Reply on Comment on "High resolution coherence analysis between planetary and climate oscillations" by S. Holm
Nicola Scafetta

TL;DR
This paper defends the validity of a coherence analysis method against claims of irreproducibility, clarifying methodological differences and providing data and code for accurate replication of results.
Contribution
It clarifies the correct application of MSC-CCA, distinguishes it from other methods, and provides resources to ensure reproducibility of the original analysis.
Findings
MSC-CCA is stable and reliable under specific conditions.
Holm used a different algorithm, leading to irreproducibility.
The original results are confirmed at 95% significance.
Abstract
Holm (ASR, 2018) claims that Scafetta (ASR 57, 2121-2135, 2016) is "irreproducible" because I would have left "undocumented" the values of two parameters (a reduced-rank index p and a regularization term) that he claimed to be requested in the Magnitude Squared Coherence Canonical Correlation Analysis (MSC-CCA). Yet, my analysis did not require such two parameters. In fact: 1) using the MSC-CCA reduced-rank option neither changes the result nor was needed since Scafetta (2016) statistically evaluated the significance of the coherence spectral peaks; 2) the analysis algorithm neither contains nor needed the regularization term. Herein, I show that Holm could not replicate Scafetta (2016) because he used different analysis algorithms. In fact, although Holm claimed to be using MSC-CCA, for his figures 2-4 he used a MatLab code labeled "gcs_cca_1D.m" (see paragraph 2 of his Section 3),…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
