Global Average Temperatures,(though A S Gaddes also worked on the concept of a 'Convection Still' in this regard.) It predicts 'Dry Cycle' onset and influence (moving around the planet longitudinally with the westward drift of the Earth's Magnetic field.)As an example, 2011 'Wet'/Normal, 2012 One Year 'Dry Cycle'(Reaching New Zealand mid-December 2011 and Australia, early January 2012) 2013-14 Two year 'Wet'/Normal period, 2015-19 a severe Five Year 'Dry Cycle'(Drought.) The previous Five year Drought was 1997-2001.
These 'Dry Cycles' are immutable, and are only alleviated by explosive volcanic albedo, (in Australia's case,usually volcanic activity in the Indonesian Archipelago.)
The 'Dry Cycle' forecasts are exact in their arrival and duration, and can be easily proven to be so via weather records dating back into Tree-ring and Deep Ice Core analysis.
I do not indulge in 'Mathturbation' or 'Climastrology' and neither did A S Gaddes.
( -snip- )
[DB] "...in 1990. There were no 'peers' to review such work at the time."
So you maintain that peer-review did not exist prior to 1991? Or that Gaddes the Elder had no peer?
"The fantasy of El Nino ruled the waves."
If making a funny, using a smiley or Poe's Law kicks in.
"Alex Gaddes died in 1997, leaving his forecasts at 2001."
He published in 1990, yet his data you cite runs after his death...via Ouija board?
"I do not indulge in 'Mathturbation' or 'Climastrology'"
In all seriousness, extraordinary claims require an extraordinary burden of proof. If you maintain what you do in the absence of physical mechanisms in the face of centuries of published research (which you seek to overturn with a non-peer-reviewed source) which says otherwise, then you do.
QED.
Inflammatory snipped.
It is an overly complicated explanation that is required a for dogmatic rather than scientific reason. A much simpler explanation that explains *more* is avaialble if you abandon the premise that it must be cycles within cycles within cycles.
If you stick with the Epicycle Theory of Climate you still need to account for the radiative characteristics of CO2, Water Vapor, CH4, etc since those are real and measurable.
The 'extraordinary burden of proof' you seek will be provided in the onset of future 'Dry Cycles' (if you do not wish to bother with the historical record.)How will the GBR react with an extended period of 'run-off' in 2013-14? Or how will Australian agriculture fare with a Five Year Drought From 2015-19? South-East Queensland will be in a severe state of water deprivation.
pbjamm (917) mentioned the absence of Global Average Temperature prediction. This is relevant with the AGW hype surrounding the recent BEST Report.
If the 'Dry Cycles,' are migrating longitudinally around the planet,(30 degrees/month with the westward drift of the Earth's Magnetic Field,) then the surface temperature will fluctuate as the cycles pass over the various measuring stations, (increasing while under the influence of the 'Dry Cycle' and decreasing in the subsequent 'Wet'/ Normal period. These fluctuations would be also subject to any volcanic (or other) 'albedo' effect. As these 'Cycles' last from one to five years, it does not seem relevant or possible to make generalisations about surface temperature.(see also Convection Still.)
[DB] "I'm saying there were no 'peers' working in the field of 'Dry Cycle' prediction. A S Gaddes sought and followed the advice of many scientific 'peers' at the time and many of them provided him with important papers and discussion pertaining to his work."
Now you resort to "termastrology". Uncontent with the standard definition of peer review, you redefine it to make the term more convenient to your position. By not publishing the work in a peer-reviewed, scientifically relevant journal the work by definition is not peer-reviewed.
This is a forum in which the science of climate change is discussed and explored. By science meaning peer-reviewed articles published by working scientists in the field in scientifically relevant papers. Nothing you have presented thus far meets those standards.
Thus, the reader of this blog will be unable to differentiate between what you have presented thus far and the works of Hapgood, Velikovsky, Burroughs (my favorite is where the famed scientist Tar Zan exlores the inner world of Pellucidar) and Hubbard. But lacking the entertainment value.
If you wish to further explore your claims, pick the ONE mechanism you feel most strongly about (the one you wish to "hang your hat on"), use the Search function in the upper left corner to find the most relevant thread and initiate a dialogue on it there. You waste everyone's time here with this Gish Gallop approach.
"We believe in 'Gravity' though we don't know what it is."
I believe this, along with your predilection for epicycles, is clear evidence that you have been transported here from the medieval period.
