Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game

Posted on 4 August 2011 by dana1981

As we have extensively documented in slip up, Roy Spencer has a propensity for performing curve fitting exercises with a simple climate model by allowing its parameters to vary without physical constraints, and then making grandiose claims about his results.  In fact, Spencer has done exactly that in a recently-published paper which has drawn a significant amount of attention from climate "skeptics".  Akasofu has previously engaged in a similar curve fitting exercise.  And in a new paper published in The Bentham Open Atmospheric Science Journal, which has also received a significant amount of blogosphere attention (for example, with posts published on the "skeptic" blogs of Judith Curry and Anthony Watts), two "skeptics", Loehle and Scafetta (L&S), perform the same sort of curve fitting using a simple model.

Usually in climate modeling, scientists will set the allowable range for each input parameter based on observational data.  For example, the ocean mixed layer, in which the density is approximately the same as the ocean surface, is at most between 25 and 200 meters (generally more like 50-100 meters).  Once they have established these ranges, climate scientists can run the climate models and compare their results to recent observational data (a.k.a. "hindcasting"), and tweak the models (within the physically allowable ranges) to match the observational data.

This is not how the "skeptics" do modeling.  For example, Spencer has previously used a mixed ocean layer depth of 700 meters, because although this is physically unjustifiable, it allowed his model to fit the data with a low climate sensitivity.  In this case, L&S use a model with a very simple formula:

You may be able to guess how their model will perform just by examining this formula.  The first two terms are oscillations of 60 and 20 year periods, respectively.  The third term will produce a linear warming trend, and the fourth is simply a constant.  So this model will produce a linear warming trend with two natural oscillations superimposed on top of it.  L&S tweaked the parameters to fit the temperature curve without doing any further testing, but we can test it for them by running their model backwards in time and comparing to reconstructed temperatures.  Because of the linear term, you might expect the model to match the observations back to the Little Ice Age (LIA) and then rapidly diverge from observations.  If so, you would essentially be right (Figure 1).

L&S failure

Figure 1: The L&S Case 2 model projected backwards in time (red), compared to the Moberg et al. (2005) millennial northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction (blue) and the Loehle (2008) millennial global temperature reconstruction (green).

Talk about a divergence problem!

Loehle is generally most well-known for his millennial global temperature reconstruction using non-tree ring proxies.  Although the paper was published in Energy & Environment, which is not considered a peer-reviewed journal, considering that Loehle was the lead author on L&S, we felt it would be worthwhile to see if Loehle's model matches his own temperature reconstruction.

The L&S model matches the reconstructed temperature trends reasonably well back to the 17th century, but fails miserably to match prior temperatures.  Moreover, the 60 year cycle in the L&S model matches up extremely poorly with the Moberg reconstruction (Figure 2), and even with Loehle's own reconstruction (Figure 3).

L&S zoomed

Figure 2: The L&S Case 2 model projected backwards to the period 1500 to 1900, compared to the Moberg et al. (2005) milennial northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction.

Loehle vs Loehle

Figure 3: The L&S Case 2 model projected backwards to the period 1500 to 1900, compared to the Loehle (2008) milennial global temperature reconstruction.

Several times between 1500 and 1900, the L&S model is anti-phase with both reconstructions, with the peak of the 60 year cycle matching a trough in temperature.  Thus we see that although L&S have gotten lucky and matched the temperature trend a few centuries into the past, the 60 year cycle which is the basis of their paper is nowhere to be found in the temperature data.

Why Does the L&S Model Fail the Hindcasting Test?

So why the hindcasting failure?  The basic reason is simple - this is not a physical model.  L&S describe their methodology in the paper:

"The model was fit by nonlinear least squares estimation using Mathematica functions, with phase and amplitude free but period fixed as above."

In other words, they let the parameters vary freely without any physical constraints, and fit the curve as best they could.  They suggest the first two terms represent astronomical cycles:

"The solar system oscillates with a 60-year cycle due to the Jupiter/Saturn three-synodic cycle and to a Jupiter/Saturn beat tidal cycle"

How exactly these Jupiter and Saturn orbital cycles are supposed to impact the Earth's surface temperature is left unexplained, and thus there are no realistic physical constraints on their parameters 'A' and 'B', which correspond to the amplitude of the cyclical effects on global surface temperature.  Is it realistic for a Jupiter/Saturn cycle to have an effect on the Earth's average temperature with an peak-to-trough amplitude of 0.24°C?  It seems exceptionally unlikely, but this question is left unanswered, and thus the model has no physical basis (more on these astronomical cycles below).

