Mending Fences

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Recently there have been a number of accusations and bad blood involving myself, David Evans, Joanne Nova, Lord Christopher Monckton, and Leif Svalgaard. Now, I cannot speak for any of them, but on my part, my own blood ended up mightily angrified, and I fear I waxed wroth.

However, I see no point in rehashing the past. What I want to do is to return to the underlying scientific questions. In that spirit, I apologize sincerely and completely for wherever I put in “something extra” in the previous discussion. In Buddhism, there’s a concept called “something extra”, and one is enjoined to avoid putting in “something extra”.

It is explained in the following way:

If I say “I am angry” that is simply a true statement.

But if I say “You made me angry”, that is something extra.

So I ask any and all of you to please accept my sincere apologies for whatever what I said that was something extra, so that we can move past this difficult time and get back to discussing the science. Both sides have legitimate grievances, and I am happy to make the first move to get past all of them by apologizing to all of you for whatever my part was in the bad blood. I hope that the other participants accept my apology in the spirit of reconciliation in which it is offered, and that we can move forwards without rancor or recriminations.

Regarding the science, let me go back to the original question, and see what I can do in the way of making my claims in a more Canadian manner. I’ll start by looking at the recent record of the “TSI”, the total solar irradiance:

total solar irradiation ceres dataFigure 1. Monthly total solar irradiance as measured by the CERES satellite. Vertical blue line shows mid-2004.

Now, if you don’t like the data from the CERES satellite, here’s the SORCE satellite data:

sorce daily tsi 2003 2014Figure 2. Daily total solar irradiance as measured by the SORCE satellite. Vertical red line indicates mid-2004.  SOURCE

Note what is happening in both graphs after mid-2004 (vertical lines in both plots). As in every solar cycle, the TSI declines somewhat, and bottoms out. Then, it starts to rise again. And by the end of the datasets, in both cases the TSI is higher that it was in 2004.

So what was the scientific dispute all about, the discussion that underlies all of the bad feelings?

It revolved around the following graph from David Evans, referenced by both Leif Svalgaard and Lord Monckton, showing the basis of his predicted upcoming global cooling :

total solar irradiance david evansFigure 3. David Evan’s graph of TSI (gold line), along with a centered 11-year moving average of the TSI data (red, with dotted blue extension), and a 25 year unspecified smooth of temperature, presumably a trailing average (blue line). (Click to enlarge)

Now, as you can see, the bright red line basically falls off the edge of the earth around 2004. The note says “The recent falloff in solar radiation started somewhere in 2003-2005″.

However, a look at both the SORCE and the CERES data shows no such “falloff in solar radiation”, neither precipitous nor otherwise. In fact, both datasets agree that by 2013 the TSI was well above the level in mid-2004.

Since there is no fall in the underlying data of any kind, why does the red 11-year average line show abrupt cooling starting around 2004?

The answer lies in the various problems with the graph.

• The TSI data is a splice of three datasets, with two of them showing the post-2000 period. This is a huge source of potential error in itself. However, it gets worse.

• One of the spliced datasets is the Lean TSI reconstruction, an outdated dataset that the authors of the reconstruction themselves admit is inaccurate.

• Another is the PMOD dataset. It is known to be reading low by 0.2 W/ms at the solar minimum, introducing a spurious apparently strong recent “cooling” where none exists.

• The 11-year centered average is an extremely bad choice for a filter for sunspot/TSI data. Because the solar cycle varies both longer and shorter than 11 years, at times the 11-year average actually reverses the sense of the data, converting peaks into valleys and valleys into peaks. Look at the period from 1760-1800 in Figure 3, for example. What is happening is that the frequency data is getting strongly aliased into the amplitude data. As a result, the average can end up far from the reality, particularly at the ends of the dataset.

For another example, look at the period just after 1740 in Figure 3. The 11-year average takes a huge vertical jump … but meanwhile back in the real word, the TSI itself is not rising at all. It is falling. Clearly, the large vertical jump in the red line is totally spurious.

• The TSI data has had about 900 days of “data” added to it using an arbitrarily chosen value. This is shown by the blue dots which indicate a continuing drop in the temperature.

So regarding the question of why the red line is acting so strangely, the answer is that we have a perfect storm of spliced data, bad data, arbitrary “data” added to the spliced bad data, and an extremely poor filter choice.

And as a result, the red line doesn’t represent reality in any shape or form. There is no precipitous drop in TSI starting around 2004. It doesn’t exist. Sure, the 11-year average says clearly that there is a huge drop starting around that time … but the actual data says something entirely different, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Now, in the heat of the moment Leif described the red line as being “almost fraudulent”. I think this was an over-reaction, but perhaps an understandable one. After all, if the red line were flipped over vertically it would make a lovely hockeystick, and if someone claimed warming was coming based on that hockeystick, people would call them alarmists … and calling someone an alarmist is certainly a close relative of calling them “almost fraudulent”.

However, my guideline is, never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by error and misunderstanding. So I do not call their red line fraudulent, nor did I do so in the original discussion. Instead, I say that it is an error resulting from a misunderstanding. In any case, let me suggest that we leave out all ascription of motive and intent, that goes nowhere, and that we return to the science.

A more scientifically neutral description of the red line is that it is highly inaccurate and potentially misleading, because the apparent drop starting in 2003-2005 is simply an artifact of a combination of bad data and bad filtering.

Finally, to the degree that David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line, it is already falsified.

That is what I was trying to say, and I believe (subject to correction) that was what Leif was pointing out as well.

In closing, I will endeavor in this thread to keep my comments on as scientific a basis as possible, to avoid any personal references, and to not ascribe motive or intent. I request that everyone do the same. Many toes have already been stepped on in this discussion. Let’s see if we can simply discuss the science.

My best to all,

w.

VERY IMPORTANT: It is important in general, and in this discussion in particular, that you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH. Note that this doesn’t mean just referencing their entire comment. Quote the exact words of their comment that you think are in error, and tell us why you think those words are wrong. If you do not quote the exact words that you disagree with, none of us will know what you are referring to … and out of such misunderstandings grows animosity and misunderstanding.

Finally, please don’t delve into the rights and wrongs of what has happened in the previous discussions. I am not interested in the slightest in ascribing blame or responsibility. I have accepted my own responsibility for my own actions and apologized for wherever I was over the line. What I or the others did in the past is a blind alley, so please confine your comments to the science, and as the saying goes, “Let the dead past bury its dead”.

About these ads

612 thoughts on “Mending Fences

  1. “…bad data and bad filtering” a typicle phenomena in two cases:
    * Either the person conterminated and or corrected “measured figures” with or without taking all need premisses for the proposed Thesis into consideration.
    or
    * The person using bad data and bad filtering misunderstood Theories of Science hanging on to Fallacies as if they were example of good trustworthy Science….
    Chose which.

  2. This should be interesting reading while I wait for the RasPi to generate a Node.js install from source. I forgot how long files take to compile on what is equiv of a Pentium II.

    I understand that Leif offered the correct data set. Has anyone spoken on the change in the model with the current generation data inputed into it? I havent followed this story since the last major round of exchanges, and as such am out of the loop of the commentary of the latest generation of the model.

    Has the model been updated with new data?

  3. Well said, Willis. You and those you mention are all on the same side, being seekers after truth. Each of you have their own jigsaw pieces which they struggle to fit into the whole picture. Nothing is settled, everything is challengeable which is how real science is done, isn’t it?
    Defending your own little patch of briars with loud discordant noises doesn’t actually achieve much apart from giving aid and comfort to the ungodly. I suggest that critical friendship is more productive than destructive defence of one’s own ideas.

  4. I see the point that Willis is making but differ as regards the vakidity and usefulness of the 11 year smoothing process.

    Although the sudden drop around 2003/4 could be regarded as an artifact of the smoothing process it is nonetheless telling us something real about the underlying trend.

    The sun has become significantly less active over nearly two decades now and the smoothing process just points out that statistically 2003/4 is a significant turning point which David Evans thinks should come through in a temperature change on Earth some 10 to 20 years later.

  5. I see the point that Willis is making but differ as regards the vakidity and usefulness of the 11 year smoothing process.

    Although the sudden drop around 2003/4 could be regarded as an artifact of the smoothing process it is nonetheless telling us something real about the underlying trend.

    The sun has become significantly less active over nearly two decades now and the smoothing process just points out that statistically 2003/4 is a significant turning point which David Evans thinks should come through in a temperature change on Earth some 10 to 20 years later.

    l

  6. Rarely do I comment but very pleased to see the reaching out to the others, all of whom I have enjoyed reading and all of whom have taught me much and I respect. I was very dismayed to read the rhetorical war about Evan’s notch theory. Let’s let it play out with point and counterpoint. The truth will win out in the end. Isn’t that what science is all about?

  7. A typo in your VERY IMPORTANT paragraph at the end.

    you have “If you do not quote the exact words that you disagree with, none of use will know what you are referring to”

    I believe you mean “none of US will know…

  8. ” look at the period just after 1740 in Figure 3. The 11-year average takes a huge vertical jump … but meanwhile back in the real word, the TSI itself is not rising at all. It is falling.”

    But I see that it is followed by a temperature rise.

    The 11 year smoothing gives the longer term trend despite being sometimes out of phase with short term TSI variations.

    If one is working with a 10 to 20 year delay then the smoothed value is more useful for predictive purposes than the unsmoothed version.

  9. Which faux pas are you apologizing for? You’re being too vague. This is not how you create closure.

  10. > “Finally, please don’t delve into the rights and wrongs of what has happened in the previous discussions.”

    In my case, that’s easy – I managed to miss much of these discussions and completely missed the Monckton graph brouhaha until Mr. Watts summary post.

    It does seem to me that there’s a palpable testiness in the air. I don’t have any hard data to support it, but it seems whenever I turn over a new rock or open a new web page I can find people bickering. I even got my very own post attacking my poor reading comprehension skills over at https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/reading-comprehension/ . I think I’ll leave out the “something extra” as that would just open old wounds for both Goddard and me.

    I don’t really know where this testiness is coming from. My best guess is that the alarmists are seeing themselves retreating and are almost at the end of the gangplank. In a last chance bid to hold the world’s attention, their pronouncements and criticism may be changing from smug holier-than-thou to strident insistence that the world is still heading to hell in a hand basket or whatever conveyance we use now. And why am I writing in cliches? It’s nearly 0200, at least I think I’m still coherent.

    At any rate, let’s try a bit harder to not get annoyed at other’s concepts, but take them down from the high road, it can be done. This is a very good time for both sides to show that scientific debate doesn’t have to be rancorous to be effective.

    Besides, we’re winning and they are finally realizing it, they’re still partially in the denial phase and have a long way to got before getting to acceptance. Let’s make it easy for them. :-)

    It’ll be an interesting next five years or so. Don’t waste them.

  11. Mike M. says:
    July 16, 2014 at 10:41 pm

    A typo in your VERY IMPORTANT paragraph at the end.

    you have “If you do not quote the exact words that you disagree with, none of use will know what you are referring to”

    I believe you mean “none of US will know…

    Thanks, Mike, fixed.

    w.

  12. dp says:
    July 16, 2014 at 10:51 pm

    Which faux pas are you apologizing for? You’re being too vague. This is not how you create closure.

    dp, I’ve run into folks like you over and over. There’s always some charming anonymous person, who never ever has to take responsibility for or apologize for their own words because they can change their alias and walk away from what they’ve said, who pops up to tell me I’m not apologizing correctly. I’m sorry, but I don’t take moral instruction from folks who won’t sign their name to their own words.

    In fact, I couldn’t tell you exactly what it was that I said that got folks upset, nor do I care. As I said, I’m not interested in re-hashing the past. My apology is real and heartfelt. You don’t like it? Who cares? I wasn’t apologizing to you, so your opinion is meaningless. You just want to snipe from the sidelines and cause trouble … sorry, not buying.

    w.

  13. “One of the spliced datasets is the Lean TSI reconstruction, an outdated dataset that the authors of the reconstruction themselves admit is inaccurate.”

    Have the authors admitted it is inaccurate? It was certainly fed into the models for AR5.
    It’s my understanding that the models can’t reproduce the Little Ice Age without it so I guess that would keep it alive. A source of the admission would be nice though.

  14. Can’t believe I caught a Willis typo:
    “….none of use will know what you are referring to …”
    ====================
    It appears you don’t know “use”, none of use, nor our references.

    Or was that cowboy talk ?

  15. I have a lot of confidence that David and Jo will take your apology in the spirit that it was meant.

    I also feel that there has been a few niggling behaviours in past (totally unrelated to David and Jo) by a few of WUWT regular contributors that built up a bit of angst over time and this latest episode effectively “blew the valve” and the contents of this simmering pot ended up all over the kitchen ( … how far can I take this analogy? …).

    I also think a similar statement should come from some other parties, but as you say that is not up to you and you cannot speak for anyone else.

  16. I’ve mentioned this before (somewhere) so sorry if it’s old. Ferdinand de Saussure was an eminent European linguist at the beginning of the 20th century. Story goes something like this: Professor de Saussure invited a clerical friend to attend a meeting of professional organization (may have been the Societe de Linguistique de Paris). At this particular meeting, the discussion concerned some abstract point of phonology and generated a great deal of heat but very little light.

    Professor de Saussure was embarrassed and afterward apologized to his friend for the deportment of his colleagues. To which the good reverend replied that he need not apologize. He was in fact not at all upset when the speakers raised their voices and pounded the podium, because only then could he be sure that they really believed the ridiculous things they were saying.

    Sometimes being cool really indicates indifference.

  17. Willis,

    With regard to your reply to “dp” … you are spot on. The last paragraph nails the point precisely.

  18. Willis – if you want to know who I am, just ask. I’ve shared this information here in the past and will do so again. But please, think about this:

    In fact, I couldn’t tell you exactly what it was that I said that got folks upset

    Because it means your apology is empty. I didn’t do that.

    REPLY: “dp” whoever you are…you really ought to just stop commenting, because you really don’t have a clue what went on behind the scenes over several days. I pushed the publish button here tonight, not Willis, and I only did so because I saw that he made efforts over several days, at my behest, to workout if the drop in TSI was real or not. All the while this post was on hold, and he’s done what I consider honest work to produce it, and his opinion and apology are honest as well. Otherwise, I would not have pressed the publish button tonight and sent him and email to his current abode in a motel in Whitefish, MT. to let him know I decided to publish it.

    So, “tough noogies” if the post doesn’t meet your expectations. But see, here’s the thing, and there’s really no way around this…this isn’t about you or your opinion, so your complaint doesn’t concern me, and it certainly doesn’t concern Willis. – Anthony

  19. Stephen Wilde says:
    July 16, 2014 at 10:43 pm

    ” look at the period just after 1740 in Figure 3. The 11-year average takes a huge vertical jump … but meanwhile back in the real word, the TSI itself is not rising at all. It is falling.”

    But I see that it is followed by a temperature rise.

    The 11 year smoothing gives the longer term trend despite being sometimes out of phase with short term TSI variations.

    No, it doesn’t. That’s the point. It totally munges the data, turning peaks into valleys and valleys into peaks. And if it is falling when the temperature is rising, as in 1740, then it is NOT giving the “longer term trend”

    If one is working with a 10 to 20 year delay then the smoothed value is more useful for predictive purposes than the unsmoothed version.

    Stephen, I didn’t say smoothing is wrong. The problem is that all smooths are not created equal—some are good for a given purpose while others are a joke for the same purpose despite being fine for some other purpose.

    I said that for sunspot data, the 11-year boxcar smooth is likely the worst possible choice of filters, because it inverts the data part of the time and emphasizes the data the rest of the time. This is because the frequency data is being aliased into the amplitude … and if you don’t see the problem with that then you don’t know filters.

    Finally, we have no evidence that we are working with a “10 to 20 year delay” … and even if we were, the 11-year boxcar smooth would not be the right choice.

    w.

  20. [snip – read the reply to your comment above, then take a time out to consider your words before you comment again, I’m not going to let this thread be all about your opinion/sniping – Anthony]

  21. “If I say “I am angry” that is simply a true statement.
    But if I say “You made me angry”, that is something extra.”

    No one can make you angry but yourself?

  22. dp says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:20 pm

    Willis – if you want to know who I am, just ask. I’ve shared this information here in the past and will do so again. But please, think about this:

    In fact, I couldn’t tell you exactly what it was that I said that got folks upset

    Because it means your apology is empty. I didn’t do that.

    Oh, please. Now you’re the anonymous expert on apologies. The truth is that I don’t know exactly what it was I said that upset the various players, nor do I particularly care at this late date to try to find out. So I have apologized for whatever it was I said that in their opinion was over the line.

    You don’t like that? So what?

    It is exactly this kind of rehashing of the details of exactly what I said, and what they said in response, and what I replied, and what they felt, endlessly repeated, that I have no interest in. You keep insisting that I look backwards. Sorry, I’m moving forwards, you can look backwards if you wish.

    As to whether I want to know who you are, I have absolutely no interest in you, your name, or your opinions. You are not a participant in either the science nor in the bad feelings, you’re just a snide know-it-all sitting on the sidelines who doesn’t even have what it takes to sign his name to his own words. You can walk away from your words. I can’t. I have to apologize when I’m out of line, and that’s what I’ve done.

    Here’s the thing, dp. If I were apologizing to you, your opinion on my apology would be of interest to me. But since I wasn’t, I don’t care in the slightest what you think.

    Get with the picture, my friend. This bus in going forwards. Your attempts to sidetrack the discussion into who said what are unpleasant, but ultimately futile. I’m not going there, I’m not interested in who said what back in the past. That just leads to more bad feelings, and I’m not going that direction, so you might as well give it up and GET BACK TO THE SCIENCE.

    w.

  23. Figure F10, 7 represents the variation of UV radiation. Clearly a sharp drop in radiation in December 2003.

    This decrease in UV refers to the discussion on the decline of the TSI, in 2003. Sorce has data from 2003 and that’s the problem.

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/#chart

    Please see F 10.7 (respectively UV) and index of the El Niño.

  24. Santa Baby says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:34 pm

    “If I say “I am angry” that is simply a true statement.
    But if I say “You made me angry”, that is something extra.”

    No one can make you angry but yourself?

    Yep. Simple fact. Buddha said that we always have one choice in life, to dig it or bitch about it. Not in those words, of course, but that was his message. The external circumstances are given, but our own response to those circumstances is … our own.

    w.

  25. The part of the spectrum immediately to the left of blue, between 200 and 400 nm is the ultraviolet light (UV). The UV is usually divided into three components, with increasing energy:
    UV-A: 320-400 nm
    UV-B: 280-320 nm
    UV-C: 200-280 nm

    During low solar activity decrease of UV radiation and cosmic rays increase progressing in parallel. This is the reason for the strong reaction of the stratosphere for long periods of low solar activity (solar cycles long).
    Both of types of radiation are strongly ionizing radiation the ozone layer,
    because changes occur in the amount and distribution of ozone in the stratosphere.
    Stratospheric waves are then cause changes in circulation in the troposphere.

  26. Us see the excess ozone near the southern magnetic pole.

    But at an altitude of about 45 km whatsoever lack of ozone in the area of ​​the magnetic pole. This means only one thing: a strong ionization of GCR from 10hPa down.

  27. Thomas says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:23 pm

    Misdirection and crocodile tears.

    I love the anonymice who don’t have what it takes to sign their own words, who have never apologized in public and never have a need to since they can just change their alias and walk away …and yet they are somehow experts on apologies, they know what’s in my mind when I write, and they sit on the sidelines and set themselves up as judges of my moral behavior.

    In any case, did you miss the part about QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS that you object to?

    w.

  28. Willis, I am sorry (I take your attempt at reconciliation on its face) but I still think you are missing the point. As far as I understand it, the TSI is merely an indicator of something else that Evans/Nova that effects climate and that appears when looking at longer term trends indicated by the 11 year smoothing. I also don’t think you have read and fully parsed what it is that they are trying to so and show by the model.

    And I also don’t agree that if the direction was reversed and showing a ‘hockey stick’ it would be invalid either. Looking back over the whole of the series you could point to periods where there are steep rises and steep falls. In and of itself that doesn’t say anything remarkable. That’s why Mann tried to eliminate the MWP and the LIA, so that the uptick in the modern era did say something remarkable.

    Can I ask you to characterise Dr Evans justification for using an 11 year smoothing and then outline in that context why you don’t agree that is appropriate?

    Because for the purposes of understanding what it is they are trying to get at, it is not the 2000s and the relative differences in maxima that are interesting it is the difference between the 90s and the 2000s.

  29. ren says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:35 pm

    Figure F10, 7 represents the variation of UV radiation. Clearly a sharp drop in radiation in December 2003.

    This decrease in UV refers to the discussion on the decline of the TSI, in 2003. Sorce has data from 2003 and that’s the problem.

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/#chart

    Please see F 10.7 (respectively UV) and index of the El Niño.

    Thanks, Ren. However, David Evans graph said not one word about UV, Figure F10,7, or the El Nino. So I fear you are way, way off topic. The question is, does the TSI data show a precipitous “recent falloff in solar radiation” as the red line claims … and the answer is a resounding no.

    w.

  30. Willis sez:

    You don’t like that? So what?

    You involved me and everyone else when you posted your what ever you call it in a public forum. That makes it mine to respond to because you put it under my gaze. No, it wasn’t directed to me, but it was available to me by your hand. So I’m what? Responding? Oh hell yes.

    So You’ve had my reaction and you don’t care. Well I’m over that and it doesn’t change anything, of course. That you don’t care means your posting it in a public forum was another meaningless thing to do. I didn’t do that. If your apology were important between you and your antagonists I’d have never known about it, but that is not what you chose to do. So here we are having this conversation about your bad behavior and you are apologizing for something you can’t identify and I am being vilified. I never expected less.

    Never the less, I love reading your travelogues. Ok, I’m weak.

  31. We have already responded to most of these points, and in depth:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/

    In particular see this graph:

    All the data and calculations and graphs are available here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/big-news-ix-the-model/

    If Willis had followed his own principle of quoting accurately, the bad blood might have been avoided.

  32. [snip – this thread isn’t about cosmic rays, but TSI. please post relevant comments only -mod]

  33. Willis :

    In Buddhism, there’s a concept called “something extra”, and one is enjoined to avoid putting in “something extra”.It is explained in the following way:

    If I say “I am angry” that is simply a true statement.
    But if I say “You made me angry”, that is something extra.

    So I ask any and all of you to please accept my sincere apologies for whatever what I said that was something extra, so that we can move past this difficult time and get back to discussing the science.

    Good man Willis. Looks like your vacation is doing you some good.

    That little gem of buddhist philosophy can be applied to more than the comments on the “notch-delay”. I hope you will be able to apply it more broadly. ;)

  34. One other thing – could you please, please, please (I am officially ‘begging’ you) stop responding to those who are merely trying to provoke you? Or if you must, with the utmost delicacy? Because then the tone of thread turns into more mud slinging and we have to wade through metres of excremental trying to get to any interesting points you or others make regarding the actual science. What would a Canadian do? :-)

  35. JoNova says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:50 pm
    If Willis had followed his own principle of quoting accurately, the bad blood might have been avoided.

    Window dressing. It isn’t what he does. Love your blog – keep doing it.

  36. “You just want to snipe from the sidelines and cause trouble … sorry, not buying.”

    So, that thing about not ascribing motive? How long did that last?

    I take your apology as totally serious in intent, but I also think that habits of thought that get us into such situations are easy to apologise for, harder to break.

    The real test of whether or not the apology is sincere, is not anybody elses feelings about it, or even your own.

    It’s whether or not you stop the behaviour.

    You know, the ascribing motive to other people’s words when there is no realistic chance you can possibly know their motives?

    Yeah, that thing.

    Now, you have a simple choice. You can take my words as “sniping from the sidelines” or you can take them as pertinent advice given in good faith. You have no way of knowing which they’re intended as, but your choice tells your readers about you, not about me or my words.

  37. Agnostic says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:48 pm

    Willis, I am sorry (I take your attempt at reconciliation on its face) but I still think you are missing the point. As far as I understand it, the TSI is merely an indicator of something else that Evans/Nova that effects climate and that appears when looking at longer term trends indicated by the 11 year smoothing.

    I am simply looking at the graph. It doesn’t matter whether the TSI is an “indicator of something else”, because they have misrepresented the TSI as falling precipitously, when it is not doing that.

    In addition, the problem is that the longer term trends are NOT indicated by the 11-year smoothing, because it is the wrong filter for the purpose.

    I also don’t think you have read and fully parsed what it is that they are trying to so [do?] and show by the model.

    Again, not relevant to whether the TSI started to fall precipitously around 2004 as the red line shows.

    And I also don’t agree that if the direction was reversed and showing a ‘hockey stick’ it would be invalid either. Looking back over the whole of the series you could point to periods where there are steep rises and steep falls. In and of itself that doesn’t say anything remarkable. That’s why Mann tried to eliminate the MWP and the LIA, so that the uptick in the modern era did say something remarkable.

    Agnostic, the problem with “looking back over the whole of the series” is that you are looking at the Lean dataset, which is outdated and known to be wrong. So any conclusions you might draw from it are likely to be wrong as well, garbage in, garbage out.

    Can I ask you to characterise Dr Evans justification for using an 11 year smoothing and then outline in that context why you don’t agree that is appropriate?

    I have no idea why he chose the 11-year boxcar filter to do the smoothing. I’ve explained why it’s perhaps the worst possible choice—because the period of the signal varies both above and below the period of the filter. As a result, the frequency data gets aliased into the amplitude data, yielding results that have nothing to do with the actual variations in TSI. If you think aliasing the frequency data into the amplitude is acceptable practice, ask any signals engineer …

    Because for the purposes of understanding what it is they are trying to get at, it is not the 2000s and the relative differences in maxima that are interesting it is the difference between the 90s and the 2000s.

    Read the post again. The PMOD dataset that they are using post-2000 is known to be about 0.2 W/m2 too low at solar minimum. Remember that TSI at solar minimum varies very little, it is only at solar max that there are variations … so a 0.2 W/m2 error at solar minimum translates into a very large, but totally spurious, indicated drop post 2000.

    As a result, their spliced-together combination of the faulty Lean reconstruction plus PMOD data with a bias error is USELESS for comparing 1990s with post 2000.

    w.

  38. Willis:

    Stephen Wilde says: The 11 year smoothing gives the longer term trend despite being sometimes out of phase with short term TSI variations.

    No, it doesn’t. That’s the point. It totally munges the data, turning peaks into valleys and valleys into peaks. And if it is falling when the temperature is rising, as in 1740, then it is NOT giving the “longer term trend”:

    Thanks Willis, saved me the effort.

    That sudden drop is an artefact of the boxcar, running mean. There is a marked drop in SSN compared to the last cycle but it did nothing to do with 2003. I’m surprised that that some like Dr David Evans, with engineering training, does not question why there is a sudden drop in the data when he has imagines he has removed all the high frequency signal with a low pass filter.

    @ Stephen Wilde, I suggest you read this explanation of the problem with running average “smoothers”:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/

  39. Denver C Fletcher says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:57 pm

    “You just want to snipe from the sidelines and cause trouble … sorry, not buying.”

    So, that thing about not ascribing motive? How long did that last?

    My apologies. Let me rephrase that to describe his actions:

    “You are just sniping from the sidelines and causing trouble … sorry, not buying”.

    However … unless he is doing that by accident, then it is what he wants to do, so my remarks were accurate.

    Happy now?

    w.

  40. Being angry means loosing active control of your brain and going auto. My sister was an expert on this topic and used it actively as a ruler technique.
    First she attacks you in a rude way verbally with the object to have the victim loose his mind.
    If that did not work she would attack physically until the victim responded physical back.
    Then she would fall to the ground crying claiming the “victim” had been very bad to her.
    Absurd but it worked for her most of the times and she is still using this technique today :-)

    Willis you should have fallen to the ground crying claiming they had treated you badly?

  41. The sheer intensity of the work done on this blog and Joe Nova’s, etc, etc, is obviously telling, fraying nerves. You guys are world class heros, stop a minute and contemplate that.

  42. I think this question of the display processing of TSI data is a red herring, the real issue is the total implausibility and lack of evidence for a “notch” filter in the climate system.

    To establish such a notch you have to demonstrate that global temperatures are responding to oscillations faster than the 11-year cycle, maybe the second harmonic of that cycle (period around 5.5 years).

    Heck, people have struggled to show the tiny variations expected from the 11-year oscillations, and the second harmonic is way smaller than that.

    The reality is that the high frequency parts of TSI and Temp are just 2 unrelated time series, and David Evans has made a major error in dividing their spectra and claiming that the result is a transfer function.

    Another point: global mean temperatures are actually the MEDIAN of all the data, the point halfway up the list after ordering. Solar effects could well be having a measurable effect on tropical temperatures, but at the same time very little effect on the median, because those tropical temps are already in the upper half of the data. Long-term trends will eventually show up in the median as heat flows to the poles, but not the rapid oscillations that David Evans is claiming.

  43. Title of the post: “Mending fences”
    So much for that idea …….
    Maybe next cycle.
    There are cycles, right ?

  44. Does Evans have any chance of being correct in the main albeit with some errors in presentation and some errors in the graph ?

  45. “Sure, the 11-year average says clearly that there is a huge drop starting around that time … but the actual data says something entirely different, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.”

    You’ve lost me here.

    Peaks and troughs are not really the issue, (we had a similar discussion with regards to peaks and troughs in relation to solar irradiation in a previous post about temperature changes over the LIA (Maunder and Dalton Minimums)); these effects tend to average out because there isn’t enough time for the earth to respond to large magnitude, but short period, irradiance changes.

    What happens is that the earth responds to the 8-14 year solar cycle in a manner more akin to momentum in physics, it takes a while for earth temperatures to trend in one direction and once in place tends to follow in such a direction, at least for a period of decades after a peak. Slow ocean heat transfer means there is a lag period to solar changes, data from the past suggests this is of the order of decades.

    I cant believe people are still arguing about what is essentially a simple matter. Has average TSI dropped over the last 10 years or so, or hasn’t it?

    This argument will keep going round in circles until the extraneous factor of whether there is, and to what length and degree, a lag time in response to TSI changes is recognised, I suspect this factor is the core of the disagreement over TSI.

  46. I was happy before, Willis.

    I love this website and I think you guys (all of the parties to this recent contretemps) do great work.

    But you dont seem very happy …

    Be that as it may, I will go back to lurking and enjoying the scientific discussion.

    My sincerest regards to you, sir.

  47. Anthony wrote:

    So, “tough noogies” if the post doesn’t meet your expectations.

    The greater concern is that the post does meet your expectations. That presages a crisis. If there is a justifying subtext to it that the larger audience of which I am a part are not to know about then it is upon you to forgive our voiced rejections as we don’t have, by your choice, the rest of the story. That in itself is an interesting problem in communication. I don’t accept your criticism of my reaction.

  48. I find it hard to compare graphs when the scales are so different (and different, one uses total, the other uses deltas), and when one graph is for 200 years whilst the other two are for 15 years.

    That said, I find your argument interesting. Next I go read again what David Evans said and see his take on it. If you have any solutions to the smoothing problem, that would be nice.

  49. Willis: “Now, in the heat of the moment Leif described the red line as being “almost fraudulent”. I think this was an over-reaction, but perhaps an understandable one. ”

    Rather than being a reaction, I think that was the comment that created much of the heat. I don’t think it was justified or understandable.

    David Evan’s analysis was very poorly done and should be criticised on that basis as you have done here. Accusing him of being “almost fraudulent” was unfounded and inappropriate.

    It would be good if David Evans resonded to some of the technical criticism but I don’t see much evidence of that happening. I raised several of these issues over a Jonova’s ( in a non provocative way ) and got no response.

    This whole ‘model’ is dead in the water as far as I can see.

    The notch filter idea is a misinterpretation of FT analysis and is physically unreal
    The ‘nuclear winter’ term is a massive fudge.
    The sudden drop is a data processing error.

    The initial idea of creating an alternative model, without AGW is a good one. He should probably forget the notch-delay and try again. It should not be too hard to construct something that fits better and GCM output.

    Even Scafetta’s curve fitting has proved to be notably better than climate models.

  50. Personally I think TSI is an averaged value of sun output and would be more interested in variations of magnetic field strength, UV ad extreme UV which I feel are more likely to be affecting our climate than straight TSI.
    On another note, but relevant to the research topic is that I’ve been reading with interest about the Electric Sun. See:
    http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm and

    http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electric_Universe_theory

    Haven’t decided how much I agree with it, but it certainly explains a few things a nuclear sun cannot.

  51. Willis said:

    “for sunspot data, the 11-year boxcar smooth is likely the worst possible choice of filters, because it inverts the data part of the time and emphasizes the data the rest of the time. ”

    I don’t think David Evans claims it as the perfect solution. He accepts that the delayed thermal response of the Earth system is smeared across 4 to 15 years and he additionally accepts that the length of the solar cycle and hence the ideal length of the smoothing period is also variable.

    Other factors are also involved and need to be separated out.

    The thing is that around 2003/4 the averaged effect of the changes in TSI from the peak of cycle 23
    start to kick in and David’s proposal that the smoothed pattern has some predictive capability will not be falsified for at least another 5 years.

    I think you have been making unreasonable demands of the smoothing process at this early stage of its application to the TSI / temperature relationship.

  52. Greg says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:04 am

    Like Willis, I think you are expecting too much of the smoothing process.

    As you point out, it does produce artifacts in both directions as a by product of the process.

    However, where lagging effects are involved, smoothing does help to bring out the timing of longer term inflection points.

    It isn’t perfect, especially if the underlying physical processes are themselves variable but it helps.

    The smoothing applied by David Evans suggests that around 2003/4 a barrier was crossed which should result in a change in temperature trend around (not precisely at) 11 years later with that change in temperature trend itself being smeared across 4 to 15 years subject to interference from other factors such as ocean cycles that may be in or out of phase with the solar cycle to varying degrees.

    It isn’t perfect but it is a legitimate starting point.

  53. “If Willis had followed his own principle of quoting accurately, the bad blood might have been avoided.”

    We are all entitled to our own opinions. We all make mistakes, sooner or later. The scientific method is not about making people angry or about bad blood.
    Please stick to the scientific argument?

  54. Rod said:

    “Personally I think TSI is an averaged value of sun output and would be more interested in variations of magnetic field strength, UV and extreme UV which I feel are more likely to be affecting our climate than straight TSI.”

    That is the idea that is emerging but it may involve the entire suite of chemical processes in the atmosphere.

    The question then is whether TSI variations are related to wavelength variations at a later date which requires closer consideration of the relationship between TSI and magnetic field strength since the latter seems to be involved in the wavelength variations.

    That is where it becomes necessary to try and identify ‘force x’ which David Evans sees as the relevant non TSI solar parameter driving changes in Earth’s climate system.

    My view is that force x is the effect of wavelength and particle variations having a different effect on ozone amounts at different heights and at different latitudes.

  55. “You are just sniping from the sidelines and causing trouble … sorry, not buying”.
    Or
    You are just shooting chaff and flares to distract or derail the scientific debate.

    ?

  56. Willis,

    As you are well aware I was in the thick of all that as well. I am beyond my anger and owe you an apology.

    BTW I’m extremely glad you have looked into the splicing problem Willie Soon pointed out.

  57. you called me quote ‘jerkwagon’.
    you called me quote ‘a thief’
    you called me boring and ignorant- and if you’re so senile you don’t remember, i’ll happily get you your quotes, verbatim.
    now, i can question authority without being a terrorist; i can question a monopoly without being a thief and i can question willis without being an anonymous coward.
    you have a long list of apologies owed because of a long list of offenses.
    now, i want to know what is your motive for it?

  58. JoNova on July 16, 2014 at 11:50 pm

    We have already responded to most of these points, and in depth:

    . . .

    If Willis had followed his own principle of quoting accurately, the bad blood might have been avoided.

    – – – – – – – –

    JoNova,

    I thank you. It seems that instead of mending fences you have chosen, in your wonderful consistent civil way, a strategy of attempting removal of the fences in the dialog. Good.

    Your energy level on the ‘notch’ project inspires.

    John

  59. We have graphed smoothed 11 year trends in TSI accurately. Anyone can replicate it.

    There are no errors in the graphs.

    The graph of smoothed TSI is merely a check to explain why there was a steep fall in the model. The model does not use 11 year smoothing, nor does it use the “red line” as Willis claims (“…David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line”):. I have explained this before, here on WUWT and to Willis. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1682221

    I also said: “The TSI fall was always about 11-year smoothed trends. Leif and (Willis) continue to attack the strawman that it does not exist in monthly or daily data.”

    It would surely be a sign of “good spirit” to actually read what we write. Hm?

  60. Willis, there are 2 issues here:

    1. Use of a faulty data set.

    2. Use of 11 year smoothing,

    On point 1, I am completely agnostic. You may be very well right and that could be a fatal issue for the model and it’s ability to say anything about future temps. I am not convinced either way.

    On point 2, you still haven’t made your objections in the context of Dr Evan’s justification. I will allow that you very well be right, but you actually haven’t made a case at all. All you have said that it is inappropriate to use on TSI, but I have read their justification and it seems completely reasonable to me. This is something familiar to me from my line of work and I don’t see why you think it is inappropriate. Furthermore, Dr Evans ought to be given the benefit of the doubt in terms knowing what he is talking about as a respected electrical engineer and modeller. I’m not saying that means he is right, so if you see something that makes you go “hang on – this doesn’t look right” I’d try to get to the bottom of why he has done it. Having “no idea” why he has done it but proclaiming it as inappropriate doesn’t really further discussion.

    So, with the greatest of respect, and in the spirit of polite scientific inquiry, I would love for you to characterise what you think Dr Evans is trying to do, or what you think his justifications are for using the 11 year smoothing, and then discuss why you don’t think it is the right way of determining long term trends in TSI. And what method do you think he should have used?

  61. ren says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:51 pm

    [snip – this thread isn’t about cosmic rays, but TSI. please post relevant comments only -mod]

    I can’t tell what was deleted. But if it was about TSI as measured on earth cosmic rays are likely an influence. Svensmark. And then you have temperatures on earth. Which this thread is also about… If the labeling on the graph is correct.

  62. Willlis

    It is good to see you making an apology. I am not taking sides, both sides behavoir left much to be desired.

    This is a blog, and people post without the care that they would take, if they were presenting a report or submission for work. Whilst people do not usually preface their comments as such, most comments here are simply an expression of opinion. Sometimes that opinion is backed up by data, and as we all know nearly all the data sets have issues (some serious) and usually there are other data sets which are to more or less extent conflicting, such that the presentation of any data is selective. It always surprises me how firm people are in their comments, since given the poor quality of the available data, the conflicting nature of much of the data, a firm conclussion about almost any issue (or sub issue) would seem impossible.

    IMO you are too ready to jump to a conclussion that when someone disagrees with you, they are making an attack on you. That is easy for me to say, since you put yourself up, to be shot down. Rising to the bait, often distracts from the debate, and the comment section then becomes side tracked, rather than focusing on the science. All that I am saying is that (IMO) you need to be more thick skinned, and accept that criticism (sometimes unfounded criticism) and disagreement comes with the territory, and just ignore it and stick to the science. IMO, you are sometimes overly defensive. None of what I say is a personal criticism.

    Moving on to this post, I am somewhat surprised by the way in which you have presented some of the data. IMO, I consider that you need to present the TSI data for the period well before 2000.

    IF you are presenting data starting at around the year 2000, it appears to me that there is a drop in TSI almost immediately, ie., late 2000/early 2001. The suggestion that the decline is from around 2004, is not a reflection of the data set out in the two plots (figures 1 and 2).

    The duration of the data set out in Figures 1 and 2 is too short to allow the reader to gain an impression as to whether anything unusual is happening as from 2000 onwards. One would have to see the data for prior periods to gain an impression as to whether the period post 2000 in some way appears unusual, and even if it was unusual that may not mean that there is anything of significance.

    I agree with you that there are issues (significant issues at that) in the way the data is handled and presented in the Evan’s plot (figure 3). In particular, (IMO) it is always very dangerous to rely upon smoothed data, especially if you are looking at the end period of the smoothed data, and seeking to draw a conclusion as to what is happening in the final period of the smoothing.

    Evans is using an 11 year smoothing; the final period of the data runs from 2003 to 2014, and he is trying to read something significant from that smoothing in the very final period that he has data for. However, 2004, 2005 and 2006 etc will look different as soon as data comes in for 2015, 2016, 2017 etc.

    When the data comes in for say the period up to 2020, (IMO) it is almost certainly going to be the case that the smoothed data post 2000, will then no longer appear as if it has dropped off a cliff.

    All of that said, whenever one discusses the influence of solar irradiance, one issue that remains is whether TSI is the relevanat metric. Matters could be much more subtle, such as responses to a change in wavelength distribution within TSI, and/or some coupled response with changes to the Earth’s magnetic field and its distribution (whether it is weakening or strengthening in localised areas of importance over the oceans, or land, the significance of which we do not yet appreciate still less understand).

    Personally, I doubt that matters are so simple, and the reason why we cannot detect the presumed response is simply because we do not know or understand all the factors in play, and therefore we do not know what we are looking for.

    But if CO2 continues to rise, and if the sun goes through a quiet period (whatever that might mean) and if temperatures do not rise, the case for suggesting that CO2 is the dominant driver of temperature will weaken, and the case that temperatures are driven largely by natural factors will strengthen. One of those natural factors is likely to be the sun, and/or clouds, and of course, it may well be that clouds have an unknown response to solar activity and subtle changes therein…

  63. MikeUK says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:16 am

    Exactly. In their world “correlation does not imply causation” becomes “non-correlation implies causation with a notch and a Force X”.

    Credit to Willis for this post.

  64. It’s only the measurable Nature that can and will validate or falsify Evan’s theory.

    Earth is a water planet. With so much more Sun energy in the oceans than in the atmosphere and with several ocean cycles spanning from a few years to thousands of years.
    And it’s affected by the Sun and clouds in many ways.
    Some claim that 90% of climate science is not known or badly known. When we don’t know how climate fundamentally ticks what is the scientific motivations for all the current climate models?

  65. So, with the greatest of respect, and in the spirit of polite scientific inquiry, I would love for you to characterise what you think Dr Evans is trying to do, or what you think his justifications are for using the 11 year smoothing, and then discuss why you don’t think it is the right way of determining long term trends in TSI. And what method do you think he should have used?

    The purpose of the 11 year smoothing is to look for an inflection point. Other than that it and the data added to the endpoints are not germane. Did it find the correct (if there was one) inflection point? I think so. The result is the same as Habibullo Abdussamatov (HA) found by different means. Although David gives a range of 2014 to 2018 while HA says definitely 2014.

  66. Jo Nova said:

    “The graph of smoothed TSI is merely a check to explain why there was a steep fall in the model. The model does not use 11 year smoothing, nor does it use the “red line” as Willis claims ”

    Good point, I’d missed that amongst the wealth of material.

    Willis should just have apologised and left it at that rather than trying to explain further.

  67. When two people argue over something that is relatively simple, there is usually some other factor involved.

  68. JoNova says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:50 pm

    We have already responded to most of these points, and in depth:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/

    Joanne, thanks for your reply. Let me take this first link to start with. In discussing TSI at your blog in that link, you say:

    Leif Svalgaard claims “TSI has not fallen since 2003″. It’s technically true in a sense, but demonstrably false when discussing 11 year smoothed trends (which is written on the graph he was criticizing). Willis Eschenbach sadly was carried along.

    If you will note what I said above …

    And as a result, the red line doesn’t represent reality in any shape or form. There is no precipitous drop in TSI starting around 2004. It doesn’t exist. Sure, the 11-year average says clearly that there is a huge drop starting around that time … but the actual data says something entirely different, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

    I agree with you that the 11-year boxcar filter drops precipitously around 2004. But as you agree, the data itself doesn’t do any such thing. You dismiss this ugly reality by saying that it is “technically true in a sense” … I don’t understand what “technically true in a sense” even means regarding observational data.

    It is true, and undeniably true both technically and in every sense, that the TSI has not fallen since 2003.

    Yes, the 11-year boxcar filter shows such a drop … so what? When filtered data disagrees with the unfiltered data, all that means is that you are using the wrong filter for the purpose. Instead of grasping that nettle, in your post you’ve shown that the 11-year boxcar filter makes the same hash out of other sunspot-related datasets. That merely emphasizes the inappropriate nature of the 11-year boxcar filter for sunspot data.

    If you’d like another example of this exact same problem involving the 11-year boxcar smooth and sunspot data, take a look at “Sunny Spots Along The Parana River“. There, the authors made the same mistake of using an 11-year boxcar filter, and it made a total hash of their data as well.

    Next, at your link you show the following graph:

    Using that same data and taking the annual average to match it to your graph in Figure 3 above gives the following:

    Now, it is true that the TSI value in 2013 is lower than the peak in 2002 in the PMOD data, by about 0.5 W/m2. However, there are a couple of caveats.

    First, both the CERES satellite data and the SORCE satellite data shown above do not exhibit such behavior. The CERES dataset covers the full period from before the previous TSI maximum (which according to the PMOD data was in 2002) to 2013 … but the CERES data only shows a drop of about 0.35 W/m2 from 2002 to 2013.

    More to the point, however, take a look at the size of the drop in the PMOD data. It’s about 0.5 W/m2 from 2002 to 2013, significantly larger than the CERES data for that time interval of a drop of 0.35 W/m2.

    But that’s not the only problem. In your graph in Figure 3, you’ve spliced in the Lean data. And as a result, the drop in that dataset is no less than about 0.8 W/m2, a drop that is 60% LARGER than the drop in the PMOD data, and more than twice the drop shown in the CERES and SORCE datasets.

    This is the problem with using such spliced datasets. You’ve introduced a huge, 0.3 W/m2 drop in the spliced data that is not present in the PMOD data … and of course, that will be reflected as a spurious, erroneous drop in the 11-year average.

    And this is only compounded by the fact that the 11-year boxcar filter is making a mess of things because it aliases frequency data into the amplitude data. Again I invite you to look at what it does to the data just after 1740. The data is dropping fast … but the 11-year average is shooting for the sky. Surely you’d agree that that is totally spurious, to have the average hitting the roof while the data is hitting the floor …

    So my objections still stand. You’ve used a perfect storm of spliced bad data and a very poorly chosen filter, and it’s given you erroneous results. There is no precipitous drop in TSI as the red line claims, that’s merely the result of erroneous data, poor splicing, and an inappropriate filter.

    Regards, and thanks again for your reply,

    w.

    PS—Regarding the PMOD results, I find the following from the ACRIM website (emphasis mine):

    PMOD time series approach

    The PMOD composite approach uses a different subset of the satellite TSI database, the ERBS/ERBE ACRIM gap ratio, and modifies published Nimbus7/ERB and ACRIM1 results, to conform them to the predictions of TSI proxy models [Frohlich & Lean, 1998]. The sparse ERBS/ERBE data required the PMOD model to use ~ 90% interpolated ERBE data to compute their ACRIM gap ratio. The PMOD result is more of a model of TSI than a composite of actual measured satellite values.

    Discussion of composites

    There are a number of differences between the ACRIM and PMOD composites but the most important is the trend during solar cycles 21 – 23. The absence of a trend in the PMOD composite and any composite based on the ERBS/ERBE ACRIM gap ratio has been shown to be an artifact of uncorrected degradation of ERBE results during the gap (See Fig. 4).

    TSI proxy models are not competitive in precision or accuracy with even the lowest quality satellite TSI observations. Most are regression models of TSI against one or more proxy solar spectral features or records of solar magnetic activity. Use of such models in constructing the PMOD composite convolutes their large uncertainties with the satellite TSI observational data. The resulting TSI composite is more likely to represent the modeler’s preconception of what the TSI time series should look like than the reality conveyed by satellite TSI observational results published by the experiment science teams.

    The PMOD composite approach modified results published by the science teams of the Nimbus7/ERB and ACRIM1. No original computations or algorithm developments were made by the PMOD fabricators. Modifications made to both Nimbus7/ERB and ACRIM1 results were based on erroneous assumptions about instrument operation and sensor degradation that conflicted with the experiment science teams’ published analyses.

  69. Agnostic: “Dr Evans ought to be given the benefit of the doubt in terms knowing what he is talking about as a respected electrical engineer and modeller.”

    There is not doubt to benefit form, this is science. Dr Evans “as a respected electrical engineer” should have questioned himself how he had such a sharp step in the data after passing an 11y low-pass filter.

  70. Santa Baby says: “It’s only the measurable Nature that can and will validate or falsify Evan’s theory.”

    If his processing has major flaws, he is wrong even if climate dips anyway. ( N.B. I’m not taking a stance on whether there is a solar signal here, )

  71. gnomish says:
    July 17, 2014 at 1:15 am

    you called me quote ‘jerkwagon’.
    you called me quote ‘a thief’
    you called me boring and ignorant

    True.

    w.

  72. redcords says:
    July 17, 2014 at 1:37 am

    With all due respect I do not think your conclusion is correct. The Bode Plot (you do know what a Bode plot is? From long experience?) shows a notch. That means a filter. To make the filter causal (math artifacts can create non-causal filters from sampled data) it needs an 11 year delay. Which is probably significant. Now what in the solar spectrum is delayed 11 years from TSI? Is that “what” possibly the required cause? If not? Dead end.

    But we are not there yet. We don’t know if the cat is dead or alive. Yet.

  73. M Simon. “The purpose of the 11 year smoothing is to look for an inflection point. ”

    NO, the point of a “smoother” is to _remove_ “inflections” and smooth the data. Nowhere does Dr. Evans suggest that “smoother” is intended to detect inflection points, that’s nuts, you just made it up.

    If you want to do that you design some kind of processing that _does_ detect such features, not chose one that spuriously creates them.

  74. Jo Nova says:
    July 17, 2014 at 1:22 am

    We have graphed smoothed 11 year trends in TSI accurately. Anyone can replicate it.

    There are no errors in the graphs.

    Thanks, Jo. I never said there were errors in the graph. Instead, I said that the Lean data is discredited, that the PMOD data is inaccurate, and that the splicing was bad. However, the graph represents all of that bad data quite accurately.

    The model does not use 11 year smoothing, nor does it use the “red line” as Willis claims (“…David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line”)

    Whoa, that’s taken out of context … what I actually said was (emphasis mine):

    to the degree that David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line, it is already falsified.

    If that degree is zero, fine, glad to hear it … but I didn’t say that the model was based on the red line.

    w.

  75. “JoNova
    It would surely be a sign of “good spirit” to actually read what we write. Hm?”

    It could be caused by human factors?
    Like we are unable to see the vase or the two faces at the same time?

    http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/Facevase.php

    Having. been a pilot for over 40 years my life have depended on always having an alternative plan to my ongoing current plan. “My plan is to land safely, if it becomes less safe outside preset parameters I make a go-around.
    The same when driving my car. I am going to pass here, but if a car comes head on early around that corner I will stop passing and go back to start. I have the right of way or a green light and will cross if all the cars on red accept my right of way… Etc etc..

    They have already an idea how it should be so it’s very difficult to sell your own idea to them?

  76. Greg Goodman said:

    “NO, the point of a “smoother” is to _remove_ “inflections” and smooth the data”

    The point of a ‘smoother’ is to remove short term ‘noise’ in order to reveal the longer term trends and inflection points in those longer term trends.

    Taken to the extreme one can observe Leif’s progressive ‘ironing flat’ of the historical TSI record :)

    In that case one smooths out everything including the long term trends and inflections therein.

    “If you want to do that you design some kind of processing that does detect such features,”

    Such as?

  77. Rod says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:42 am
    Personally I think TSI is an averaged value of sun output and would be more interested in variations of magnetic field strength.

    As far as I understand it, the TSI changes (relatively minor and most likely irrelevant) are a direct product of the solar magnetic activity, but not necessarily representation of it. However, solar magnetic activity impact is measured down here on the earth by the annual number of magnetic storms http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/image022.jpg hitting polar regions. That is not all, some of the storms are of same polarity as the Earth’s field, and others of the opposite; polarity is critical for the impact of the interactions. To make things worse (from statistical point of view), geomagnetic storms arrive at 27.2 days rate, while the climate data is presented at the variable monthly rate.

  78. Joanne, a final question before I get some much-needed sleep. At the time of your second post on the mode, some weeks ago now, I asked about out-of-sample tests on the model. You replied that they had already been done.

    Are you planning to reveal the results of those tests, and if so, what is the scheduled release date?

    Thanks,

    w.

  79. M Simon says:
    July 17, 2014 at 1:49 am

    “With all due respect I do not think your conclusion is correct.”

    ————-

    You’re correct, my mistake:

    In their world “correlation does not imply causation” becomes “non-correlation implies causation… and a notch… and a delay… and a Force X… and a nuclear test fudge factor scaled high”.

  80. Willis if you are ever in New Zealand aka Aotearoa aka Land of the Long White Cloud, I would enjoy meeting up with you. And that goes too for Jo and David and Leif and Chrostopher, whose insightful analyses and comments I have enjoyed, whole not always agreeing with, over the last few years. Amongst other things I teach ina course on energy in society, and am always struck by how vulnerable our up and coming leaders are.

  81. TSI is measured by satellites since only 1978 (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant), this is hardly long enough for any climate related consideration.

    All other pseudo-precise W/m2 TSI graphs are reconstruction models, mostly based on reinterpretation of solar spots counts that are made since the 18th century. Spot counts are simple, and therefore an rather accurate story about what the sun has shown of its face.

    Analysing the data, the famous 11 year cycle is also intertwined with an approx. 108 years oscillation, although the latter fails on statistical evidence for such a short observation period.

    See the graph at: https://db.tt/LXTS9pfx

  82. @Greg

    I have been following your comments with great interest Greg. IMO you are doing a pretty good job of making a challenge.

    There is not doubt to benefit form, this is science. Dr Evans “as a respected electrical engineer” should have questioned himself how he had such a sharp step in the data after passing an 11y low-pass filter.

    Perhaps, but a more detailed look at the period in question:

    Is simply the result of the recent maxima being much lower. You can argue that (as Willis and Leif do) that the data isn’t correct and that there is no reduction in solar activity, but I can’t see what is wrong with their conclusion given they think the data is alright.

  83. You say “As a result, the frequency data gets aliased into the amplitude data, yielding results that have nothing to do with the actual variations in TSI.”
    That is not correct. First, data decimation by averaging does not cause aliasing. Second, the 11 year boxcar is a valid filter function for the intended purpose which is to completely suppress 11 year periodicity with the minimum length impulse response. That other frequencies are not so well dealt with seem to me to be beside the point of the analysis…

    Cheers

  84. Actually Leif posts graphs showing the reduction in TSI – which is the point on which Dr Evans’ theory rests whether or not you think 11 year smoothers are valid or not:

  85. “Figure 4. Variations of mean UV spectral irradiance in 3 wavelength bands: FUV, 120–200 nm (left); MUV, 200–270 nm (centre) and NUV,
    270–400 nm (right) (respectively, SFUV, SMUV, and SNUV): the monthly means shown in the top panels in black are composites using only
    zero-level offset corrections to the raw data (as illustrated by figure 1), whereas those shown in mauve use an additional gain calibration for
    the SORCE SIM instrument (as illustrated by figure 3). The mauve curves are also shown by the grey filled areas in the lower panels. The
    lower panels also show the best least-squares linear regression fits of the McMurdo neutron monitor GCR counts, M (in orange); the open
    solar flux FS (in blue) and F10.7 (in mauve). Correlation coefficients,r (with significance levels in parentheses) with F10.7, FS and M
    respectively, for SFUV are 0.95 (99.9%), 0.71 (87.4%) and −0.89 (94.4%); for SMUV are 0.81 (92.9%), 0.80 (92.2%) and −0.89 (94.2%); and
    for SNUV are 0.82 (99.6%), 0.83 (89.8%) and −0.87 (99.7%).”

    http://pl.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=svj6g5&s=8#.U8Fw91V_suo

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/pdf/1748-9326_5_3_034008.pdf

    Solar activity drops drastically. The increase corresponds to a decrease of galactic radiation of UV and solar magnetic field fluctuations.

    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=06&startyear=2013&starttime=00%3A00&endday=17&endmonth=07&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=06&startyear=2013&starttime=00%3A00&endday=17&endmonth=07&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

  86. There is a more physically meaningful response to solar variations, that is a relaxation response. This is based on the simply model that the further something is out of equilbrium, the quicker it returns. This is the kind of simplistic model that a lot of climate science is based on.

    The system response can be calculated as an asymmetrically weighted running average.

    Here is what 5y time constant applied to SSN results in , compared to hadSST3.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981

    Note that the short term peaks do NOT match solar. The last six intervals span about 53 years, that 8.83y each. Lunar perigee cycle is 8.85.

    This is what many of the rather lightweight papers Willis has been highlighting have been mistaking for a solar signal. More to do with expections and bais confirmation it would seem.

    If the relaxation model does suggest a possible long term solar response in climate , there is a notable divergence at the end. Someting is propping up global temps despite the decline in solar.

    Ironically, this may well be due to major volcanoes:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955

    Again, the “nuclear winter” paradigm seems so deeply entrenched in the global psyche that no one seems to have looked beyond this intitial cooling effect of volcanoes. The long term effect is a decrease in opacity of the stratosphere and about 1.8 W/m2 in incoming shortwave.

  87. Just to lighten proceedings a bit;-
    An Australian wedding had taken place in the outback ,halfway through the celebrations a guy gets on stage and says to everyone “Ladies and gentleman , I have some bad news , we have run out of beer and it looks like the best man has been caught making love to the bride in his room” At that point he receives a telephone call,, he smiles and says “great news everyone ! The hotel has just received another 20 cases of tinnies (beer) and whats more the bloke has apologised!”
    An apology is what it is and I think fair play to the guy who apologises,well done Willis.

  88. Reading much of the above suggests the argument over TSI is in the realm of both qualified semantics (‘to the degree that…’), whether or not one believes a set or other of data is useful or not (‘discredited’, ‘inaccurate’, ), whether it has been correctly or justifiably spliced (‘bad splicing,…’.), and whether or not a smoothed trend is justified, and how long the smooth trend should be, and what can be said about it.

    To which I say, to the degree that possibly or possibly not discredited data is possibly or possibly not inaccurate and possibly or possibly not badly spliced and possibly or possibly not whether the smoothing is justified in the first place and possibly or possibly not whether any further conclusions can be drawn from this, …………….then all is crystal clear.

    Methinks Willis is splitting hairs that don’t need to be split.

  89. Dear Willis
    I often learn from you and this site not, always things about science.
    You quoted:
    In Buddhism, there’s a concept called “something extra”, and one is enjoined to avoid putting in “something extra”.

    I am an anonymous poster. as are many here and no doubt we have our reasons?
    When you attack an anonymous poster as you do above, are you not putting in something extra, which may have the effect of upsetting those who support and value your work?
    Thank you for all you do and enjoy your holiday. Why not accidentally on purpose spill your coffee on your keyboard, it will no doubt dry out by the time you return and allow you now a more relaxing time.
    In advance I apologies if my comments are presumptuous.
    Take care
    Stuart Harmon

  90. One of the real problems exemplified in climate science is the difficulty of separating correlation from similarity. It is far too easy to overly read into data some correlation, when in practice all that one is seeing is some general similarity.

    IMO, the Evan’s plot is a classic example of this. Sure there is some similarity between the 11 year TSI smoothing, and the 25 year temp smoothing. But is there really anything more than that? In particular, do the two correlate? When I look at the detail, I would say no. For example, I see instances when they become out of sync, there are some examples when the amount of relative change between the two is not similar etc. In fine detail, correlation begins to breakdown, just like the comparison between CO2 and temp; some similarity but in fine detail, no correlation.

    And of course, correlation does not mean causation.

  91. Willis since he runs SORCE ?
    “Precise space measurements obtained during the past 20 years imply that TSI varies on the order of 0.1% over the solar cycle (see Figure 1), but with greater variations on a short-term basis. For example, the passage of sunspots over the disk produces 2-4 times that amount. The variation apparently occurs over most time scales, from day-to-day variations up to and including variations over the 11-year solar cycle. How TSI variations are distributed in wavelength is still poorly understood. The largest relative solar variations are factors of two or more at ultraviolet and shorter wavelengths, but the greater total energy available at visible and longer wavelengths makes their small variations of potential importance.”
    “The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is a NASA-sponsored satellite mission that is providing state-of-the-art measurements of incoming x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, near-infrared, and total solar radiation. The measurements provided by SORCE specifically address long-term climate change, natural variability and enhanced climate prediction, and atmospheric ozone and UV-B radiation. These measurements are critical to studies of the Sun; its effect on our Earth system; and its influence on humankind.”
    The SORCE spacecraft was launched on January 25, 2003.

  92. Mark says” First, data decimation by averaging does not cause aliasing. Second, the 11 year boxcar is a valid filter function for the intended purpose which is to completely suppress 11 year periodicity with the minimum length impulse response. That other frequencies are not so well dealt with seem to me to be beside the point of the analysis…”

    1. A running average does not decimate, you have exactly the same time resolution as before.
    2. ‘other frequencies’ are not beside the point, they are what are causing the inversions and the steep drop. That is the drop on which Dr Evans is basing his prediction and which he is putting up as a falsifiable prediction. Hardly ” beside the point of the analysis”.

  93. Agnostic says: “…but I can’t see what is wrong with their conclusion given they think the data is alright.”

    There’s two parts to this as Willis explains. One is the data, the second is the filter aberrations.

    The steep drop is not there, and should not be there in 11y low-passed data, whatever it’s source:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=983

  94. MikeUK said:

    Solar effects could well be having a measurable effect on tropical temperatures, but at the same time very little effect on the median

    Interesting point – if true, then when combined with the WE patented thermostat hypothesis, then there should be a correlation between TSI and time-of-onset of tropical thunderstorms.

    If such a correlation is found, then the notch filter becomes redundant.

    Anyone have the data on that (Willis?)

  95. It will not be “Ice Age”. It will be very harsh winters in the mid-latitudes. If the sun’s magnetic field will weaken summer will be short.

  96. MikeUK said: ” Solar effects could well be having a measurable effect on tropical temperatures, but at the same time very little effect on the median”

    “could well be having ” , or may be not. Try producing something to back it up rather than meaningless hand-waving comments.

    Tropics are particularly resistant to changes in radiative flux, as Willis has pointed out.

    There is a detectable change in the tropics to Mt Pinatubo which shows that the values IPCC modellers use for scaling volcanic effects has been _under played_ to make the models work whilst maintaining high sensitivity.:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884

    Despite that the change in tropical SST does match Mt P but is so small it’s just down at the noise level.

    This implies that tropical climate is very insensitive to radiative change.

    This is empirical verification of Willis’ hypothesis, in the topics.

  97. At this stage of the game, I think most skeptics agree that CO2 running the climate is a defunct theory. That being the case and given the establishment investment in the CO2 rules over all, we’re the only ones actually looking for alternative theories.

    The notch theory may or may not be correct, in whole or part; it’s still a very new idea even though David and Jo have put a lot of time into it. We can refine or rationally reject it by a process of cool thought and civil debate amongst ourselves. If they won’t do the blue skies science, it’s incumbent on us to do it.

    Thank you Willis for being a big enough man to start moving the debate back onto that track, and ignore the various trolls dressed up in skeptic clothing.

    Thank you again.

    Pointman

  98. Your postscript is just an overly long nag. It hippie kid focuses on buffoons as if they matter.

    Shortened: “Only attack me in detail, friend.”

  99. Mike UK “Another point: global mean temperatures are actually the MEDIAN of all the data, ”

    I think you are mistaking what hadSST3 median means. It is not the median of the temps, it is the median of various “bias corrections” schemes. The times series, in general, are gridded means.

    Please correct me ( with specific references to what you are referring to ) if that’s not what you meant.

  100. What was surprising was the claim by Svalgaard that all the data is bad anyways so why bother and, by extension, why bother with graphs, charts, equations, and already falsified. Strange area, this climate stuff.

    Still, if this is all Ouija board parlor games, I prefer the Ouija with a firm prediction verifiable within a couple of years than withing a couple of decades or a couple of centuries. After all, it’s all guesses anyway.

  101. Willis, I don’t know the ins and outs of this spat, but do know that David and Jo appear to have been distressed by the vehemence of your, and Leif’s, response. To the extent that David has proposed a theory that you disagree with surely any disagreements can be expressed in language that requires no apology. And that’s the root of the problem, you appear to have responded emotionally and you now appear to be apologising while continuing to use “robust” language to those who disagree with you.

    An apology is best accompanied by humility and it isn’t humble to apologise and say you don’t know what offence you’ve caused as though the person you’re apologising to is somehow to blame

    I know you don’t care what anonymous contributors have to say, but I don’t care that you don’t care, I only care that you get to read my opinion in the hope that it will bring a little self-reflection.

    “O, wad some Power the giftie gie us to see oursels as others see us!”

    Sorry if I’ve caused any offence. (see what I mean)

  102. my wife and i have fights all the time and the worst thing to say i i apologize for whatever i did to make you mad. we both agree its not really an apology. good luck sincerely hope you all can mend fences.

  103. Mr Eschenbach says it was “understandable” that another contributor had accused Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”. It was not “understandable”. It was irresponsible and inappropriate. It was based on a failure on the part of that commenter to realize that Dr Evans’ plainly-labeled graph showed 11-year smoothing. There was no basis whatsoever for accusing Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”, and the person who made that allegation and regrettably failed to withdraw it is now in considerable trouble over it. There are plenty of fraudsters in the climate scam, but Dr Evans is most certainly not one of them. Minimum standards of courtesy in scientific discourse are expected, and the entirely unjustifiable allegation that Dr Evans might have been guilty of a serious criminal offense fell well below those standards. Let there be no more repetition of any such nonsense.

    Mr Eschenbach says the TSI data has had about 900 days of “data” added to it. No, it has not. This matter has been repeatedly explained to Mr Eschenbach both privately and publicly, and he must now desist from saying that any data, whether with or without quotation marks, have been added to the 11-year smoothing. The blue dots at the end of Dr Evans’ solid red 11-year smoothing are not in any way part of the smoothing. They are merely an indication that the precipitous drop shown over the previous few years is unlikely to continue – a point that Mr Eschenbach himself would presumably not disagree with, since he has made such a stramash about the fact that TSI today is higher than it was in 2004 (though he seems strangely silent on the fact that TSI today is at the peak of the current solar cycle, and the 2004 TSI was appreciably after and below the peak of the previous solar cycle).

    Mr Eschenbach, in criticizing Dr Evans for having shown a graph with 11-year smoothing, fails to show in his own graphs the full 5.5-year period before the 2004 start-date for the drop in 11-year-smoothed TSI.

    For good measure, he continues to criticize Dr Evans for having used Dr Lean’s reconstruction of TSI, but takes no account of the fact that the sudden drop in the 11-year-smoothed data of which he complains is evident not just in Dr Lean’s dataset but in multiple TSI datasets, as Dr Evans has show in his detailed reply to the points made by Mr Eschenbach and another commenter here.

    And Mr Eschenbach seems to have failed to apologize to Dr Evans for having unjustifiably likened him to Mr Mann, who, after a decade and a half, has still failed to produce the complete code and data by which he contrived his hokey-stick graph in 1998. Dr Evans has now made his model and his method fully and publicly available, as he had said he would, and I should have hoped that a proper apology from Mr Eschenbach would have made some mention of that fact.

    The moral is that greater civility all round would be advisable, and that it is foolish and unscientific to criticize a scientist’s research until all the details of that research have been made available, have been studied, and have been understood.