Since your time, there have been some advances; most notably Einstein and The Internet/google/Wikipedia... you can use the latter to learn about the former and discover that we know very well what gravity is.
Don, are you saying that the 'Dry Cycles' have caused the Recent Spike in global average temps? Are you also saying that CO2 does not absorb and emit at a well-defined set of pressure-broadened frequencies within the same infrared range at which the surface also emits? Are you also claiming that the observed stratospheric cooling trend is a result (somehow - physical mechanism? I don't have to show you no stinking physical mechanisms!) of these dry cycles?
I'm beginning to hear a catchy tune . . . the Music of the Spheres?
Of course, that would have exactly zero explanatory value regarding the climate - cicadas do not have a causal relationship forcing global temperatures. And my 'predictions' outside the fitting range would be completely worthless. The only way to obtain a real prediction of future climate behavior is by looking at the actual physics in operation - forcings, feedbacks, etc. Such as (again, for example) greenhouse gases, El Nino variations, observed insolation, etc.
I don't know if I ran across this idea on Tamino, or elsewhere, but I rank things thusly:
- Physics are better predictors than statistics
- Good statistics are better predictors than bad statistics
- Bad statistics are a toss-up with "Just So Stories"
This is the real problem with "climastrology", such as Loehle and Scafetta's curve fitting, or (IMO) numerology such as the astrological 'cycle' fits recently commented upon. No physics connection to the climate, no mechanism, and hence correlation without causation - and no predictive value.
Mr. Gaddes' "migrating longitudinally around the planet,(30 degrees/month with the westward drift of the Earth's Magnetic Field,)" would be quite noticeable - and could hardly be called 'drift'.
And as someone who quite frequently uses magnetic compasses in navigation, I'll point out that this would be more than noticeable. It would render compasses useless...
Good luck on that - however a question. The problem with this kind of forecasting, is that it doesnt forecast. If the fitted cycles have no physical meaning, then the real world will drift away from forecast in accordance with real physics. So when this happens, will you be writing an apologize to climate change victims for helping to mislead - or just redoing the fitting and publishing another prediction? Ie is there some point when you would realise the folly and stop fitting? Of course, should you be right, I would stand behind a nobel prize nomination.
I will confess that I have not read all of your father's work, but I perused all of it and read much of it in what little time I had to spare.
Forgive me if this is offensive, but I believe you are doing your father a great, great disservice both in the way that you present his material and what you yourself have taken from it.
Your father wrote, at the very beginning of his book:He was humble enough to recognize his own limitations, but more importantly, he demonstrated a tremendous investment in getting people to recognize the importance of climate and climate change.
He did explicitly (in his book) understand and accept the realities behind CO2 and greenhouse gas theory. His only disadvantage was that events had not begun to truly play out when his book was written and before he passed away.
In fact, he said:And that may well have been the case, to the casual observer, in 1990, and was indeed a factor in holding temperatures down until 1979. We know that since then this has become much clearer, and aerosols no longer dominate greenhouse gases in changing the climate.
He goes on to say:Of course, your father's concern was with an imminent glacial period, not warming, but the sentiment rings true, regardless.
And I am sure that, faced with the weight of evidence against his theory and for the impact of greenhouse gases, he would at least admit that whatever influence his natural cycles had had until this point in time, mankind's burning of fossil fuels was overwhelming those forces and making his theories inconsequential in the scheme of things.
From his book:
I will post a separate comment with what I consider to be the failings in his efforts, but I don't want to diminish them. He was an intelligent and yet uneducated (formally) man who took wholeheartedly to his hobby, pursued it with intelligence and diligence, and whether correct in his conclusions or not he demonstrated both a humility and an investment in the importance of the subject which now deserves respect, not derision.
But I would ask you to read his book a little more closely, and to read between the lines, imagining what he might say today, faced with the mounting evidence, rather than what you perceive that he had said back then.
He is at a disadvantage in having you as his only advocate. I believe you owe it to him to consider all of his words, and what he himself seemed more than ready to accept, which is the idea that he might be wrong, that it is frighteningly important to be right about this, and that doing so -- being right -- means being willing to always keep an open mind, and to always adjust your reasoning to the facts as they become available.
On the veracity of your father's work, I have a few points to make.
First, despite the great length of the book, the vast majority (more than 99%) is mere discussion. He talks of the repercussions of droughts and climate change. He quotes extensively from the passages of other works, all of which predate 1978, which means they lack a lot of modern tools, theories and observations that simply were not available then.