Linear Trends and Bad Assumptions

But the real L&S model failure is in the linear trend, since these mysterious astronomical cycles are simply oscillations on top of that trend.  Actually, in the paper, L&S apply two different cases to their model.  In Case 1, they simply apply it to the observational data from 1850 to 2010.  L&S are able to achieve a decent fit with Case 1, but conclude that the residual (subtracting model output from observations) is non-random, and thus they're missing some key components.

They then try "Case 2", in which they fit their model from 1850 to 1950 (but apply it through 2010), and then apply an additional linear trend from 1950 to 2010, which they claim is the man-made global warming signal.  They assume that humans have zero influence on the global surface temperature prior to about 1950, which is a poor assumption.

A second problem is that L&S do not evaluate whether the remaining residual after they apply the second (anthropogenic) linear trend is random - it appears not to be (see their Figure 2b, the lower graph in our Figure 4):

L&S Fig 2

Figure 4: L&S Case 2 Model vs. HadCRUT global surface temperature (upper frame), residual plus a linear trend fitting data from 1950 to 2010, representing the man-made warming effect (lower frame).

Quite possibly the biggest flaw in the paper (and there are many to choose from), is in their "natural" linear trend, which L&S describe thusly:

"The linear trend would approximately extrapolate a natural warming trend due to solar and volcano effects that is known to have occurred since the Little Ice Age"

Other than the supposed man-made linear trend L&S apply in Case 2 starting in 1950, and the two cyclical factors which cause zero long-term trend, this "natural" linear trend is the only factor included in the L&S model.  In other words, it must account for every non-cyclical "natural" effect (forcing) on the average global temperature.

So why do L&S assume natural forcings have had a constant warming effect over the past 160 years?  They provide no justification for this assumption, and it is clearly faulty.  For example, solar activity increased significantly in the early 20th century, but has remained essentially flat (even declining slightly) since 1950.  Meehl et al. (2004) provide a graph of the natural forcings over the period in question (Figure 5).

meel natural

Figure 5: Natural radiative forcings from Meehl et al. (2004)

Quite clearly the natural radiative forcing does not increase at a constant linear rate from 1850 to 2010, and thus the assumption which is the backbone of the L&S model is faulty.  By overestimating the "natural" contribution to the 1950-2010 warming, they necessarily underestimate the human contribution, and thus underestimate the climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 (more on this later).

Since the L&S model is so oversimplified, failing to account for changes in the natural forcings, they fail to accurately model past climate changes.  For the same reason, they will fail to accurately model future climate changes as well.

Astronomical Cycles

Another fundamental problem with the L&S model is the assumption of significant  effects of 20 and 60 year astronomical cycles on the Earth's temperature.  Aside from failing to provide a physical mechanism through which Jupiter and Saturn could impact the Earth's temperature, as Riccardo has previously noted, the mere existence of a 60 year cycle in the Earth's surface temperature depends on the choice of trend to begin with.  By fitting certain polynomials to the global temperature data, we can find a residual with a 60 year cycle, but only with certain curve fitting choices.  Those curve fitting choices must first be justified.

However, instead of first subtracting off the underlying trend and seeing what's left, L&S start their exercise under the assumption that the 20 and 60 year cycles are present, and then fit the temperature data as best they can with those cycles (with no physical constraints).  After they conduct this curve fitting, they see what's left and attribute the remainder to human effects.  This is not a scientific approach, it's simply curve fitting (a.k.a. "graph cooking" and "mathturbation") at its worst.

There may be a 60 year cycle in the global climate, perhaps related to an oceanic cycle like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.  However, in order to explain the warming of both the oceans and atmosphere, there must be an external forcing at work, which may be why L&S invoke these mysterious astronomical cycles.  But the fact remains that they have failed to provide a physical mechanism through which these cycles could impact the Earth's climate.  And as we saw in Figures 2 and 3, their assumed 60 year cycle does not show up in millennial temperature reconstructions - not even in Loehle's own previous work!  This is a rather glaring contradiction. 


The effects of aerosols on the climate are a problem for the L&S model, as the authors almost admit in the paper:

"Residual analysis does not provide any evidence for a substantial cooling effect due to sulfate aerosols from 1940 to 1970....sulfate aerosols produced by volcanoes or industrial emissions no doubt have a cooling effect"

We have recently discussed several papers which have found substantial global dimming as a result of increased human aerosol emissions from 1950 to 1980 and 2000 to 2010.  As L&S admit, this global dimming due to aerosols "no doubt [has] a cooling effect", yet it doesn't show up in their model.  This is further evidence of the unconstrained overfitting of their 20 and 60 year cycles.

Future Warming Prediction Flaws

As noted above, since the L&S model fails the hindcasting test, there is no reason  to believe it can accurately predict future global temperature changes.  However, that's not the only problem with their prediction.  The authors also assume that the linear man-made warming trend which they've thrown into their model will continue at the same linear rate into the future.  We have previously addressed this misconception in Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming.  The only way we will prevent man-made warming from accelerating is if we take significant action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, which "skeptics" generally oppose.  L&S don't even provide the emissions scenario for their future warming prediction - they simply assume that the linear man-made warming trend will continue without any justification.  Once again, this is a glaring lack of physics in their paper.

Climate Sensitivity Estimate Flaws

L&S estimate the equilibrium climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 from their model at "about 1-1.5°C or less".  However, there are two major problems with this estimate:

  • As noted above, L&S have overestimated the 'natural' warming effects from 1950 to 2010, and as a result, have underestimated the man-made warming effects over this period. Their climate sensitivity estimate is based entirely on this underestimated man-made warming trend, and thus is also too low.
  • L&S are estimating an equilibrium climate sensitivity for a climate which is not currently in equilibrium.  What they are actually trying to estimate here is the transient climate sensitivity, but they erroneously compare it to the IPCC equilibrium sensitivity range.

The Bentham Open Journals

At this point, you may be wondering how such a tremendously flawed paper made it through the peer review process.  The paper was published in the Bentham Open Atmospheric Science journal.  The Bentham Open journals appear to have a tendency to publish 'controversial' papers which most peer-reviewed journals would not publish.  There has also been a case of another Bentham Open journal accepting a nonsensical hoax submission paper, which calls the peer-review standards of these journals into question.  Additionally, the ISI Master Journal list does not recognize  the Bentham Open journals as legitimately peer-reviewed.

The paper should be evaluated on its own merits, of course (which are basically non-existent), but the publication of this paper probably had a lot to do with the low standards and quality of peer-review of the journal in which it was published.

Nothing to See Here

Unfortunately, there is little we can learn from the L&S paper.  Fitting a curve with a simple model using physically unconstrained parameters is simply not a scientific process, as illustrated in its failure when put to the hindcasting test.  In fact, the assumed 60 year cycle which was the basis of the L&S model doesn't even show up in Loehle's own millennial global temperature reconstruction - a glaring contradiction.

You could just as easily conduct this sort of curve fitting exercise using the number of pirates, canoes, and pantaloons in southern Spain.  L&S are guilty of a major error in the abstract of their paper:

"About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase."

Correlation is not causation; all L&S have demonstrated in their unphysical curve fitting exercise is a correlation between their cycles and global temperature.   If I find a correlation between Spanish pirates and pantaloons and global temperature, that doesn't mean these variables are causing global warming.  If you want to draw a conclusion like L&S have, you need to identify the physical mechanism through which your variables are causing a global temperature change, identify a realistic physical range that this effect can have on the temperature, and then run your model.

Without a realistic physical basis, like Spencer before them, all L&S are doing is playing pointless curve fitting games, and using their results to draw unsubstantiated conclusions.

This post has been adapted into the Advanced rebuttal to Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 27:

  1. I have posted a comment at Spencer's blog this morning. I politely pointed out that Spencer's models had poor agreement with periods outside the calibration one (I assume that's standard validation procedure). OTOH, mainstream climate models are able to make consistent projections. I asked what would be his response to that. Unfortunately, my post got censored. I wonder why.
    0 0
  2. @Alexandre #1: Perhaps you were too polite?
    0 0
  3. Would it be outside the bounds of the Comments Policy to observe that the use of "astronomical cycles" seems more like astrology than astronomy?
    0 0

    [DB] Hence the arise of the scientific term "climastrology"...