    There are plenty of grounds on which one might legitimately question whether we are about to see a sharp fall in global mean surface temperature. Not the least of these is that temperature over the past million years has departed from the million-year mean by little more than +/- 1%, inferentially because the atmosphere is sandwiched between two vast heat-sinks. Given the near-perfectly thermostatic behavior of the climate, a five-year drop in 11-year-smoothed TSI may not, on its own, be enough to overcome the inertia in global temperature and cause cooling.

    I should be surprised to see a substantial cooling over the coming decade, but I should not be surprised to see a little cooling. Nor should I be surprised to see a little warming. But I can see no basis at all for the unjustifiable hostility that Dr Evans’ suggestion of forthcoming cooling has provoked.

  104. Greg, my first point was that aliasing artefacts come from inappropriate resampling (decimation). An averaging boxcar does not do that -ever.
    It is not correct to say the boxcar caused that drop as the last boxcar point did not use extrapolated data -or am I wrong? I think your prediction of a smaller drop depends on cycle 25 being the same as 24 but what if (say) 25 is lower again -in that case the low pass filtered drop will be larger than you currently think and we may say it started in 2004?

  105. Paradoxically, the decline of UVC radiation can reduce the amount of ozone and increase the UVB and UVA radiation on the surface.

    “The passage of two large sunspot groups in late October 2003 caused a decrease in TSI larger than any short-term decrease in the 34-year TSI composite. ”

    NOAA/GOES reported peak X-ray (0.1-0.8 nm) values from the X17 flare at 11:10 UT on 28 Oct. 2003. The TIM measured a significant and sudden increase in TSI slightly prior to this, putting the TSI peak nearly in phase with the hard X-rays (as indicated by the derivative of the softer GOES X-rays). The abruptness of this increase and the following gradual decrease are typical of flares observed at EUV and X-ray wavelengths.
    (Kopp et al., AAS 2004; Woods et al., 2005)

    SORCE/TIM and TCTE/TIM agree very well on an absolute scale. They were both calibrated independently at the component level 10 years apart.

  106. The solar observations from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) are discussed since the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) launch in January 2003. The TIM measurements clearly show the background disk-integrated solar oscillations of generally less than 50 parts per million (ppm) amplitude over the ∼2 ppm instrument noise level. The total solar irradiance (TSI) from the TIM is about 1361 W/m2, or 4–5 W/m2 lower than that measured by other current TSI instruments. This difference is not considered an instrument or calibration error. Comparisons with other instruments show excellent agreement of solar variability on a relative scale. The TIM observed the Sun during the extreme activity period extending from late October to early November 2003. During this period, the instrument recorded both the largest short-term decrease in the 25-year TSI record and also the first definitive detection of a solar flare in TSI, from which an integrated energy of roughly (6 ± 3) × 1032 ergs from the 28 October 2003 X17 flare is estimated. The TIM has also recorded two planets transiting the Sun, although only the Venus transit on 8 June 2004 was definitive.

    http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F0-387-37625-9_8

  107. Willis asks: “” I don’t understand what “technically true in a sense” even means regarding observational data. ”

    Jo replies: It’s true in the sense of a strawman.

    It is not true regarding 11 year smoothed data which is the conversation is about. I don’t know why you keep repeating the strawman as if it is in reply to us. You are wrong. What can I say that I have not already said?

    As for calling it a spurious fall? No. Rather, it’s an obvious fall. Everyone can see that the latest solar cycle is a lot smaller than the previous ones.

    The graph we provided in response to you shows a fall in smoothed TSI in all the main data sets — we did not splice that data. That graph for the fourth time.

  108. Why 11 years? Well it was to look for a particular feature. The first point about the smoothing is that we already have the data so no need to guess, why not use a 14 year smoothing in the middle of a 14 year long solar cycle and 11 year smoothing in the centre of an 11 year cycle, with a slide from 14 to 11 as the transition takes place?

    The rather obvious problem arising from applying an 11 year smoothing to a 14 year cycle are caused by the method, not the data. If you want ‘insight’ into the mechanism(s) don’t let the tool spoil the work.

    If there was only one data point per year some rounding is needed but you get the idea. If there is something to be learned from cycle-length smoothing, fine, smooth based on the cycle length.

    Use a cycle-length filtering approach and apply the same filter to the temperatures in lock step. Have a look at the relationship. Shift the temperature data one year and repeat. Shift again. Etc.

    The smoothing from a 14 year to an 11 year cycle (remember we already know what the cycle lengths are) would be 14 years of points in the centre of the 14 year cycle. The next point would be smoothed

    14-(14-11)*(1/((14+11)/2)) years of points. [1]

    The next point plotted would be smoothed

    14-(14-11)*(2/((14+11)/2)) years of points. [2]

    After 12.5 years it would have 11 year smoothing. Then look ahead and repeat the process in principle.

    A prediction of the next cycle length could be used to guess the coming temperature. If there is a lag, it should be easily spotted.

  109. Since this has 1/2 to do with TSI lets see if the experts can explain this. https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/489589302335389697/photo/1
    I believe recent solar spikes has shown an effect on southern hemisphere sea ice growth and global temps at the poles like no other solar cycle in satellite history.
    Since solar cycle #24 is a weak cycle, what I consider static in an active cycle has been removed and activity spikes in TSI have been showing up with a lag time of 4 to 7 days.
    Also the big TSI spike at the end of December 2013 was followed by the polar vortex dropping down and recently one in the beginning of July with another polar vortex(many are still disputing it is one or not, Would make a great new post) dropping down that has set many new record low temps this week.
    Thanks..

  110. Stephen Wilde says
    My view is that force x is the effect of wavelength and particle variations having a different effect on ozone amounts at different heights and at different latitudes.

    Henry says
    Hi Stephen, I have stated several times that you can pair the deceleration of maximum temps. with declining solar polar magnetic fields. I suspect a [small] shift to the left of the chi type distribution of TSI, not affecting total TSI much, releasing [somewhat] more of the UV (C) and X-ray.
    Since we cannot measure these changes in TSI it becomes really silly to keep referring to it
    ie. I am saying TSI is a waste of time.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/mending-fences/#comment-1687708

    I invite you to look at my latest [updated] results

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf

    ;;;;////
    which btw clearly also suggest there is no room for any man made global warming or even earthly variables, (it looks like minima is [apparently] controlled solely by the sun)
    I have also analysed results of ozone [remember: this is only one of many compounds formed TOA by the sun’s ultra sw radiation to protect us from that [harmful] radiation]
    Both NH and SH.
    NH: On the best polynomial fit it showed general declining trend from 1951 and a general increasing trend from 1995. On the SH there are no results before 1980, but here too the graph available from the SS showed an inclining trend from 1995…..
    This was exactly according to my own finding for the decrease in maximum temperatures.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    The heat coming through the atmosphere [that makes it to the bottom] behaves like an A-C wave.
    Note that a full solar cycle is the so-called Hale cycle of 22 years.
    2 of these cycles make a half Gleissberg cycle. Every half Gleissberg cycle we are back to the beginning……
    Hence my insistence that something switched on the sun in 1972 and it will/must switch back in 2015-2016. We are looking at an electrical switch?
    The whole system works like a clock, to protect life…..against overheating. The brighter the sun, the cooler the earth. Amazing, is it not?

  111. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:37 pm
    Santa Baby says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:34 pm

    “If I say “I am angry” that is simply a true statement.
    But if I say “You made me angry”, that is something extra.”

    No one can make you angry but yourself?

    Yep. Simple fact. Buddha said that we always have one choice in life, to dig it or bitch about it. Not in those words, of course, but that was his message. The external circumstances are given, but our own response to those circumstances is … our own.

    w.
    ————————–
    I have found a good portion of people are outright hostile to this notion, however logically sound it may be. Perhaps emotional self responsibility is a little scary or, maybe… dissapointing?

  112. C of M: “but takes no account of the fact that the sudden drop in the 11-year-smoothed data of which he complains is evident not just in Dr Lean’s dataset but in multiple TSI datasets”

    Of course, because at least half the problem is the filter itself.

    JoNova:
    “As for calling it a spurious fall? No. Rather, it’s an obvious fall. Everyone can see that the latest solar cycle is a lot smaller than the previous ones.

    The graph we provided in response to you shows a fall in smoothed TSI in all the main data sets — we did not splice that data. That graph for the fourth time….”

    This is like no one is refuting temperatures have rising since 1900 ! Sure SSN has dropped since the last cycle. So if you use a filter that truly removes the circa 11y variability you will get a smooth decline , not a fall off the cliff.

    If you filter out the high frequencies, how can you have a sudden change ?!

    For the forth ( or more ) time:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=983

    https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/

  113. Mark says
    Greg, my first point was that aliasing artefacts come from inappropriate resampling (decimation). An averaging boxcar does not do that -ever.

    ==

    It’s true, aliasing is a specific term relating to resampling. Convolution filters do not resample, so that is probably not the correct term for the type of data distortion caused by running means.

  114. @ Mike: ” the medians of regional time series ” , yes that is as I explained above but it’s not that clear the way they put it. It’s the median of the “realisations” not time series of median temps.

    Met Off. communication skills seem to be getting worse every time I look.

  115. BTW Jo, congratulations on the Carbon Tax, I’m sure your persistent efforts must have contributed to this small but important step in a return to reason. Thanks.

  116. On the more-general level & scope … it was always a Big Fib, that scientists and other types of investigators are, should be, or even can be expected to credibly-simulate an emotionaly-cold, remote, “Cmdr. Spock” persona. Indeed, there is good reason to suspect the opposite: That intellectually and generally brain-engaged people are subject to higher levels of emotional stimulation that are more laid-back, uninvolved folks.

    IMO, the LibProg community widely harm their own goals, by embracing & fanning over-heated & inflammed discourse, as their standard way to approach & promote most any initiative with which they engage. This behavior gets them media-notice … but then, the media are on their side, and ‘massage’ the coverage they provide, to substantially gloss-over the behavioral liabilities.

    People who are taking positions that are NOT the preferred bias of the media & Co, perhaps in a sort of emulation of the loud & overstated mannerism of LibProgs, stand to have their communications posed in as negative a fashion as feasible, by the massaging media.

    Personally, I think the use of sarcasm, witty parry & thrust, and other indulges of emotional states, should be firmly curtailed by the Skeptic camp. Copying the antics of the opposition, in this case, is counterproductive.

  117. Mike: “I think your prediction of a smaller drop depends on cycle 25″

    I’m not predicting anything. The padding with estimated SSN was just to let the filter run out where D. Evans had his dots. It’s in the tail of the filter at that point, so has minimal weighting but has be have something to get a result.

    The take home point is that the result should be a smooth decline is you’ve passed an 11y filter.

    If you still have fast changes present and the solar peaks are now showing as local minima , you have a serious problem with the filter.

  118. Great post, Willis. Science is about stuff “out there in the world” but it all has to be mediated through and with what we have “in here.” It can’t be done without some passion but it can’t be done only with passion. A healthy culture of science, like any other, will allow people to correct errors; and especially the errors that provoke (or are provoked by) passionate intensity. Your apology is a handsome one and includes the gift of a wise Buddhist saying. It is a credit to you and to WUWT, which I have long considered the best site on its subject matter in large part because of the healthy culture your words exemplify. Thanks.

  119. HenryP says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:25 am

    Hi Henry.

    I like your work and appreciate your confirmation that ozone has been increasing since 1995 with the quiet sun.

    That is the opposite of established climatology but in accordance with my diagnosis and expectation.

  120. Willis, I love your folksy stories. That said, please put together your model that may or may not be useful in predicting future climate changes and place it side by side with the model you hate. Let the best model win. You whine on about the underlying data, complain about the supposed “created data,” and still prove only that you, too, can be anal retentive.

  121. @Greg:

    This is like no one is refuting temperatures have rising since 1900 ! Sure SSN has dropped since the last cycle. So if you use a filter that truly removes the circa 11y variability you will get a smooth decline , not a fall off the cliff.

    Right so your objection is the characterisation of the fall in TSI not the fact that there is a reduction of TSI?

    Would you not say, that for the purposes of the exercise, all the graph is supposed to be demonstrating is that the ‘trend’ to lower maxima and TSI is the important part of the narrative? As they have been at pains to point out, it’s not the TSI that affects the climate (much) it is something else that correlates to changes in TSI, after a lag of around 11 years or about the length of a cycle.

    So if they had simply not displayed the graph but indicated that owing to the reduction in TSI/SSN from this decade to the last, the model indicates that a fall in global temps should follow, and if it does not then the model is falsified.

    Also, I wonder if the idea behind ‘trend’ is the thing that is causing the confusion. Because it implies a time resolution to be able to imply a trend. If we have 2 low maximas compared to previous series of high maxima, can you call that a trend or just an anomalous deviation. But isn’t really the concept that its significant changes in maximas that might have an impact on global temps the important point?

  122. “Let the best model win.”

    There is no obligation to do better or “win” in order to point out flaws in a model someone presents.

    It should be quite amusing to see what Willis thinks of you comment, so I won’t spoil the fun by commenting further.

  123. Agnostic: “Also, I wonder if the idea behind ‘trend’ is the thing that is causing the confusion. ”

    What does “trend” mean? If it means fitting a linear model to data that shows no linearity in it’s variation on any time scale, that is a problem. If it further is used to imply / suggest some expectation that such a fictitious linear trend can be used to extrapolate to predict future changes, that is even more problematic.

    For some reason there seems to be this idea that there is a “trend” to be discovered and “if the trend continues” ( with the unspoken implication that this is the most ‘likely’ thing to expect ) it will be OMG …. worse than we thought.

    If we could ban the use running means linear trends from the whole discussion we’d get a lot further.

  124. Willis! Willis! Willis! Can you not see how much “extra” you’ve put into some of your responses?

  125. agnostic: “Right so your objection is the characterisation of the fall in TSI not the fact that there is a reduction of TSI?”

    The thing is , this is not just a knit-pick. David Evans specifically claimed that this sharp drop is due to hit us any time now and put this up as a falsifiable hypothesis.

    That is commendable practice but I think he’s going to be disappointed since it’s largely an artefact of the flaws in his method.

    Now whether there is some amplifying factor_X that will mean there will in fact be a slower, decadal response to lower solar activity, is another question. I suspect temps will go down rather than up from looking at a number of physical indicators.

    Hurricane energy peaks 2000-2005 , temps peaked about 2005, Arctic ice may have bottomed out, recently :

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=972

    If solar was the overwhelming driver it should probably have been dropping sooner. I think the reason it has not done so is the long term warming effects of volcanoes. A factor which seems to be totally ignored so far. Plus the low sensitivity of the climate system, especially the tropics.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884

  126. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    ”I can see no basis at all for the unjustifiable hostility that Dr Evans’ suggestion of forthcoming cooling has provoked.”

    Solar-phobia and Cycle-phobia!

    With the current state of the instrumental temperature record and the shortness of the satellite data there is absolutely no way to either confirm or deny a solar connection or cycles in GAST.

    Perhaps one day the instrumental record will be fixed such that it matches history; more likely, we’ll have to wait for the satellite data to accumulate to a significant length, which means I won’t be around to see it.

  127. FergalR says:
    July 16, 2014 at 11:09 pm
    “One of the spliced datasets is the Lean TSI reconstruction, an outdated dataset that the authors of the reconstruction themselves admit is inaccurate.”

    Have the authors admitted it is inaccurate? It was certainly fed into the models for AR5.
    It’s my understanding that the models can’t reproduce the Little Ice Age without it so I guess that would keep it alive. A source of the admission would be nice though.

    They certainly can’t explain the early 20th century warming period. There is an assumption on this blog that Leif Svalgaard’s comments support the AGW case. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is, in fact, the solarphiles who are helping to prop up the “warmist” position. Obsolete solar data has been used to show that climate change was driven by the sun. The problem is any agreement breaks down after about 1980 – which agrees EXACTLY with the warmist claim that CO2 increases caused climate changes outside the range of natural variability..

  128. Thanks Willis, I think the general more than the particular is what I’m thanking you for! So much in life and these blogs is building fences to protect whatever psychological investment (and sometimes finacial) investment we have in a hypothesis, theory or even ideology. Science is hard. We want to know if TSI or some other hypothetical forcing is responsible for something. It won’t be decided here and now. Or tomorrow. Critiquing methodologies and maths is good and points us in the right direction. Adding “something extra” is so very easy to do. Almost all of us here should apologize and always keep in miind Richard Feyman’s famous statement, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

    Robert Frost’s “Mending Wall”-

    Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
    That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
    And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
    And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
    The work of hunters is another thing:
    I have come after them and made repair
    Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
    But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
    To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
    No one has seen them made or heard them made,
    But at spring mending-time we find them there.
    I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
    And on a day we meet to walk the line
    And set the wall between us once again.
    We keep the wall between us as we go.
    To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
    And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
    We have to use a spell to make them balance:
    ‘Stay where you are until our backs are turned!’
    We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
    Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
    One on a side. It comes to little more:
    There where it is we do not need the wall:
    He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
    My apple trees will never get across
    And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
    He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors’.
    Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
    If I could put a notion in his head:
    ‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
    Where there are cows?
    But here there are no cows.
    Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
    What I was walling in or walling out,
    And to whom I was like to give offence.
    Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
    That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him,
    But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
    He said it for himself. I see him there
    Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
    In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
    He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
    Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
    He will not go behind his father’s saying,
    And he likes having thought of it so well
    He says again, “Good fences make good neighbors.”

