Paper detail

Prudence in estimating coherence between planetary, solar and climate oscillations

There are claims that there is correlation between the speed of center of mass of the solar system and the global temperature anomaly. This is partly grounded in data analysis and partly in a priori expectations. The magnitude squared coherence function is the proper measure for testing such claims. It is not hard to produce high coherence estimates at periods around 15--22 and 50--60 years between these data sets. This is done in two independent ways, by wavelets and by a periodogram method. But does a coherence of high value mean that there is coherence of high significance? In order to investigate that, four different measures for significance are studied. Due to the periodic nature of the data, only Monte Carlo simulation based on a non-parametric random phase method is appropriate. None of the high values of coherence then turn out to be significant. Coupled with a lack of a physical mechanism that can connect these phenomena, the planetary hypothesis is therefore dismissed.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.