Tallbloke and boot straping

[As the waters clear in the ongoing discussion, the inner workings of peer review processes comes out. I would read the whole rest of the thread, from this point on as it seems to be almost all meat, and stuffing, with little distraction.]

tallbloke says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:12 am
There is a cycle which is somewheres around sixty years in the temperature data. There is also a cycle which is somewheres around sixty years in the solar data.
OK … I guess I still don’t get it. Why is that important, particularly since the ~ 60 year cycle in temperature is large and visible in the record, while the ~ 60 year cycle in the barycentric velocity is small and not visible in the record.
Geoff, what makes you think that the cycles are anything other than a coincidence, particularly when one is tiny and the other is large?

Hi Willis, I don’t presume to reply either for Geoff or Nicola, because my own hypothesis differs from theirs in important respects, (though there is a lot of crossover), and they are here to reply for themselves anyway and Nicola has kind of answered your point in his response to Leif above. I just want to butt in to offer something else which might help with the issue quoted above.

The same solar system oscillations which involve the timing of planetary orbits and solar activity also (IMO) lie behind the multidecadal changes in Earth’s length of day, and these are in phase with the oceanic oscillations seen in the SST records, PDO, AMO etc. Maybe the cause is the slowing down or speeding up of the Earth causes water to pile up against the sides of continents, producing cold upwelling. probably it’s more complex than that.

These multidecadal trends in LOD are maybe amplifying the terrestrial response at that 60 year frequency.

The first post on my blog posed the question:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/planetary-solar-climate-connection-found/

Nicola Scafetta is a smart guy he knows this, we have conversed via email, but trying to introduce too many new ideas resting on as yet poorly quantified mechanisms in a single ground breaking paper is probably not a good plan if you want to get it published. I think you should see this as a ‘first foray’ to be followed up by many more studies. Hopefully these follow up studies will get published because they are referring to something already in the literature. This kind of bootstrapping has been long employed in many scientific fields. I see this paper as the Omaha beach head which will help the important study of cyclic phenomena to regain it’s rightful place in the body of peer reviewed science.

best to you

tb

Filed under: In other online forums,Natural Disasters,Supporting Research — by Richard Holle @ 3:50 am on July 27, 2011

Comments

There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment