Guest essay by David Archibald
A couple of years ago the question was asked “When will it start cooling?” Of course solar denialists misconstrued this innocent enquiry. There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. It is a question of when. Solar activity is much lower than it was at a similar stage of the last solar cycle but Earthly temperatures have remained stubbornly flat. Nobody is happy with this situation. All 50 of the IPCC climate models have now been invalidated and my own model is looking iffy.
Friss-Christenson and Lassen theory, as per Solheim et al’s prediction, has the planet having a temperature decrease of 0.9°C on average over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23. The more years that pass without the temperature falling, the greater the fall required over the remaining years of the cycle for this prediction to be validated.
The question may very well have been answered. David Evans has developed a climate model based on a number of inputs including total solar irradiance (TSI), carbon dioxide, nuclear testing and other factors. His notch-filter model is optimised on an eleven year lag between Earthly temperature and climate. The hindcast match is as good as you could expect from a climate model given the vagaries of ENSO, lunar effects and the rest of it, which gives us a lot of confidence in what it is predicting. What it is predicting is that temperature should be falling from just about now given that TSI fell from 2003. From the latest of a series of posts on Jo Nova’s blog:
The model has temperature falling out of bed to about 2020 and then going sideways in response to the peak in Solar Cycle 24. What happens after that? David Evans will release his model of 20 megs in Excel in the near future. I have been using a beta version. The only forecast of Solar Cycle 25 activity is Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of a peak amplitude of seven in sunspot number. The last time that sort of activity level happened was in the Maunder Minimum. So if we plug in TSI levels from the Maunder Minimum, as per the Lean reconstuction, this is what we get:
This graph shows the CET record in blue with the hindcast of the notch-filter model using modern TSI data in red with a projection to 2040. The projected temperature decline of about 2.0°C is within the historic range of the CET record. Climate variability will see spikes up and down from that level. The spikes down will be killers. The biggest spike you see on that record, in 1740, killed 20% of the population of Ireland, 100 years before the more famous potato famine.
I consider that David Evans’ notch-filter model is a big advance in climate science. Validation is coming very soon. Then stock up on tinned lard with 9,020 calories per kg. A pallet load could be a life-saver.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).
UPDATE:
For fairness and to promote a fuller understating, here are some replies from Joanne Nova
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I consider that David Evans’ notch-filter model is a big advance in climate science. Validation is coming very soon.
You mean: falsification is coming very soon [if not already there].
So if we plug in TSI levels from the Maunder Minimum, as per the Lean reconstruction
which is very likely not correct to begin with.
There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. It is a question of when
It is much more a question about ‘by how much’. If TSI falls to get stuck at the level observed at solar minimum, the temperature will indeed be lower by up to 0.1 degrees C, which is inconsequential.
Love that model because it can be put to the test soon, not convinced about the rapid change it predicts, though.
Here is the most important thing I have read in that series. For once someone in the climate game makes a real scientific prediction. Karl Popper call your office!!
The entire series of posts is worth your time and study if you are interested in the climate debate. I am not completely in agreement with him, but I do admire the honest scientific method in use. A falsifiable theory of climate! Shazzam!
(1) emphases is mine.
Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:06 am
Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.
According to Figure above the criterion should be 0.5°C, not the measly 0.1°C.
Is TSI being considered as a driver here or as a chance correlate?
If this is correct and we do indeed begin to see measureable cooling,
then President Obama’s statement that climate change is happening now
will be validated.
Uh, sort of.
🙂
If I successfully predict a decade of global temperature with the flip of a coin, am I good or am I lucky? At least with the IPCC climate models, we know their prognosticators are neither.
Thanks, Leif, for your participation. Your measured, knowledgeable posts are interesting and insightful.
Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it can’t be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it can’t be the co2
For cryin’ outloud. The “…vagaries of ENSO…”. Everybody’s get out of town card. A tuned model always looks good. And retuning it every year or so will keep the cash coming in for whatever you are peddling. GIGO…different ingredients…still GIGO. Until the ENSO models get it right the rest of you global modelers might as well sleep in.