But, in his body of work, he does little more than do as he said he would in his introduction, which is to explain how he arrived at his cycles, without going the important next step and proving how those intricate, interwoven cycles in fact tie to any climatic events, either past or present.
[I would suggest at this point that if you want to promote this work you must take that next step, to compute and graph his cycles and show them in parallel with the temperature record, past, present and future. Make a prediction, so that the work can be evaluated on its actual merit rather than its presumed value.]
The first problem I see in his work is that he tied his cycles, as far as I can tell, only to records of rainfall in Australia and nothing else (and of course, he lived in Australia).
His cycles are not tied to global records (rainfall, drought, or temperatures) of any sort.
They are also not tied to global temperatures, but only to rainfall records.
His entire theory hinges on tying drought -- Australian drought -- to his cycles, but not temperature changes, and certainly not global temperature changes. He never, ever introduces temperature records at any point.
As such, his work very simply does not apply. The connection of cycles to drought to temperature is quite simply too vague to be given any weight whatsoever, especially when no such connection has even been presented by him.
There is no evidence -- no effort yet -- to show that his cycles translate into a prediction that mirrors either past or future temperatures.
There is no reason whatsoever (lack of physical mechanisms aside) to apply any of his work to the climate changes that we clearly see today.
Beyond this, there were also clear gaps in his knowledge. I imagine that he would have been a whirlwind today, with access to the Internet to help him close those gaps.
But he did not understand the Hadley cells and their effects on the arid regions of the globe and transport of moisture. This is clearly evidenced in his Appendix 4.
That section also begins with this backwards understanding of the relationship between temperature and moistureHe was, I suspect, confused by the fact that hot deserts are dry, and so presuming that one was the cause of the other, when in fact the two are intertwined and, in fact, the daytime heat of the desert is a result of the lack of humidity rather than its cause.
He also suffered from the limitations of the science of the day, such as this tidbit (which we know to be not entirely correct, as evidenced by the mounting build up of CO2 in both the oceans and the atmosphere):He also includes a fair of discussion of volcanoes in his theory. Modern climate science has this pretty well nailed down, to a much greater extent than your father achieved and now at a level from which he might have benefited. But his volcanic theories go out the window as "the" driver of climate. We know this to be a fact, and there is no way to argue it, even if he had included any hard numbers to substantiate his position, which he failed to do.
I'll close with this quote from your father's book:Your father cared very, very much not about being right, but about avoiding the distress that climate change will cause. Above all else, I think that legacy needs to be taken forward.
Think Spencer will pick up on this line any time soon?
There is no mention of the development of the basic tenet of the book (ie. The Ratios Principle)or its subsequent and future application. The assertion that A S Gaddes only depended on Australian Rainfall records is erroneous.He very much used Deep Ice Core And Tree-ring data to generate his tables. His discussion of the importance of volcanic activity has not been 'nailed down' by current Climate Science, it is in fact ignored or considered irrelevant. What caused the so called 'La Nina' events in Southern Australia at the time of the eruption of Mt Pucon in Mexico 2011? Or the bitterly cold Northern Hemisphere winter at the time of the eruption of Eyjatjallajokull in Iceland?Finally,(for the moment,) are the forecasts generated by the Ratios Principle correct? If they are then the 'method' must have had something to do with it.
It took me many readings to 'understand' this work, I expect it will take those more astute and qualified than myself more than one reading.
[DB] Again you continue to prosecute your agenda of curve-fitting without plausible, physical mechanisms for support nor do you provide testable references. As such you are a practitioner of climastrology.
As noted earlier, pick the element you feel strongest about & post on it on the most appropriate thread. Further comments of this nature constitute Gish Gallop and will perforce be deleted. Failure to follow this guidance is cause for a rescinding of posting privileges.
No further warnings shall be given.
While I admitted from the start that I skimmed much of it, I missed nothing.
The Ratios Principle is irrelevant to the stated applicability. It does not matter if he used super computers or fairy dust, alien calculus or a child's arithmetic. The bottom line is that he must demonstrate some ability to both mirror past and to predict future global temperature trends, and I see no effort whatsoever to do so, when it should in fact be the centerpiece of everything (not some "Ratios Principle").