  129. Whatever has Buddha to do with it? You know what Christopher Hitchens said about Buddha? He said “Buddha was concieved from between his mother’s ribs – that makes him suspicious.” Yes, that’s right, suspicious like all the other religious figures who have been concieved without ‘male intervention’ somewhere down the line in the process of making babies. It is also the fallacy of appealing to authority. Just so you don’t come right back at me with that, I am not appealing to Hitch’s authority, what he says about human reproduction here is a scientific fact. If anything, Hitchens did not have to make up false stories about his heritage to lend authority to his writings. I don’t see how constant Buddha references can add to a scientific discussion.

    The statement that you are angry may be true, a fact; but an issue is not limited to speaking of a single truth or fact.
    If I tell you that I am fat, that does not mean that I cannot be tall at the same time, as well. Being tall is not a false, unnecessary extra, it is also a true fact.
    There is literally nothing “extra ” to the statement that “person X made you angry” (assuming it is true). On the contrary, if you happen to get seemingly angry without cause, you might have issues, you know… You are not Buddha, and you are nothing like the idealized imagine of what he supposedly was. So OF COURSE you are not “simply angry”, there is a trigger of some sort.

    I would also like to clear up some misunderstanding that keeps re-occuring regarding anonymous posting here. Look, it is like this: This is not YOUR forum, it is Mr Watts’ forum. He can make the signing up here dependant on whatever criteria he chooses. – And what did he choose? He felt that it is perfectly sufficient to sign up and post with an email and an alias. It is not due for you to keep bickering on about it, as if you could ask more of a poster than the person in charge of the forum. It is really irritating – even though it does not concern me personally (to my knowledge ), just reading how you handle it in general is awkward to me. You don’t complain about anonymous praise, do you.
    Even Google just got that message,maybe you will,too. These are the rules and if you don’t like them, don’t take to the forums. Comments here are anonymous until Mr Watts changes the policy. And then people can decide what to do. As I mentioned above Google tried for 3 years to force such a policy and they failed miserably. I know, because when I fired my PC up this morning, there was a huge apology plastered across the Google page for trying to pull it off. So please -please stop bitching about it. Ask Mr Watts to consider a policy change, or whatever.

    Being anonymous where you can is very different from signing up with false credentials. It doesn’t even make sense -precisely because one is anonymous you can say anything and everything with one account.

    I am still using the same handle on the internet for over 20 years, where I am signed up for that period, and I am signed up here as Matt, because you couldn’t pronounce my name anyway. – which is why many foreigners fall back to using abbreviations, their middle name,or whatever. I notice there is at least one other Matt posting here, again, don’t complain to us, we don’t run the forum, we just use it.

  130. “The new work will help advance scientists’ ability to understand the contribution of natural versus anthropogenic causes of climate change, the scientists said. That’s because the research improves the accuracy of the continuous, 32-year record of total solar irradiance, or TSI. Energy from the sun is the primary energy input driving Earth’s climate, which scientific consensus indicates has been warming since the Industrial Revolution.” – See more at: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2011/01/14/improved-measurements-sun-advance-understanding-climate-change#sthash.8MtDUbfX.dpuf

  131. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:56 am

    Mr Eschenbach says it was “understandable” that another contributor had accused Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”. It was not “understandable”. It …

    I stopped reading any post or thread by W.E. after the sorry episode closing of the physics journal and the glee that W.E. showed over it. My judgment that I should stay clear was reinforced after reading the [self snip] comments at JoNova’s place when W.E. went on a rampage.

    Today, however, I did read the post and did read the comments. (to this point obviously) I am glad I did as the comment by Lord Monckton was worth all the time invested in reading all of this.

    Thank you Lord Monckton.

    On to one other matter:

    But see, here’s the thing, and there’s really no way around this…this isn’t about you or your opinion, so your complaint doesn’t concern me, and it certainly doesn’t concern W*ll*s. – *nth*ny

    I was under the impression that the comments thread was here so that diverse opinions could be expressed. Good ones, bad ones, and even ignorant ones. Have we become like the alarmists where one is to agree with the Party Line or be told to leave? I was once taken to task at my little blog by one of the top legal bloggers over a post about the USA being a police state. I let him say anything he cared to say. All of it is still at the bottom of that post. (I think recent events and revelations have proven me correct rather than him; but others would still disagree no doubt)

    There was a thread not long ago about how WUWT might be improved. Suggestions were asked for. My suggestion is that some of the people at WUWT become a bit more thick skinned.

    ~ Mark

  132. Claude Harvey says
    Willis! Willis! Willis! Can you not see how much “extra” you’ve put into some of your responses?

    Steady on Claude. Willis is “Mr Extra”. That’s his style. That’s when his creative writing is at it’s best,

    Buddha said that we always have one choice in life, to dig it or bitch about it If he’s not allowed any “extra” he’ll have to dig it.

    Then we all go hippy and fatalistic, wander around with an inane, grin of harmonious contentment and let the Cooks and Manns have a free pass.

    Me, when I feel my resistance fading, I touch my middle finger to my thumb and start shouting “Ohm”. . ;)

  133. Mods:
    My comment at July 17, 2014 at 6:46 am went into moderation. I can see no reason for that as I tried to not use any of the names that trigger this sort of thing. I must have missed a word or name that I did not know about.

  134. I also see that all changes in solar input is most intense in the tropics, where it heats the ocean. All the ocean data shows a cooling of the upper 100 meters starting around 2003, most say a cooling in the upper 300, and a few see cooling in the upper 700. That seems to be a most interesting correlation.

  135. John Finn: “The problem is any agreement breaks down after about 1980 – which agrees EXACTLY with the warmist claim that CO2 increases caused climate changes outside the range of natural variability..”

    No it doesn’t.

    I see what you are arguing but it does not. Certainly not EXACTLY. There should be significant AGW by 1960. If it starts in 1980 there’s a problem.

    One thing that does fill the gap is the warming effect [sic] of volcanoes:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955

    Now that looks to me like direct observational evidence of a change in energy flux large enough to account for most of the OMG run away global warming that was freaking everyone out at the end of the century. It also has the added benefit of being flat since 1998 , which matched the temp record rather well.

    BTW there are some here that are interested in determining the science of what is driving climate, if that ends up determining the effect of AGW as significant , that’s the way it is. I’m not going to refuse to accept a solar model because it might give the wrong answer.

    We’ve seen enough of that mentality already.

  136. Greg Goodman says @ July 17, 2014 at 5:59 am:

    It should be quite amusing to see what Willis thinks of you comment, so I won’t spoil the fun by commenting further.

    Reminds me of a lecture I read a few years back:

    Some years ago, I read of a lawyer who found a small, but fatal, defect in a deed conveying a fortune to an irreproachable gentleman, which divested him of the title, while investing it in a contemptible cad. In commenting upon the lawyer’s discovery, the novelist compared him to a beetle crawling over Westminster Abbey, totally blind and oblivious to the beauty and grandeur of the architecture of that stately edifice, but discovering with an unerring precision the crack in the floor. Surely the role of beetle is unenviable, unless it serves some good purpose: So with the subject, “Where the Law Fails,” unless I may point out some way to remedy the failure, I accomplish nothing more than the carping faultfinder, whose purpose is done when he gleefully points to his better brother’s glaring faults.—Judge Robert L. Stout, to the Kentucky State Bar Association, 1909.

  137. I have been using the same nom de plume since the Usenet days. The usage of such has been common since at least the 18th century. I’m keeping it.

  138. John Slayton says “He was in fact not at all upset when the speakers raised their voices and pounded the podium, because only then could he be sure that they really believed the ridiculous things they were saying.”

    Yes — passion indicates conviction and belief. Challenge exists to test your conviction. Do you REALLY believe it or are you just trying to sell me a used car? This has been on the front of my mind since Climategate — who are the True Believers and who just wants more government grants?

    But it can go either way. The really certain person might realize it is “impossible to fill a cup that is already full” and not bother to try. I’m that way with the Nikon/Canon digital camera feud or the Microsoft/Apple religious battles. Use whatever you like and I will do likewise. Libertarian!

  139. I am going to say one thing. There are those who do not believe in solar/climate connections and those who do believe in solar/climate connections and neither side is going to be able to convince the other side they are correct.

    For my part I will keep showing the latest research and past data which shows clearly there is a solar/climate connection.

  140. Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
    July 17, 2014 at 6:55 am
    ===
    Mark, it was in your quote from MoB…..
    had accused Dr Evans of being “almost (word)

  141. “I should be surprised to see a substantial cooling over the coming decade, but I should not be surprised to see a little cooling. Nor should I be surprised to see a little warming. But I can see no basis at all for the unjustifiable hostility that Dr Evans’ suggestion of forthcoming cooling has provoked.”

    I don’t like colder climate so I pray to God, Allah and Buddha that Evans’ theory is wrong? :-)

  142. As far as TSI there are so many different data sets it makes arguing over this factor an exercise in futility.

    As far as models go in predicting the climate , they are all bad because the data put into them will never be accurate or complete enough to account for all the feedbacks and possible thresholds that are in the climate system.

    I rather depend on what happened in the past to predict what will happen in the future when it comes to climate.

  143. Damn – it’s just like business. Pioneers are the ones with arrows in their backs, critics sit and pontificate, and some busy bees not in the conversation are standing on the shoulders of the innovators ready to profit handsomely.

    I think we have transferred our emotions generated by anger at the billions of public funds chasing the co2 myth to one another in a quest to understand something way to complicated for the data and tools we have now.

    SInce I’m a barely scientifically literate layman, I try to generalize in terms I am comfortable with.

    Jo et al are pioneering, and think the sun has something to do with are climate cycles, and have made a first pass at quantifying it. Theory is predicting “cooling” and they’ll wait and see.

    W et al don’t think the data is good enough, or the manipulations are good enough, to make the prediction.

    Time will tell, if we ever have a temperature data set and an irradience data set we can all believe.
    Hard to get when folks like NASA are consumed with ‘Muslim outreach’.

    Hey, as long as they aren’t asking for an appropriation, corrupting our schools, silencing good people in the universities, distorting public policies, and diverting enormous efforts to repealing taxes that never should have been passed in the first place, I’m good with a little argument — then we can all go out for a beer.

    I, like a lot of us, wish you all would get along better. For Americans, various baseball teams used to win pennants despite locker room fights and personal quarrels. The team could always get together when the game was on the line. And win. I hope this is like that cause I enjoy all of you and have made this knows through the tip jar from time to time.

  144. Finally, to the degree that David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line, it is already falsified

    Willis, you don’t understand, this statement is wrong, the artifact makes the prediction suspect, it does not make the MODEL falsified. The model is derived from the relationship between insolation and temperature over many cycles, there has to be errors in both the magnitude and timing of the sunspot cycle in the insolation data over many cycles to have any significant effect on the model, an artifact like this just gets averaged out, it has insignificant impact on the model itself. Any constant bias in any direction likewise comes out at zero frequency in the FFT and is irrelevant to the notch delay model. You need to be much more precise with your language, the model has NOT been falsified, the prediction has problems. The model as produced can be used with any dataset, use one of your choosing and let’s discuss the outcome.

    On the other hand, the red line is as I recall not model output, David used this analysis to cross validate his models prediction, the prediction from the model may yet be valid even if the cross validation attempt has flaws. It’s quite possible that the large changes in solar peaks between the last 2 cycles is driving the model prediction.

    Finally I’d like to say that you have somewhat redeemed yourself in apologising, there really was no reason to play the man at all, and calling David names and accusing him of fraud and concealing the model was just over the top. Please recall this next time and try to listen to what your peers here are trying to tell you, both myself and Lord Monckton were counselling you to cut the rhetoric and wait for the science but you would not LISTEN. Even now I still am repeating myself for the 4th time on how insensitive this method is to noisy signals, it has to be, it’s the way us EE’s analyse real systems and design inverse filters for controlling them, without understanding this you were at a significant disadvantage.

  145. Well, most of your posts are not truly scientifically well thought out or deal with more than a correlation – which would never be published under per review. You do need to raise the bar.

  146. Willis,

    I have no idea what you are apologizing for because I haven’t followed it but you have clearly identified yourself as the adult in the room and for the naysayers here who haven’t had the experience of people attacking you for everything under the sun, Willis exhibited class, try to follow suit.

    BTW, I enjoy your writing style as much as anything. There is always a bit of something that makes me smile.

  147. Tom West says
    With the current state of the instrumental temperature record and the shortness of the satellite data there is absolutely no way to either confirm or deny a solar connection or cycles in GAST
    Henry says
    Perhaps you can explain for me the data for the drop in minima that showed a perfect curve (100% correlation) indicating that there is no AGW or earthly influence?

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf

    It all begins and ends with the sun, and it starts up again,
    I hope….

  148. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:56 am

    Mr Eschenbach says it was “understandable” that another contributor had accused Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”. It was not “understandable”.

    And that pretty much sums up my feelings.

  149. I have a basic type of question concerning:

    “The 11-year centered average is an extremely bad choice for a filter for sunspot/TSI data. Because the solar cycle varies both longer and shorter than 11 years, at times the 11-year average actually reverses the sense of the data, converting peaks into valleys and valleys into peaks. Look at the period from 1760-1800 in Figure 3, for example. What is happening is that the frequency data is getting strongly aliased into the amplitude data. As a result, the average can end up far from the reality, particularly at the ends of the dataset.”

    Can the “11” year cycles be made time invariant? (Each cycle is assigned a start and end date and only the amplitude is considered as a metric.) This might make the prediction aspect more fuzzy but it might help on the magnitude side…

  150. jim Steele says:
    July 17, 2014 at 7:04 am

    I also see that all changes in solar input is most intense in the tropics, where it heats the ocean. All the ocean data shows a cooling of the upper 100 meters starting around 2003, most say a cooling in the upper 300, and a few see cooling in the upper 700. That seems to be a most interesting correlation.

    ====

    The ERBE data I based the volcano work on fizzles out at the end of the century. Until that point it looks fairly flat. However, since 2002-2003 there has been a gentle drop in TLS. too. That could also be a consequence of the reduction in TSI, though the effect is way smaller than the two changes of around 0.5K induced by volcanic events.

  151. Willis Eschenbach:

    Thanks for sharing your ideas and for giving me the opportunity to comment on them. You say that “…to the degree that David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line, it is already falsified.” Falsification of a model, though, takes place when the predicted relative frequencies of the outcomes of events fail to match the associated observed relative frequencies. For Dr. Evans’ model, though, there is no such thing as a relative frequency. Thus, this model is insusceptible to being falsified.

  152. eqibno says:
    I have a basic type of question concerning:
    “…. What is happening is that the frequency data is getting strongly aliased into the amplitude data……”

    What is happening here is that running mean actually leaks and inverts part of the signal , in a broad peak maxing at about 7.7 years.

    So we see some of the shorter “cycles” like 1980-1990 end up being inverted in the running mean. http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=983

    The solution is to use a better filter, it’s that simple.

  153. The last solar max TSI was about 1361.8 W/m2 in 2001.

    This solar max TSI is coming in at about 1361.25 W/m2.

    It is, therefore, down 0.55 W/m2.

    Divide by 4 and multiply by 70% (for Albedo) and the Earth is receiving 0.1 W/m2 less energy than it received at the last solar max.

    That translates into a reduction of 0.15 * 10^22 joules/year of energy less that the Earth is receiving now than at the last solar max.

    By way of contrast, the Oceans are warming at 0.6 * 10^22 joules/year and the land/atmosphere/ice-melt is only accumulating 0.05 * 10^22 joules/year of energy.

    0.15 * 10^22 joules/year less is a meaningful amount. If it accumulated over 5 or 11 years, it would produce a cooling impact (versus current trends).

  154. Back to the science …. or rather the math.

    An 11 year moving average line moves up or down when the latest year added to the average is greater or lower than the 12 year old result that is falling out of the average. The gradient of the average line has nothing to do with whether the latest year was greater or less than the preceding year .. what matters is were those years greater or less that the 12th year old results that they replaced.

    In Fig. 3, the decline in the average line around 2004 has the following notation:
    ‘The recent falloff in solar radiation started somewhere in 2003-2005′

    This should read:
    ‘Around 2003-2004, the 11 year average of solar radiation started to fall off’

    What this actually means is:
    ‘Around 2003-2005, the solar radiation significantly fell off compared to rates eleven years ago’

    Though not a climate expert, I do accept that the graph truthfully tells me something interesting .. that the recent solar activity is significantly lower than a decade ago.

    By the way, this is a great blog. Really interesting scientific debate with very good mediation which allows just the right amount of back and forth .. even over hurt feelings!

