Review of Climate Change Papers by Nicola Scafetta, Bruce West et al

Introduction

Climate scientists in general attribute global warming to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere[IPCC]. Since the variation of the sun’s irradiance amounts to only about 0.1 percent[IPCC], this seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

However, Nicola Scafetta of Duke University, Bruce West of the Army Research Office and several colleagues have identified a stochastic resonance phenomenon between the sun and the earth that indicates a substantial part of global warming may be due to solar influence.

In part this result is not new. C. Nicolis studied the nearly periodic recurrence of ice ages using stochastic resonance theory [Anishschenko 2002, Scholarpedia Stochastic Resonance article] and concluded there is substantial solar influence on climate over the approximately 100,000 year period of the ice ages [Nicolis 1981]. What is new is that Scafetta et. al. find evidence that the 11 year Schwabe (sunspot) cycle and other short term cycles in solar output influence earth’s climate. This review provides a roadmap of several of Scafetta et. al.’s papers that lead to their results.

Their result doesn’t contradict the overall conclusion that global warming has been occurring since the early part of the twentieth century. However, if correct, their result indicates that limiting CO2 emissions may not have the desired effect. Indeed, their results indicate that we may be on the verge of a global cooling cycle, in which case limiting CO2 emissions is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Outline of Scafetta et. al.’s approach

Scafetta and colleagues demonstrate three points:
1. Solar flares can be characterized by a time series in which the probability density of the waiting time between solar flares is an inverse power law. The solar flare time series exhibits Levy scaling with an inverse power law scaling exponent between 2 and 3
2. Temperature changes in earth’s atmosphere exhibit a slight Levy component with inverse power law scaling exponent between 2 and 3
3. When two coupled processes, one, the source, delivering energy to the other, the sink, are characterized by Levy scaling with similar inverse power law exponents, the sink becomes synchronized to the source and energy transfer is maximized.

Frequency of solar flares

Scafetta et. al. present the results of a statistical analysis of several records of sunspot activity dating back to 1600, [Scafetta 2007] postulating that periods of high sunspot activity correspond to periods of high solar irradiance. They verify this assumption with 20th century data records, which include both sunspot activity and solar irradiance.

They analyze the solar irradiance data using wavelets, [Grigolini 2002] Diffusion Entropy Analysis (DEA) and Standard Deviation Analysis (SDA) to show that the solar irradiance exhibits Levy statistics.

Frequency of atmospheric temperature fluctuations

In [Scafetta 2004, Scafetta 2008] atmospheric temperature fluctuations are studied and a Levy component is identified. They show that the temperature time series is a nonpoisson renewal process with an inverse power law exponent close to that of the solar irradiance time series.

The Complexity Matching Effect

In [Allegrini] 2006] the Complexity Matching Effect (CME) is studied. Briefly the CME is a phenomenon in which two coupled systems whose time evolution is described by inverse power laws with similar exponents can become synchronized, achieving maximum energy transfer between the two. They demonstrate that when the inverse power law exponent of the perturbing system (the sun, which they denote by P) approaches the value of that of the driven system (the earth, designated by S), that energy transfer is maximized. I am less certain that they demonstrate that the earth’s temperature fluctuations can inherit the sun’s solar flare power law exponent. However, if the two power laws have similar exponents, energy transfer is maximized. They display a figure (their Figure 1, reproduced below)that looks very much like the resonance experienced when a second order system is driven near its resonant frequency.



FIG. 1: Inset: fitting of Eq. (9) (solid lines) to Monte Carlo
data (open circles) using TS = TP = 1, μS = 1.6 with μP =
1.35 (upper) and μP = 1.85 (lower). Dashed lines are the
asymptotic dominant term in Eq. (9). Our Monte Carlo used
107 system-perturbation pairs. Main figure: Amplitudes AP
(squares), AS (triangles), Eqs. (8) (solid line) and (7) (dashed
line) as a function of μP , with μS = 1.6.