I did see frequent reference to the ice cores and tree rings to create his tables (i.e. to identify the "cycles"), but he does not test his cycles against any temperature record of any sort (and, to some extent, testing the output against the input would be cheating and of no value -- I could do the exact same thing with any history of stock exchange records, but with no chance of making a future killing from the results).
I did not say that his method depended on Australian Rainfall, I said that his method was used to correlate to it.
Either way, it is useless in the climate debate if it is not in some way tied to global climate change, and it is not. If it is, please identify the pages, lines, tables and words that do so.
As far as volcanic activity ("ignored and considered irrelevant"), you are simply wrong and you need to do more research.
As far as the "forecasts generated by the Ratios Principle"... exactly where are they? They aren't in the book that I could see. That's my major complaint. Where is the testable prediction?
Appendices 1 and 2 contain some bizarre and utterly vague forecasts of "dry cycles" in Australia. By what measure? Where are the real world observations that match the truth of the predictions? Where is the math that shows that the predictions are anything more than fabricated data to match some (unrevealed, unclear) observations? And who cares? How does this in any way presume to predict climate change, or the steady rise in temperatures since 1979?I have no intention of reading it again. There is nothing there of value.
Again, you are doing your father a grave disservice by using his work to thwart true climate science and forestall action, rather than vice versa.
Your material has now been peer reviewed. You have been given specific areas wherein it fails. The next step in the peer review process is to do the hard part, accept and address those errors, and resubmit it to review.
21,400 peer reviewed papers on volcanic activity and climate change since 2000
Really! Sphaerica has clearly put substantial effort into looking at the work presented; unlike I who glibly dismissed it as gibberish based soley on your posts.
You - I and others - should be thankful, show appreciation for the work, thought and time spent; You should let the work either rest where it is or progrss it as advised.
to post faint thanks, then faint accusation and then just continue where you left off is not only impolite, but is failing to take advantage of the excellent assistance you have been offered. Neither polite nor scientific.
That said, they (IMO) lack explanatory power, fall into the general category of 'curve-fitting' while bypassing physics, and are not going to provide predictive power. They have not been submitted to, nor evaluated by, any peer-reviewed journals (where peer-review acts as a filter for a minimal level of quality). And now, thanks to the discussion here, that should be clear to unbiased readers as well.
Don Gaddes - I believe the objections raised here hold. Without a testable physical mechanism for these cycles to influence climate in some fashion, nor a clear set of testable predictions, these 'ratios' and cycles have little scientific value. With those (if you can for example supply some mechanism wherein the "Metonic Cycle of the Moon's Nodes" affects climate, and/or testable climate predictions), it can at least be evaluated.
But that said - the posters on this site have very little patience for hand-waving.
See (921) for my answer to the queries on temperature readings (or lack of them.)The Ratios Principle predicts 'Dry Cycles' not Heat Fluctuations.I suspect the current predilection for temperature fixation is just an attempt to 'prop up' AGW.For the queries on Drift of Magnetic Field. It is my understanding that the Earth revolves around the Sun once every Earth/Solar Year, 360 degrees, 30 degrees/month. I believe we are accompanied on this journey by our Magnetic Field. Does the Magnetic Field 'drift, undulate, waft or cavort?' Probably all of the above.
I stand by the 'Ratios Principle' and the methods used to obtain it. Apart from my own observations it should be perfectly simple for anyone to check the veracity of the forecasts from 1976 (or before,)to 2011.
KR(939) I appreciate your 'moderate approach' The Metonic cycle of the Moon's Nodes is an important 'Constant' in the Ratios Principle calculation. It appears to affect the severity and duration of 'Dry Cycles.' (see where the Metonic Cycle appears in the Forecast Tables, and accompanying comments.)Perhaps you can use Sphaerica's copy,(apparently he wont be using it any more.)
It is now cold and dry in America, 'physically indicating' the predicted passage of the 'Dry Cycle' due to reach Australia in early January 2012.
[DB] "Does the Magnetic Field 'drift, undulate, waft or cavort?' Probably all of the above."
Now you resort to trolling by argumentarium. If you honestly cannot understand what you are talking about in this point you must then also summon the intellectual honesty to admit it and then get more knowledge.
"Apart from my own observations it should be perfectly simple for anyone to check the veracity of the forecasts from 1976 (or before,)to 2011."
Eyecrometers do not cut it in science. You must perform statistical significance tests to provide a scientific basis for your claims. You still practition climastrology as a result.
"It appears to affect the severity and duration of 'Dry Cycles.'"
IBID.