    Rgds,
    Bernie Lodge

  155. “The new work will help advance scientists’ ability to understand the contribution of natural versus anthropogenic causes of climate change, the scientists said. That’s because the research improves the accuracy of the continuous, 32-year record of total solar irradiance, or TSI. Energy from the sun is the primary energy input driving Earth’s climate, which scientific consensus indicates has been warming since the Industrial Revolution.”
    CONSENSUS STATEMENT OF THE SOLAR CYCLE 24 PREDICTION PANEL
    “March 20, 2007
    In light of the expected long interval until the onset of Cycle 24, the Prediction Panel has been unable to resolve a sufficient number of questions to reach a single, consensus prediction for the amplitude of the cycle. The deliberations of the panel supported two possible peak amplitudes for the smoothed International Sunspot Number (Ri): Ri = 140 ±20 and Ri = 90 ±10. Important questions to be resolved in the year following solar minimum will lead to a consensus decision by the panel.

    The panel agrees solar maximum will occur near October, 2011 for the large cycle (Ri=140) case and August, 2012 for the small cycle (Ri=90) prediction.”

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Statement_01.html

  156. I’ve seen the “time will tell” comment many times in connection with this notch solar model, but it won’t, just as The Pause has not (yet) done for the CO2 model.

    Despite many claims to the contrary there is no such such thing as a climate prediction, just estimates of the “strengths” of all the possible variables, how much will temperature change if this one variable is changed, ALL OTHER THINGS STAYING CONSTANT.

    Nobody can (yet) determine the effect of changing one variable on all the other variables.

    What would tell for the notch solar model is some evidence NOW that this notch exists. David Evans has presented some graphs about filters that relatively few understand. AFAIK none of those who do understand filters have supported the claims.

  157. All this crying and shouting is based on VERY limited real data.

    When talking about the sun, much of the past is reconstructed, not observed. The sun was not studied very closely until the first Solar Observatory was built on my childhood playground, Kitt Peak in Arizona and this was only half a century ago and it only recorded sun spot activity, not all the more sophisticated data.

    The collection of any hard data is recent. So using this to draw conclusions about fine details in climate events is not adequate and thus the debates about fine details used to make projections is a waste of time.

    There is one major thing to always remember: the #1 driver of our climate is the sun. There are other things that impact but the sun is the strongest and has the most immediate cause/effect.

    And small changes in solar activity cause huge dislocations in climate. And yes, we are now entering a cooler cycle and yes, we are on the edge of another Ice Age due to the fact that these Ice Ages have cycled in and out repeatedly for over 2 million years and we are still pretty clueless as to why this is happening over and over again and why the cold cycles are ten times longer than the warm cycles.

    We can guess and I would suggest due to the sudden start and equally sudden end to these cold cycles that a huge part of this is due to the sun and its internal interactions and its relationship with all the other forces in our galaxy which isn’t stationary nor stable but dynamic and restless.

  158. Reality …
    Monthly (distorted by SSN pre-averaging):

    Daily:

    A work in progress; needs peak-to-peak sliding window algorithm similar to David Evan’s smoothing (see his spreadsheet) but unlikely to make a scrap of difference. Moving SD takes care of most of the frequency variability, temps are not about to fall off a cliff. See integral plots.

    However, ocean heat will be increasingly propping up atmospheric temperatures which means greater seasonal variability as the whole thing switches around to drawing on the big heat sink. We’ve seen a little of that already. Longer term if cycle 25 is also low (as looks likely) it means deeper winters. Particularly in the northern hemisphere where there is less ocean to equilibrate. Global annual averages may drop a tad but not by much. Winter temperatures will though be bitter on occasion. In the UK expect repeats of 1947/1963 sooner or later. Solar Max is now about done. It’s all downhill from here and probably quite rapidly. There is little or no dipole strength, late for it to build going into the next cycle and seemingly little upcoming stimulus (heretically or otherwise):

    You can believe what you like; while there isn’t enough of it yet I’ll stick with the data until it says otherwise. If you think it’s physically impossible explain to me why minute tidal forces would not affect the shape and evolution of the magnetic containment of a fusion reaction fighting its own gravity at the ephemeral plasma boundary where net forces otherwise are essentially zero. Meridional flux migration to the poles appears to be moderated by minute tidal containment distortion. We will see whether that holds true in 2015 and 2017 (but not before about 2019).

  159. “in a more Canadian manner” ?? Have you ever seen a hockey game? So you are going to drop the gloves and go at it bare knuckle style? :)

    I want tickets!!!!

  160. Greg Goodman says:
    July 17, 2014 at 8:11 am

    What is happening here is that running mean actually leaks and inverts part of the signal , in a broad peak maxing at about 7.7 years.

    So we see some of the shorter “cycles” like 1980-1990 end up being inverted in the running mean.

    Mr. Evans’ graph (Figure 3) is not a running mean, it is a centered average. Therefore the signal does not invert. It does blur the data: that’s it’s purpose. With so many data points bouncing around the chart, the eye cannot easily discern trends or changes in trend. Summary techniques such as averaging are primarily visualization aids.

    If you have a better filter, use it.

  161. Leif aka Salvatore says
    I rather depend on what happened in the past to predict what will happen in the future when it comes to climate.

    Henry says
    So do just that.

    Tell me
    1) what this graph will look like 40-50 years from now

    2) what will be the speed of warming/cooling be 40 years from now, where will it go?

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf

    (especially note the last graph at the bottom of the minima table)

  162. I agree with Leif, the Evans curve is almost fraudulent. Scientists have an obligation to accuracy and truth, and Evans missed far enough to deserve censure. Evans does not deserve the benefit of a doubt, because he has not repudiated the curve, at least not to my knowledge. Let him issue a mea culpa and a retraction, and then he will have come clean.

  163. Agnostic says:
    July 17, 2014 at 2:06 am

    … You can argue that (as Willis and Leif do) that the data isn’t correct and that there is no reduction in solar activity, but I can’t see what is wrong with their conclusion given they think the data is alright.

    Thanks, Agnostic. I have not said there is “no reduction in solar activity”, and I don’t think Leif has either.

    I’ve said that there is bad data, an incorrect splice, and an incorrect choice of filters. These have combined to greatly exaggerate the situation.

    However, a look at the overall picture is very instructive …

    This data is from their model. As you can see, the sun is very stable.

    Finally, it’s not clear what you mean by “their [David and Jo’s] conclusion” . Their conclusion about what?

    w.

  164. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 17, 2014 at 9:08 am
    As you can see, the sun is very stable.
    Because the distance to the Sun varies through the year, TSI as observed at the Earth varies too [and quite a lot – about 70 times more than the variation of TSI that the Sun puts out]. Here is the TSI observed since 2003. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png . TSI is plotted for every day through the year starting at the beginning of each year, so the plot shows about 12 years of data. You can see the annual variation as the nice smooth [almost sinusoidal] curve. Solar activity is also visible: the tiny, tiny wiggles you sometimes can see on top of the curve due to varying distance. Bottom line: the Sun is very stable.

  165. Stacey says:
    July 17, 2014 at 2:24 am

    Dear Willis
    I often learn from you and this site not, always things about science.
    You quoted:
    In Buddhism, there’s a concept called “something extra”, and one is enjoined to avoid putting in “something extra”.

    I am an anonymous poster. as are many here and no doubt we have our reasons?
    When you attack an anonymous poster as you do above, are you not putting in something extra, which may have the effect of upsetting those who support and value your work?

    Thanks, Stacey. You are correct that there are many valid reasons for posting anonymously—job, family, public position, concern for personal safety, the list is long.

    And I have no problem with any of them. But there is a price that you pay for anonymity.

    When you embrace anonymity, you lose credibility because you never have to take responsibility for your words.

    This is not a value judgement on my part. It is a simple fact. You and other anonymous posters never ever have to apologize for what you’ve said, because you can just change your alias and walk away. I cannot do that. I have to take responsibility for what I’ve said, and either defend my words or admit that they were wrong or apologize for them.

    You don’t have to do that. You can show up tomorrow as “John316″ and never apologize for anything. I can’t.

    As a result, while I’m happy to have a scientific discussion with anyone, anonymous or not, I will not take moral instruction from someone like you or “dp”. Whoever “dp” might be, he is not commenting with the same constraints that I operate under, so his opinion on personal responsibility, or on apologizing, is meaningless to me.

    Again, I say that I have no problem with anonymity. You are welcome to be anonymous … but you have to pay the price. What I do have a problem with is someone operating behind the shield of anonymity, and then as dp does, criticizing the morals or the ethics of other people’s actions who are operating unprotected in the open. Sorry, but when you choose to become anonymous, you lose the moral standing to do that.

    Regards,

    w.

  166. NikFromNYC says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:15 am

    Your postscript is just an overly long nag. It hippie kid focuses on buffoons as if they matter.

    Shortened: “Only attack me in detail, friend.”

    Nik, when I say it like that, folks don’t get it. Even when I try to hammer it in they often don’t get it.

    Heck, even you don’t get it. The core message is not “only attack me in detail”, nor is it aimed at buffoons.

    The core message is, QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH.

    So perhaps I could just put that in … but the people have busted me in the past for saying that because it’s too harsh or something.

    Can’t win for losing sometimes …

    Thanks in any case,

    w.

  167. geronimo says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:48 am

    Willis, I don’t know the ins and outs of this spat, but do know that David and Jo appear to have been distressed by the vehemence of your, and Leif’s, response. To the extent that David has proposed a theory that you disagree with surely any disagreements can be expressed in language that requires no apology. And that’s the root of the problem, you appear to have responded emotionally and you now appear to be apologising while continuing to use “robust” language to those who disagree with you.

    An apology is best accompanied by humility and it isn’t humble to apologise and say you don’t know what offence you’ve caused as though the person you’re apologising to is somehow to blame

    Great, it’s another member of the anonymous apology police. When you are willing to sign your own name to your words, and you are the offended party to whom I’m apologizing, I’ll listen to your complaint.

    Until then … talk to the hand.

    w.

  168. Henry says:
    ”Perhaps you can explain for me the data for the drop in minima that showed a perfect curve (100% correlation) indicating that there is no AGW or earthly influence?”

    Correlations over the short term while interesting are hardly definitive. Before I could venture any confidence in the relationship I’d want to see the correlation continue for several cycles at least.

  169. Willis…
    When you embrace anonymity, you lose credibility because you never have to take responsibility for your words.
    Really?
    Credibility is in the content, or not, nothing to do with anonymity or responsibility.
    Also, that, your, statement is inconsistent with other comments you make

    Willis
    …QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH…

    How about…
    QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU APOLOGIZE FOR… rather than deny knowing what you did/said wrong or to offend.

  170. My name is Gerry Morrow (geronimo geddit?) you can find me in Ipswich in England and I don’t understand what you believe to be precious about identity, unless you want to insult people you don’t know. Personally I don’t give a FF, but Mrs Geronimo likes her privacy.

    Now you are clearly offended by what I said. Calm down, I’m a nobody, who happened to read your self-serving “apology” and try to tell you how it looked to people not involved in your personal attempt to be seen as “very clever”. Above all else in life the way you interact with strangers is the most important. So now I’m not anonymous what does that mean to you? Are you going to put me down with your ( self-convinced) superiority, or are you going to accept that an apology that blames the victim isn’t an apology.

    If it would help you be more ill-mannered than you’ve already been I’ll add my personal email and home address for all to see . Would that do it for you?

  171. Re: Willis @ July 17, 2014 at 9:33 am
    “Sorry, but when you choose to become anonymous, you lose the moral standing to do that.”

    I can only assume you approach science with a similar use of logic. The opinion expressed by a person you do not know still has validity and the morals remain whether you recognize them or not. It seems you can’t help yourself when it comes to “adding something extra”. A continuous, free flowing fire hose of “extra.”

    I encourage you to take your own advice and stick to the science alone. Perhaps you suck less at it than at making apologies.

  172. “to whom I’m apologizing…”

    Now you know I’m Gerry Morrow it might help you to know you weren’t apologisng by any definition of the word, At least that’s how it seemed to those not having a dog in your egotisticlal fight.

    Would you like my home address before you gave my views credence?

  173. Willis, it is very good to keep the debate going constructively with good people.

    Do note that a feeling of anger is a proper emotional response to an evaluation that an injustice has been done. The challenge is what to do in response.

    As for your “extra”, naming behavior is proper. Even less likely to be received well, so I’d only use it with bad people.

    (With evil people best tactic may be to avoid, as such scum will make false accusations against you.)

    Edith Packer’s lectures on psychology http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ENAPR3S include Anger.

  174. Chris: “Mr. Evans’ graph (Figure 3) is not a running mean, it is a centered average. ”

    thanks Chris, now refer to Dr. Evans’ spread sheet, to my article explaining the defects of running mean (linked above) and come back and explain the difference you see between a running mean and what you want to call a “centered average”.

    “If you have a better filter, use it.”

    I did , and provided this graph above ( more than once ).

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=983

    Not only do I used it, I’ve explained the issue in plenty of detail and provided several alternatives with code to do it.

  175. lsvalgaard says:
    ”You can see the annual variation as the nice smooth [almost sinusoidal] curve. Solar activity is also visible: the tiny, tiny wiggles you sometimes can see on top of the curve due to varying distance. Bottom line: the Sun is very stable.”

    1) The graph linked is titled:
    “Total Solar Irradiance over a Solar Cycle”
    Most people would consider a solar cycle the Sun’s 11 year (or so) cycle not our annual trip around the Sun.

    2) TSI is very stable but the components of TSI are not.

    3) Note that Northern Hemisphere Summer is during the lower TSI values, the angle of incidence and surface characteristics (more land & less ocean compared to the Southern Hemisphere) trump this less energy input variation. Now consider how this effect is amplified / negated as the orbital cycle moves through Milankovitch cycles and how PUNY the supposed 3.7 W/m2 “forcing” from 2XCO2 really is.

  176. John West says
    Correlations over the short term while interesting are hardly definitive. Before I could venture any confidence in the relationship I’d want to see the correlation continue for several cycles at least.
    Henry says
    What cycles do you expect?
    Are you not asking yourself when the [global] cooling will stop?
    I am sure Leif knows but he is not telling, trying to stay in no one’s land, as many do, that expect a salary from the global warming nonsense/ scare
    My best guess is that this graph from 1972-2016:

    will continue in the future becoming a mirror of itself.
    That means a slow increase in solar magnetic field strengths from 016 onward
    but what causes the actual [electrical] switch?

    Anyone for a guess?

  177. John West: Most people would consider a solar cycle the Sun’s 11 year (or so) cycle not our annual trip around the Sun.”

    I think the point of that graph is that it IS 11 years of data overlaid each year.

  178. Willis,

    “Many toes have already been stepped on in this discussion.”

    I rarely contribute, but in this I feel compelled. I think Jo and David were very clear in their hypothesis and its parameters. Whether it explains a natural occurrence or not, it is a fascinating observation that I agree is worthy of debate and deeper analysis.

    I appreciate your efforts to debate and analyze (and I generally enjoy your posts – though I think you are often unfair with critical commenters), but it seems to me you made a mistake in your interpretation of their data and assumptions. It also seems clear to me that you are deliberately turning that error into the central theme of your argument against the stated hypothesis. Your apology, and the obfuscation that follows, is both confounding and disappointing. Apologies to Jeff Id, above, but I do not think you are acting like “the adult in the room.” If you were my son acting thus, I would advise you to apologize directly for all of this:

    Eschenbach 1: “I begged David Evans, begged him please, please, to release the hidden code, to stop keeping the model equation a secret, to reveal the data, to expose the numbers of tunable parameters, to show the results of the out-of-sample tests that Jo says he’s already done …”

    Eschenbach 2:“I begged Jo and David to publish, and I got the same answer we’ve gotten from every other pseudo-scientist, that for me to ask was wrong, wrong, wrong, and that they’d publish the code and data and out-of-sample tests when they damn well felt like it … science at its finest.”

    Eschenbach 3: “…and admit that (at least according to their graph) they have made a wildly incorrect claim that the TSI has fallen precipitously since about 2004. It is on the basis of this supposed fall that they are predicting falling temperatures.”

    Eschenbach 4: “But neither of us owe David Evans an apology. He’s the one that made the horrendous newbie mistake, not us.”

    Eschenbach 5: “That quote from the graph itself clearly says that they have invented the data from March of 2013 to December of 2015, which is the 900 days of data that Leif mentions. Now, I’ve used the word “invented” for that data. The graph itself uses the word “assumed” for that data. And Leif used the word “fabricated” for that data.”

    Eschenbach 6: “Next, David Evans has not released the data, the model, the model results, the equations, the out-of-sample tests, or any of the details. This is the same garbage we got from Michael Mann and Phil Jones. And now, here you are cluttering up WUWT with the same kind of garbage. There is no transparency. There is no data. There is no code. In what alternate universe does this pass for science?”

    Eschenbach 7: “Christopher, I have a simple rule that has never failed me. When a man is hiding something, it’s because he’s got something to hide.”