References

Note that the papers for which Scafetta is author/coauthor are available from Scafetta's web site: Scafetta web site

[Allegrini] 2006] Paolo Allegrini, Mauro Bologna, Paolo Grigolini, and Bruce J. West, Response of Complex Systems to Complex Perturbations: the Complexity Matching Effect, Draft kindly furnished by Bruce J. West

[Anishschenko 2002] V. S. Anishschenko, V. V. Astakhov, A. B. Neiman, T. E. Vadivasova, and L. Schimansky-Geier, Nonlinear Dynamics of Chaotic and Stochastic Systems, Berlin, Springer 2002

[Grigolini 2002] Paolo Grigolini, Deborah Leddon, and Nicola Scafetta, Diffusion entropy and waiting time statistics of hard-x-ray solar flares, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, VOLUME 65, 046203

[IPCC] Various Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
IPCC

[Nicolis 1981] Solar Variability and Stochastic Effects on Climate, Solar Physics 74 (1981) pp 473-478

[Scafetta 2007] N. Scafetta1 and B. J. West, Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research 112 (2007) D24S03

[Scafetta 2004] Nicola Scafetta, Paolo Grigolini, Timothy Imholt, J.A. Roberts and Bruce J. West, Solar turbulence in earth's global and regional temperature anomalies, Phys. Rev. E 69, 026303 (2004)

[Scafetta 2008] N. Scafetta, T. Imholt, P. Grigolini, J. Roberts, Statistical analysis of air and sea temperature anomalies, (Preprint retrieved from Scafetta’s archives)

Reflections on the firing of Rick Wagoner

I worked for GM during most of Rick Wagoner’s tenure as President/CEO and chairman of GM.
On balance I believe Rick was a good chairman. He reputedly got GM’s management into the computer age by requiring managers to take courses in computer literacy, and he pushed for GM to develop its internal and external web presence.

He certainly had his share of mistakes. The abortive deal with Fiat comes to mind. GM purchased a 15 or 20 percent equity stake in Fiat, which was perhaps defensible. But the contract also required GM to buy the remainder of Fiat if the management of Fiat decided to sell out. They did and GM had to pay several billion dollars to get out of that obligation. Perhaps that infusion of cash has made Fiat healthy enough to be able to contemplate an alliance with Chrysler.

On another occasion, before he was chairman, Wagoner orchestrated one of GM’s many reorganizations. This reorganization had people all over the corporation not knowing who they should be talking to in order to get things done. In the midst of all the confusion Wagoner said, “If we didn’t get this one right, we’ll do another one tomorrow.” That of course was the exact opposite of what was needed. Like many GM managers Wagoner seemed to think that you could change how something functioned by renaming it.

But at least he didn’t get caught in any major snafus like Roger Smith’s BOC/CPC reorganization which did away with Fisher Body – the only organization in GM responsible for maintaining standards for making dies.

Whether or not Wagoner was an able chairman, it must be asked whether the Obama administration made a wise choice in asking him to step down. It seems incredible that a government task force, after few months of study, can make such a decision. Other corporations should look at this example carefully before accepting loans from the government

Why layoffs?

Corporations in financial straits lay off people “to protect the future of the corporation”. There are at least two fallacies inherent in this reasoning:
1) If the people laid off are developing future products, the ability of the corporation to bring these products to market will be impaired. You may think no corporation would ever lay off product developers, but based on 34 years working in technology-based companies, I can assure you they do.
2) If the number of corporations laying people off becomes too large, the impaired purchasing power of consumers may sink the economy.

Alternatively some companies have simply cut the salary and hours of staff members. The individual remains employed and therefore available to the corporation, albeit at a lower salary, but with more free time, which he can use as he sees fit.

Why isn’t this done more frequently? I suspect the main reason is the cost of keeping an employee on the payroll: Insurance, withholding, social security, paperwork, various government mandates … There is a minimum cost just for maintaining an individual on the payroll.

There are financial considerations for the employee. A company cannot pay an individual’s medical insurance if he works less than 30 hours per week. There is no such thing as partial unemployment. Either an individual is employed and ineligible for unemployment, or he’s not employed and can’t earn any money without endangering his unemployment.