There is a need to differentiate global temperatures from northern continental interior temperatures. What has happened to date suggests that global temperatures may fall only a few tenths, while northern continental interior temperatures may take a wallop.
Falsification is indeed required for legitimate hypothesis. With that said, and for those curious as to when the next major glaciation might be predicted, see:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygv83mwpytn4p65/AN%20ENGINEER%E2%80%99S%20TAKE%20ON%20MAJOR%20CLIMATE%20CHANGE%20F.53.pdf
Long winded but you’re likely to find it thought provoking.
“The biggest spike you see on that record, in 1740, killed 20% of the population of Ireland, 100 years before the more famous potato famine.”
I thought the Maunder Minimum lasted from 1645~1715. Isn’t a 25yr lag a little too long after the fact? I could understand attributing causation had the great famine occurred during the Maunder, but a 25-year lag seems a bit of a stretch.
What am I missing?
The CET record does, however, show considerable cooling during the Maunder Minimum.
It is worse than I thought. The TSI used by Evans is totally wrong http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
Apart from the use of the obsolete Lean TSI for the early years, the most blatant error is the statement that TSI has had a sharp unprecedented drop starting in 2003-2005 to now. This is complete nonsense. Here is TSI since 2003 http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png
There is no such drop. If anything TSI is now higher than it were in 2003. As far as I am concerned, the model is already falsified. Not by the observations but by the [almost fraudulent – as there clearly is an agenda here] use of invalid input to begin with. This concludes my comments as the prediction is worthless on its face.
Perhaps the “temperatures” measured are not the temperatures people think they are measuring.
Back to the 1st 2nd and 3rd laws.
QED
II am extremely pleased to see that this information is started to be seen on other sites. I think of this hypothesis as the unifying theory of Climate Science. It is a bare bones hypothesis with falicification points. It needs inputs from others like yourself. Hopefully it will put the stake in the heart of CAGW. I have a very limited income and fuel, energy and food costs are killer for everyone.
Steven Mosher:
Your post at June 28, 2014 at 7:32 am says in total
That is merely more non sequiter from you.
The logical matters you have failed to understand can be stated as follows.
Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it could be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it could be normal and there is no reason to suppose it is caused by anthropogenic co2.
Richard
Excellent accurate information. Past history has shown us each and every time prolonged solar minimum conditions are present the temperature response has been down.
One item that could slow down solar effects somewhat is ocean heat content.
Anthony good article.
..
Leif, perhaps your tsi data validates the model and explains the flat temps and lack of cooling?
don’t worry we shall get a reply in december 2015 – great meeting in Paris concerning climate change – and Arnold Swarzenneger will be there (so maybe Al Gore too) – and the president will be Laurent Fabius –
so cheer up !!
it is clear to me that many “scientists” need to go back and learn some BASIC concepts……..there are NOT competing theories, in science a theory is the present best possible understanding…….there are competing hypothesis being discussed………..human caused global warming is NOT a theory in science it is a FAILED hypothesis…….the real word refuses to follow the hypothesis that humans by releasing co2 are causing warming and in so doing proves it to be FALSE…..really simple stuff folks.
James of the West says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:17 am
Leif, perhaps your tsi data validates the model and explains the flat temps and lack of cooling?
The model is based on wrong input and so is ‘not even wrong’, but meaningless and worthless.
Putting this post here may be purposed to the task of finally demonstrating how far afield David is in his knowledge base with regard to solar speculation. Truly, trolling for a solar indices that matches your speculation has to be the most obvious sign of research bias there is. Very much like Mann trolling for trees that only speak to his bias. Which one is worse? Flip a friggin coin. We will see which of the two learns from their past invalid practices.
mosher-
“Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it can’t be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it can’t be the co2”
considering the climate on the earth changed BEFORE so called human intervention with steady co2 levels, there must be natural variation caused by some OTHER source.
by saying the warming is within normal bounds, therefor it cannot be the co2 is perfectly logical because this was the previous condition.
by saying the cooling is within normal bounds, therefor it cannot be the sun is illogical because the sun can not be ‘removed’ from natural variation. you could say the sun may not be causing the cooling, but you cannot say ‘therefor it cannot be’.