"It is now cold and dry in America"
Winter approaches. For many parts of America this means rain, not drought. Or do include the seasons in your collection of semimythical cycles?
Either step it up and provide real scientific evidence (via significance testing) to support your extraordinary claims (which bear the burden of proof of extraordinary evidence to support them) or take your agenda elsewhere. Many "alternatives-to-science" blogs exist that will gladly welcome you.
Evasion struck out.
"Now you resort to trolling by argumentarium"
regarding "Does the Magnetic Field 'drift, undulate, waft or cavort?' Probably all of the above."
I think you are being unfair. This understanding of magnetic fields, along with the above statements regarding gravity, clearly belong in the comments section of the 2nd law thread - just based on the quality of the physics.
[DB] Point taken. ;)
That is not what geomagnetism folks mean when they speak of 'drift.' Why not include the 'ratios' based on the earth's daily rotation: 360 degrees per day!
"Does the Magnetic Field 'drift, undulate, waft or cavort?'"
If you base your ideas on magnetic 'drift,' it would be wise to take a serious approach to that concept - beginning with using the word drift as it is understood.
Except in your case you have only evaluated this based entirely on a simple binary wet/dry interpretation of rainfall in unspecified areas of Australia alone?
Are you serious?
I would very strongly suggest that if you want to supplant climate science with your own theories, you begin first by learning more about the theories that you believe are wrong but everyone else accepts, rather than focusing all of your energy on the one theory that you believe and everyone else rejects. Of course, sticking to what you know and blindly pushing it with complete and total dismissal of what other people say is the easy course. It's also unlikely to be remotely effective.
You would like everyone (thousands and thousands of scientists) to abandon all of climate science based on hand waving about magnetic fields and pages and pages of this (which, again, simply ties magical cycles to yet-to-be-clarified "wet/dry" measurements of rainfall in Australia):
Your paper has been "peer reviewed." Address the issues or accept that you have failed. Continuing to push failure is not advancing science, it's just being a PITA.
For DB [Response] Yes, the Seasons (Obliquity) are included in the Equation as No.2 Constant.
If the Forecasts (Past and Future) are proven to have veracity, then I am obviously not 'Pushing Failure.'
Further, the 1991-1993 predictions also fail as a prediction for Australia (as opposed to Victoria), lining up as it does with the 1991 to 1995 drought:
Indeed, looking at a chart of Australian rainfall, it is very hard to see any evidence of Gaddes' cycles at all:
In more detail, here are the years covered by the predictions:
1978 wet 525.6 mm
1979 dry 455.6 mm
1980 np 433.0 mm
1981 dry 535.1 mm
1982 wet 421.4 mm
1983 dry 499.2 mm
1984 wet 555.2 mm
1985 dry 398.8 mm
1986 wet 391.9 mm
1987 wet 453.4 mm
1988 dry 459.8 mm
1989 wet 483.7 mm
1991 wet 469.2 mm
1990 dry 417.6 mm
1992 dry 452.4 mm
1993 wet 499.3 mm
The mean over that period is 465.7. I have indicated wet years under the mean, and dry years over the mean by bolding. As can be seen, by this 1/3rd of predictions are false, and some by very large margins. (The probability is slightly worse if 1980 was supposed to be a wet year, as is likely.) Assuming all years where predictions, the probability of achieving that result by chance was 9.2%, so the results are not statistically significant. Given that at least half the results are retrodictions, the performance is singularly unimpressive.
For Tom Curtis (946) Firstly Tom, you are on shaky ground quoting El Nino and BOM 'records' to me! I think Victoria is still part of Australia? I suggest you read the rest of the Forecast to the end of the century and the accompanying notes (if not the whole work.)
(-snip-)
[DB] You were warned here to provide significance testing to support your claims. Failing that, to provide links to peer-reviewed articles published by working scientists in the field in scientifically relevant papers (in this comment here).
The comments that you posted that failed to follow this course of action were deleted. As will subsequent comments, unless you step it up with the requisite testing and citations. Nothing you have presented thus far meets those standards.
Your practice thus far is to employ circular reasoning:
A continuation of this course of action is simply wasting everyone's time.
As it stands now, there is no value or substance whatsoever to the work, and trying to sell something that is 1/10th baked is never going to work.
Why do you appear to be pleading for someone else to pick this up and finish it? That job falls to you. No one else is going to spend the time, and this site does not exist to help you find someone else to pursue your fantasies for you.