One solution is simply for the employer to change the employee’s status to that of a contractor, so the company doesn’t have to withhold Social Security and income tax. This might require a change in the law, or a reinterpretation of existing laws defining what a contractor is, but it would allow the employer to reduce the cost of keeping the employee on the payroll.
Better yet would be looser laws about employment. Let employees opt out of social security, medicare and withholding . Let the employer decide what level of employment is necessary to extend healthcare benefits.

Thanks to Bob Kuhl for a discussion that gave some insights into the consequences of part-time employment.

What should conservatives do now?

Conservatives have spent plenty of time and words lamenting the socialist bent of the Obama administration and the current Congress. While telling our friends and neighbors and, indeed, the nation, what is wrong with the administration’s and Congress’ policies, we need to be actively pursuing an agenda of our own.

One part of that agenda ought to be the formation of planning/study groups to formulate plans for undoing the damage the current administration and Congress do. I am tired of hearing talk show hosts say that if, for example, the current government institutes nationalized health care we will never be able to undo it. True, we won’t, if we don’t plan a strategy for undoing it. Such a strategy must address not only what laws and regulation need to be repealed, and how to protect innocent people who have come to rely on them, but also how to justify the plan to the voters.

Plans need to be made for dealing with the huge debt that government is likely to run up. Dare we simply declare a part of it null and void? I doubt it. Historically the US has been faithful about paying its debts. We will need to plan tax reductions to encourage business and innovation. It’s a historical fact that reducing taxes increases government revenue, and we will need increased revenue to pay down the debt. And we may need to plan how to approach creditors to obtain extended terms.

Should criminal or civil prosecution be brought against any of the members of the government? Probably not, except in cases of provable criminal or unethical activity, such as (possibly) the sweetheart mortgages obtained by Barney Frank and others. In any case lists of those culpable should be compiled and appropriate disciplinary measures decided on. A caution is that any disciplinary action should be for real crimes or actions not in the best interests of the nation—they should not be a vendetta.

Every action of the government needs to be studied and responded to – not with criticism, but with alternatives that involve market mechanisms and preserve freedom. Here it’s important to formulate responses in positive terms so that voters can see that we are offering solutions, not merely criticizing.

Candidates for Congress in 2010 and 2012 need to be vetted and evaluated on their positions, their records and their appeal. The same goes for Presidential candidates. Several talk show hosts have said that Republican candidates need to return to their conservative roots. True, but they also need to have appeal. While some of Ronald Reagan’s positions may no longer be relevant (I doubt this) two of his characteristics we must retain are his conservatism and his appeal. Reagan was difficult to dislike, even by those who disagreed emphatically with him. His humor and his “Aw shucks” attitude forced even his political enemies to like him. Conservatives need to be conservative and likable.

You may ask how conservatives should organize. Who do you call? A good place to start is Newt Gingrich’s organization American Solutions. (http://www.americansolutions.com/) American Solutions works by convening groups of people to think through potential solutions to the problems facing our country. Although the solutions proposed will generally please conservatives, they are presented in a common sense way that will convince independents and even a few liberals.

Why I signed a petition about Obama's Birth Certificate

The issue of whether a candidate for the Presidency is a "Natural Born Citizen" has come up in the past. One instance I remember is in the 60's when George Romney was running in the primaries for President. It was alleged that he was born in Mexico and therefore wasn't a natural born citizen. In the election of 2008 not only Obama's natural born status was questioned, but McCain's as well. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. In 1790 Congress passed a law which defined the son or daughter of an American born overseas as a natural born citizen. The Wikipedia in the entry which can be found by Googling "natural born citizen" states

The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

But in 1795, according to the Wikipedia

the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from this statement to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S.

I had always been under the impression that the son or daughter of an American citizen was considered a citizen even though born overseas, and I was vaguely aware of the 1790 law which defined "natural born" to include the sons and daughters of Americans born outside the U. S.
But I signed the petition in the hopes that the Supreme Court would hear the case and rule and clear this issue up once and for all. So far as I'm concerned Obama won the election fair and square. He will be our next president. But please, Supreme Court, clear this issue up.