  4. Well done Dana. An exceptionally clear and detailed dissection of Loehle and Scafetta's nonsense.
    0 0
  5. Adam C - not at all. Another commenter (I forget who) referred to this sort of argument as "climastrology", I believe. When no physical mechanism is identified, it is indeed more like astrology. Tom - thanks.
    0 0
  6. Badgersouth - perhaps I posted the link to Skeptical Science too conspicuously...
    0 0
  7. Dana, it might me interesting to learn what this simple model projects for the future? I wouldn't be surprised to see these septics actually being 'extreme warmists' in disguise if you drive their model 100 or 200 years in the future...
    0 0
  8. cynicus - their projection is in the paper. Roughly 1°C warming between 2000 and 2100, as I recall. I just didn't include it in the post because a model which can't hindcast also can't forecast. It's a worthless prediction. But they do predict warming - just relatively slow warming (relative to real climate models).
    0 0
  9. It's silly, just plain silly. Geez, anyone can knock together some sine and cosine functions and make pretty patterns, claiming a match to something. There is a good reason why this junk isn't published in reputable journals, even I can see that. It's the sort of thing that an imaginative teenager might have cobbled together, after reading some conspiracy fiction.
    0 0
  10. Exactly Paul. Makes you wonder why Curry gave Loehle a guest post on her blog to advertise this joke of a paper. We've come to expect this behavior from WUWT, but Curry's blog appears to be little better.
    0 0
  11. What I don't understand is why would anyone make such poor research that add next to nothing to our scientific understanding. I mean, this kind of model would be acceptable if it were a preliminary and first approximation to a problem but is just useless when we've had decades of research and piles of better models. That do take into account our previous knowledge. I might be wrong, but this seems to me like trying to fit the movements of the planets using circular orbits and epicycles. It may very well have been an useful model but now that we know about Kepler's laws and gravity you gain nothing by ignoring them.
    0 0
  12. Daneel... Oh, I think it's quite clear that Spencer's purpose is not to create good science but to merely add noise to the climate denial echo chamber.
    0 0
  13. L&S use a value of .0016°C/yr for their constant C, or .16°C per century. In other words, 1 degree every six hundred years.
    0 0
  14. Thanks Dana, I guess I got fooled by the timespan in figure 1.
    0 0
  15. Daneel - these "skeptics" are pretty clearly just trying to find an alternative explanation for the warming that doesn't involve human GHG emissions. I agree, the problem is that in doing so, they're basically disregarding most of what we've already learned about the climate. Keith - yeah, that's your 'natural' warming trend since about 1700 (a.k.a. "LIA recovery"). A whopping 0.16°C per century.
    0 0
  16. Excellent rebuttal. I especially like Figure 3, showing that Loehle and Scafetta's model of 60 year cycles only fits Loehle's own temperature reconstruction for about one-half cycle, after 1920. Correlation may not imply causation (xkcd comic) but lack of correlation plainly implies lack of causation. I'm awaiting an equally scathing review of the L&S paper at Climate Audit. I suppose that critical scrutiny of climate science has to be put on the back-burner while they continue to deal with Climategate.
    0 0
  17. Good grief, what a load of pure guff! Climastrology at its very worst. Thanks for that debunk Dana, your rebuttal seems like nuking fish in a barrel, but it has to be done these days. It's a sad state of affairs when this sort of garbage can be published, even in journals of dubious quality. I'm surprised they didn't include a 12-year cycle for Jupiter on its own (Jupiter's gravity is much much more effective than Saturn's at our distance), after all they could hardly make their fit any worse than it already is! Maybe the relationship between Pluto and Eris accounts for the glacial-interglacial cycle, and Comet Hale-Bopp triggered the super-El Nino of 1997-8? Does Loehle win a prize for publishing two reconstructions that are the most out-of-phase rather than in-phase (at least when they are not totally diverging)?
    0 0
  18. Thanks Andy and skywatcher. Credit to Albatross for suggesting the comparison between Loehle's model and his reconstruction. I don't consider Loehle's reconstruction on par with peer-reviewed versions like Moberg's, so I hadn't initially included it. But when Albatross suggested it, I had a "why didn't I think of that?" moment. It is unfortunate that L&S were able to find a journal to accept this paper, and also unfortunate that blogs like Curry's and WUWT gave Loehle free reign to advertise it. I'm no climate scientist - if I can immediately see all of these glaring errors in the paper, then somebody like Curry should be able to as well. As should any competent reviewer.
    0 0
  19. Nice it available in any fabric?
    0 0
  20. dana#18: "It is unfortunate that L&S were able to find a journal to accept this paper" Perhaps a copy of this post should be sent to the editor, who is identified in this editorial in this volume of the 'open journal.' Is it customary for a scientific journal to charge authors a publication fee? (scroll to page bottom for the fee schedule). Doesn't that sound more like a vanity press?
    0 0
  21. Muoncounter @20, 'Is it customary for a scientific journal to charge authors a publication fee?" Maybe I misunderstood your question, but page charges are not at all unusual. In my discipline page charges are typically around US$2000, but the cost of publishing can vary depending on the number of figures and whether or not they are colour. Of course one only pays that amount when the paper is accepted and goes to press, not before. The same appears to apply to "The Open Atmospheric Science Journal" in which this poor paper was published, so no it is not a "vanity press". So the problem here lies with the editor and the reviewers. A potential issue is this: "Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution." Sadly this is not unusual nowadays, and I fault the editorial boards for that. It would be interesting to determine who, if anyone, L&S suggested to review their paper.
    0 0
  22. It is fairly routine for journals to cause a publication fee (normally called "page charges"). It is also common for journals to encourage authors to suggests reviewers, but the suggestions may be overridden by the editor. It is the responsibility of the editor to verify that the reviewers are qualified and not cronies of the author.
    0 0
  23. I see that the authors were happy to answer questions at Climate etc. Any chance they would post here to answer some questions here? I think L&S owe some of their 'theory' to Samuel Benner. Sam Benner was a 'cycles man' like these guys and is still quoted by some chartists today. According to Benner, "the cause producing the periodicity and length of these cycles may be found in our solar system". "It may be a meteorological fact that Jupiter is the ruling element in our price cycles of natural productions; while also it may be suggested that Saturn exerts an influence regulating the cycles in manufacture and trade". Additionally, Uranus and Neptune "may send forth an electric influence affecting Jupiter, Saturn and, in turn, the Earth". "When certain combinations are ascertained which produce one legitimate invariable manifestation from an analysis of the operations of the combined solar system, we may be enabled to discover the cause producing our price cycles, and the length of their duration. Benner never fully explained the basis of his cycle, but he did make a connection through the weather and climate, suggesting he was aware of the earlier work on sunspots by Jevons, Herschel and others." Pig iron, wheat futures, climate change...all in a days work for these guys...
    0 0
  24. There's a interesting discussion (under the title "Riding a Pseudocycle") up on WUWT, where W. Eschenbach critiqued Loehle and Scafetta. He noted that using his favorite tool, periodicity analysis, that there was really no support of their 60 year cycle in the data, and that autocorrelated random signals show almost identical decompositions to HadCRUT3 - i.e., no evidence for cycles whatsoever. Not bad for WUWT, quite frankly, not that it makes up for the average quality of the postings. The fascinating thing for me, however, is that the thread was immediately taken over (>300 comments so far) by the "cyclists" (no insult intended to folks who like bicycles), who are all pushing their favorite solar/Jupiter/Neptune driven cyclic climate theories - stuff from Landscheidt, Carl Smith, Benner, and so on. It seems that great cycles are very attractive to some people - certainly more attractive than dealing with AGW and the like.
    0 0
  25. KR#24: "It seems that great cycles are very attractive to some people" In a way, 'natural cycles' are an escape from the unpleasant details of reality; an assurance that things will eventually return to the way they were in the good old days. We get a free pass from explaining what causes these cycles: They are 'natural' and thus don't need any factual basis. And they certainly can't be our fault. Is it any wonder that the field of 'study' most closely associated with natural cycles is astrology? Ancient civilizations developed it as a system to predict seasonal shifts and interpret celestial cycles as ‘signs’ of ‘divine communications’.
    0 0
  26. Given how intrinsic cycles are in the natural world and in the human experience, no one should be surprised that people gravitate to cyclical explanations of events. Unfortunately, there is nothing cyclical about mankind's release of C02 into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of increase has been grwoing expnentially and, under a business as usual scenario, will continue to do so -- at least until the annual demand for fossil fuels exceeds what can be extracted annually.
    0 0
  27. Thanks for the epic debunking, Dana. What is it with "skeptical" researchers and terrible models? It's as if they fundamentally don't understand what a model is, and then try to make their own models based on this misunderstanding. Roy Spencer once dismissed climate models and "curve fitting," and now we see him and others using exactly this in their own models.
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us