Saving the auto industry

The airwaves and the print media are brimming with prescriptions for saving the US auto industry, warnings about what will happen if it is allowed to collapse, and finger pointing at auto executives, unions and governments.

Much of the rhetoric assumes that if the government fails to bail out the automobile industry, it will collapse, leaving millions of people jobless and millions of retirees without their pensions.

Clearly the auto industry is in serious straits, and some serious measures will be needed to save it. However, a government bailout, or loan as the auto executives insist on calling it, is precisely the wrong solution. A bailout will give the auto companies breathing space – which they can use to wait for the programs they already have in place to bear fruit, and for economic conditions to improve. But the auto companies have serious problems that need to be dealt with now: worker and retiree pay and benefits, union contracts that give overseas manufacturers a huge advantage, management’s tendency to concentrate on big cars and SUV’s because they have higher profit margins (or did until recently). These problems can only be solved by the auto companies, possibly under new management. A Chapter 11 reorganization would allow the auto companies to continue operating while they sort out their problems.

Does government have a role in the automotive turnaround? Certainly. Government can help by freezing the unfunded mandates they have imposed on the auto industry: fuel consumption, emissions, crashworthiness. Not that anyone is opposed to cleaner, safer, more economical cars, but how much better off would we be if the government offered a prize to the first auto company to meet a goal instead of fining those who don’t meet it?

Observations November 5, 2008

Now that the fears of conservatives have been realized in the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency and the increased Democrat majority in the House and the Senate, it’s time to assess what went wrong.

Usually there is not one single issue that leads to the demise of a party, and this case is no exception.

In 1994 Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America fired the imagination of voters and led to Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. With the election of George W. Bush in 2000 Republicans controlled the legislative and executive branches.

But all Republicans are not conservatives. Some Republicans played the same games the Democrat majority had played for years: earmarks, big budgets, appointing cronies to positions under their control.

The Bush Administration began with great hopes: The “No Child Left Behind” act; the promise of saving Social Security by establishing personal investment accounts with a portion of the Social Security tax money; the Bush tax cuts. The events of 9/11/2001 gave Bush an opportunity for greatness that he seized. But the attack on Iraq was a far messier affair. Faulty intelligence and a utopian idea that democracy could be established in the Middle East, combined with underestimates of the needed resources led to a long and bloody war. It’s true that we are winning, but are we fighting for the right reasons? Perhaps because of the Iraq war the Bush Administration lost sight of Social Security reform, and failed to push it when they had a majority in both houses.

In November 2006 the voters, fed up with the war in Iraq, and perhaps with the Bush Administration’s failure to enact initiatives like Social Security reform, installed Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. Since that time there has been a leadership vacuum in the Republican Party. Conservatives have battled with the liberal Republican establishment—the so-called “Country Club Republicans”. Some Republican actions like the House members who refused to vacate the House last August following an adjournment that occurred before Congress had dealt with the energy issue, attracted favorable attention, but it was too little, too late. Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions and his books, “Real Change” and “Drill here, drill now, pay less”, have attracted a strong following, but not yet enough to turn any tides.

Conservatives need to unite around a program the voters can support. The outlines of such a program might be:

1. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent
2. Reform Social Security, ideally by establishing personal accounts, but any program that protects taxpayers and recipients without bankrupting the government should be fair game
3. Work toward a foreign policy that observes the ideals of America’s founders as embodied in the Constitution and the pronouncements of men like John Adams. While I don’t agree on every point, Ron Paul has valuable insights into what America’s foreign policy should look like
4. Develop a comprehensive energy program that encourages exploration and drilling for petroleum in the near term, clean coal, nuclear and other sources such as wind, solar and bio, and aims for energy independence
5. Reconsider our association with the Republican Party. This doesn’t mean we should desert the Republicans for a third party (although that’s a possibility), but that we should work for the election of conservatives, whether they be Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or whatever.