    Eschenbach 8: “I’m sad to see you and David Evans and Joanne taking up the habits of Mann and Jones, David. I’d thought y’all were scientists. Ah, well, live and learn.”

    ask for forgiveness, and present your argument against Dr. Evans’s use of smoothing as respectfully as possible. You have not done that with this post, rather you have attempted, with impressive rigor, by the way, to rationalize and excuse your behavior. That negates the apology. (As to number 8 above, there is no excuse. For that statement alone you should be ashamed of yourself, or at the very least embarrassed.) I do not believe in moral relativism. Your behavior is wrong, Jo’s and David’s is not. Your criticism may have merit, but that does not excuse the personal attacks. Jo’s posts on this very thing – the way to debate with respect – are wonderful to read. Given how deeply she cares about the way the scientific debate is conducted, I imagine your posts and those from Dr. Svalgaard must have been particularly upsetting. You should apologize to both of them – directly and privately – if you haven’t already.

    If your toes were stepped on, it is only because you placed them knowingly and willingly in front of the elephant.

    I do not expect you to take this post from me, another anonymous commenter, seriously (though Anthony may pass along my email to you if you care to discuss directly or want to know my full name). My intent is not to attack you at all, but only to offer one man’s opinion of this bitter exchange. I know it can be difficult to accept our mistakes and shortcomings, but with honest self-reflection we all have the opportunity to better ourselves.

    Thanks for reading, Willis. I hope you are enjoying Big Sky Country.

    Chris

  179. Skeptics are skeptical and should fight about most everything. If everyone agreed and acted like cheerleaders, then we would start to look just like those…other people.

  180. John West says:
    July 17, 2014 at 10:43 am
    1) The graph linked is titled:
    “Total Solar Irradiance over a Solar Cycle”
    Most people would consider a solar cycle the Sun’s 11 year (or so) cycle not our annual trip around the Sun.

    The graph shows a full solar cycle [12 years]. Each year is plotted separately, so there are 12 curves [on top of each other].

    3) Note that Northern Hemisphere Summer is during the lower TSI values… Now consider how this effect is amplified / negated as the orbital cycle moves through Milankovitch cycles
    Actually not, the difference is enormous [almost 100 W/m2] as the date where we are farthest from the Sun varies from July [now] to January [during a glaciation].

  181. Chris4692 says July 17, 2014 at 8:45 am
    Mr. Evans’ graph (Figure 3) is not a running mean, it is a centered average.

    What’s the difference? It uses a weighting scheme determined by SSN peak and trough metadata (either official max/min times from an input table or derived) to suppress variable frequency edge distortion that results from using a fixed averaging window. Read the code.

  182. Geronimo – “Above all else in life the way you interact with strangers is the most important. ” And then you go ahead with “self-serving”, “very clever” self-convinced” , you could try your own advice sometime.

  183. Chris says:
    July 17, 2014 at 10:58 am
    “Eschenbach 2:“I begged Jo and David to publish, and I got the same answer we’ve gotten from every other pseudo-scientist, that for me to ask was wrong, wrong, wrong,”

    Weird. Those where their exact words?

  184. Typically I enjoy your work Willis but in this post I have a problem. Now with any running average the beginning and end will be ‘not exactly’ the truth. The reason being, as you have pointed out in the past the newest data is highly influential. This being said, that precipitate drop off is probably an artifact of ‘the end’ of the data.

    Now a couple of things stand out, first your two graphs of CERES and SOURCE are approx 11-12 years long. You then compare them to a graph demonstrating 400+ years. The biggest thing here is stretching the X axis, in your chosen graphs a small change cannot possible be demonstrated when compared to a 400+ yr x Axis. I do not have half the escritorial talent that you have so what I am attempting to get at is your Y-axis or at least your chosen data sets, show a range of 6W/M^2 while the 400+ yr graph shows a 1.8 W/M^2. Huge difference here, in fact if you look at the CERES data, it shows clearly a drop in .2W/M^2 the same exact drop (visually, I have not independently run numbers) as the longer range 400yr graph. The SOURCE data shows a minor drop to possibly no drop, then again the graph is not long enough to actually catch a change, nor is the Y-axis sensitive enough to demonstrate said change.

    Finally, do not apologize… We all enjoy your posts.

    Brian

  185. willis, really, using wuwt as a forum for slandering folks is just not called for.
    everything good about wuwt is made a mockery.
    the worst troll here, lately, is you, homie.

  186. I have not been following this argument from its beginning and I cannot tell from the discussion here what the central points of the disagreement are or even whether the two sides agree about what they are. I only know – from what Willis has written in the article above – that although the disagreement has arisen over a purely intellectual-academic topic it has generated some angry, hostile emotions too. I think Willis has taken a courageous step in publicly owning his angry emotions and of apologising for them, which has earned him much respect in my eyes. I hope his magnanimous gesture of a willingness for reconciliation will be reciprocated by the other side in some fashion, although after reading the other side’s comments above I won’t hold my breath because they still sound pretty outraged and indignant to me. Perhaps Willis’s apology has not addressed the issue that is concerning them and therefore they remain aggrieved?

    I think it would be helpful towards the settlement of this dispute if the other side could say at this stage whether they are satisfied by Willis’s apology and if not then what it is that they are still aggrieved about. Willis appears to have sought to address the issue that he thought they were aggrieved over. I think the ball is in their court now to say whether or not he has done so to their satisfaction.

  187. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:56 am

    Mr Eschenbach says it was “understandable” that another contributor had accused Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”. It was not “understandable”. It was irresponsible and inappropriate. It was based on a failure on the part of that commenter to realize that Dr Evans’ plainly-labeled graph showed 11-year smoothing. There was no basis whatsoever for accusing Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”, and the person who made that allegation and regrettably failed to withdraw it is now in considerable trouble over it. There are plenty of fraudsters in the climate scam, but Dr Evans is most certainly not one of them. Minimum standards of courtesy in scientific discourse are expected, and the entirely unjustifiable allegation that Dr Evans might have been guilty of a serious criminal offense fell well below those standards. Let there be no more repetition of any such nonsense.

    Thanks for your response, Christopher. I will let Leif respond to this part. However, given the number of charges of actual fraud against alarmist scientists that you have leveled against scientists in the past, I find it curious that you are so sensitive when your own side is accused of being “almost fraudulent” … and I find it odd that you advocate “minimum standards of courtesy in scientific discourse”. You were happy to accuse the IPCC of using a “fraudulent statistical technique” for using what you thought was an inappropriate statistical method in FAQ 3.1 but which they defended as being appropriate for the purpose. It’s OK for you to yell FRAUD! when you disagree with someone’s statistical analysis, but not for anyone else?

    And while I agree that Leif’s response certainly may have been over the top, I can understand his frustration. Dr. Evans laid out a 400-year TSI reconstruction that is known to be incorrect, and showed that it moved in a very similar manner to the temperature record. For the recent part of the data he spliced two reconstructions together, both of which have known problems, and in the process created a significant totally spurious reduction in TSI that is not present in either record.

    Then he used a very bad filter which exaggerated the spurious reduction, which in turn was an exaggeration of the actual reduction shown in his own data, and which created the appearance of an alarming drop in the sun’s output.

    Now as I said, I ascribe all of that to ignorance and error.

    But while as I also said at that time I don’t approve of Leif’s characterization, I can understand someone taking that position, because truth be told, it is very hard to believe that someone who has spent five years researching the question would not know that the Lean reconstruction is incorrect, and would not realize that an 11-year boxcar filter is inappropriate for sunspot data because the frequency information is aliased into the amplitude, and that they would not notice that they’d introduced a spurious drop in TSI due to their splicing, and that they would not know that the PMOD reconstruction has known problems … all of which worked in favor of their model. Taking all of that into account, it’s hard to believe that there is not bad intent in there somewhere.

    But I believe it. I absolutely don’t think that David and Jo’s intent in that regard was bad. The power of ignorance and error, whether in my own case or in someone else’s case, continues to impress me.

    And while others may not be as charitable as I am, I can see that when all of these errors act in behalf of Dr. Evans results and his model, it gets to be like the multiple adjustments of the historical temperature record that almost always seem to increase the warming … it could easily make a man wonder.

    Which is why, although I disapproved of Leif’s characterization both then and now, I find it understandable.

    Mr Eschenbach says the TSI data has had about 900 days of “data” added to it. No, it has not. This matter has been repeatedly explained to Mr Eschenbach both privately and publicly, and he must now desist from saying that any data, whether with or without quotation marks, have been added to the 11-year smoothing. The blue dots at the end of Dr Evans’ solid red 11-year smoothing are not in any way part of the smoothing.

    It was not I who said that 900 days of arbitrary “data” have been added to the actual TSI data. It is clearly stated in Figure 3 by David Evans, viz:

    Composite TSI from May 2013 to December 2015 assumed as average TSI value from July 2012 to February 2013, to extend the smoothed curve (dotted line).

    In other words, Dr. Evans himself says that he has has picked an arbitrary (“assumed”) value and added ~ 900 days worth of imaginary data with that arbitrary value to the end of the TSI dataset. Case closed.

    And if, as you say, “the blue dots … are not in any way part of the smoothing”, then why does Dr. Evans say he’s added the imaginary data “to extend the smoothed curve (dotted line)”? I’m sorry, my friend, but in this one you are demonstrably wrong … and insisting that I “desist” from stating the truth doesn’t help your cause.

    Mr Eschenbach, in criticizing Dr Evans for having shown a graph with 11-year smoothing, fails to show in his own graphs the full 5.5-year period before the 2004 start-date for the drop in 11-year-smoothed TSI.

    The graphs that I show are the complete record available from the CERES and the SORCE satellites. I’m not clear how I’m supposed to show observational data from the time before when each satellite started operating.

    The problem with the TSI data is that the satellites don’t agree with each other. Let me show you want I mean, and why I couldn’t “show in [my] own graphs the full 5.5 year period before” 2004:

    You can see the problem. How to splice these separate satellite records together is the subject of much debate, and the question is still unresolved. Dr. Evans has taken the PMOD reconstruction, which as I cited above is a reconstruction with known flaws, and spliced it willy-nilly onto the end of the incorrect Lean reconstruction. In the process, he’s created a 0.3 W/m2 spurious drop that is not present in the PMOD reconstruction itself, a drop which is responsible for a large part of his putative drop in TSI … I find it odd that you so passionately defend the creation of a fictitious, spurious 0.3 W/m2 reduction of TSI when the PMOD data that they used doesn’t show such a reduction.

    For good measure, he continues to criticize Dr Evans for having used Dr Lean’s reconstruction of TSI, but takes no account of the fact that the sudden drop in the 11-year-smoothed data of which he complains is evident not just in Dr Lean’s dataset but in multiple TSI datasets, as Dr Evans has show in his detailed reply to the points made by Mr Eschenbach and another commenter here.

    The fact that that drop in TSI exists in other datasets does not excuse the use of an incorrect TSI reconstruction along with a splicing method that spuriously doubles the size of the drop and a filter that exaggerates the drop. The devil is in the details, and in my response to Jo above I showed how splicing the incorrect Lean data to the PMOD data has added a spurious “cooling” of 0.3 W/m2.

    The other problem with using the incorrect Lean data is that in FIgure 3, Dr. Evans shows the TSI matching up pretty well with the smoothed temperature curve … a similarity which disappears entirely when the correct TSI dataset is used. Again, I find no bad intent in this … but his choice of the Lean reconstruction with its known flaws certainly can be criticized, and with good reason.

    And Mr Eschenbach seems to have failed to apologize to Dr Evans for having unjustifiably likened him to Mr Mann, who, after a decade and a half, has still failed to produce the complete code and data by which he contrived his hokey-stick graph in 1998. Dr Evans has now made his model and his method fully and publicly available, as he had said he would, and I should have hoped that a proper apology from Mr Eschenbach would have made some mention of that fact.

    Christopher, I hate to say it, but no, Dr. Evans has NOT “made his model and his method fully and publicly available” as you claim. As both Steven Mosher and I have pointed out, he has not yet released the code that calculates his arbitrary parameters, and without that, it is not possible to do out-of-sample testing on his model. This part of the code, what Mosher called the “sciencey bits”, is critical to the functioning of the model, and it is still being kept secret despite numerous requests for its disclosure.

    This would be less of a problem (although still a problem) if they had released the results of the out-of-sample testing which according to Jo was done and finished some weeks ago at the time of the second of their eleven posts on the subject … but they’re still keeping those results secret as well.

    Finally, Dr. Evans spent weeks gathering adherents to his cause, people who were already staunchly defending his model despite having never seen their data or their code. He was able to “defeat” the objections of myself and others during that time, which appears to have greatly impressed the credulous. And he did so, in your excellent turn of phrase, “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available”.

    For him to do that for even one day was wrong, and for him to do it for weeks was what we expect from alarmists, but which I’d never, ever seen before from a skeptic. I’m sorry to say it, but that is exactly what we received from Dr. Mann and Dr. Jones, arguing their respective cases while refusing to reveal their code, but I never expected that kind of lack of scientific transparency from Dr. Evans.

    The moral is that greater civility all round would be advisable, and that it is foolish and unscientific to criticize a scientist’s research until all the details of that research have been made available, have been studied, and have been understood.

    Well, that’s part of the moral to be sure … but you’re preaching to the choir. The other part of the moral is that a scientist has the obligation to ensure that “all the details of that research have been made available” before he starts discussing the model. Dr. Evans did not do that. He publicly asked for comments on his model weeks BEFORE he released a portion (but not all) of the data and code, so you can hardly blame people for acceding to his request … and assuredly you cannot fault us for criticizing his research despite lack of code and data when he publicly called for exactly such criticism and comment.

    As I said before, Christopher, I don’t want to re-hash the past. I have apologized for my part in the bad blood. No one else has done so, not Leif, not you, not Jo, not David, and that’s fine by me. I doubt greatly that I’m the only one with something to apologize for, but every man has to live up to his own standards, I don’t make the rules for anyone but myself.

    However, I do not apologize for pointing out that Dr. Evans said that they’d added 900 days of arbitrary data to the end of the TSI, and I find your insistence that I do so most puzzling. Dr. Evans said it, not I, so you should take your complaint up with him.

    Nor do I apologize for comparing Dr. Evans to Mann and Jones. Each of them invited criticism of his work “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available”, in your own words. I find that to be totally unscientific, regardless of whether or not the code and data is subsequently made available some weeks, months or years later … and sadly, we’re already into “months” and to date Dr. Evans is still channelling Mann and Jones—despite repeated requests he still has not released the critical code that shows how he set the arbitrary parameters that make his model work, nor has he released the results of his out-of-sample tests that according to Jo were completed weeks ago.

    Finally, you advocate “greater civility all around”, while at the same time you said you are paying your lawyers to find out if David and Jo can claim triple monetary damages from Leif and unspecified “others” (perhaps including myself) for some imagined damage to their reputations … perhaps it’s just me, but I find resorting to threats of legal action and triple monetary damages in a scientific discussion, however fractious, to be … well … not all that civil …

    In any case, whether or not I agree with them your comments are always interesting and welcome, and I thank you for your detailed response.

    Your friend,

    w.

  188. Isvalgard said:
    “Solar activity is also visible: the tiny, tiny wiggles you sometimes can see on top of the curve due to varying distance. Bottom line: the Sun is very stable.”

    So SH summer should be warmer and NH should be milder?
    Our star, The Sun, is stable but our planet, Earth, is unstable?

  189. Greg Goodman says:
    July 17, 2014 at 5:12 am

    BTW Jo, congratulations on the Carbon Tax, I’m sure your persistent efforts must have contributed to this small but important step in a return to reason. Thanks.

    I second that. Jo’s work in this regard has been thorough, effective, and far-reaching, and she deserves great credit for the outcome. My congratulations as well.

    w.

  190. Tom O says:
    July 17, 2014 at 5:46 am

    Willis, I love your folksy stories. That said, please put together your model that may or may not be useful in predicting future climate changes and place it side by side with the model you hate.

    Tom, good question. However, I fear that since I hold that the temperature of the planet is thermostatically regulated, my “model” says that the temperature of the coming century will be much like the temperatures of the last century … which in turn were within half a degree or so of those of the century before.

    It’s like putting together a model to predict the temperature of your house tomorrow … if it has a thermostat with a furnace and an air conditioner, such a “model” will only be able to say that tomorrow’s house temperature will be about the same as the house temperature today.

    And given that the temperature of the current century has shown no statistically significant change, neither warmer or colder … well, I’d say my “model” is doing very well to date.

    w.

  191. Greg Goodman says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:55 am
    “If you filter out the high frequencies, how can you have a sudden change ?!”

    Low pass filters do not remove all high frequencies; they dampen them.
    Here is the spectrum of a moving average.

    http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/MovingAverageDiscreteFilters/

    The remaining high frequency energy can therefore still create steep changes in the output signal even after it has been damped; depending on how big its amplitude was before dampening, and by how much it was dampened.

  192. Claude Harvey says:
    July 17, 2014 at 6:19 am

    Willis! Willis! Willis! Can you not see how much “extra” you’ve put into some of your responses?

    Claude! Claude! Claude! Can you not see where I said above to QUOTE THE WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH!

    w.

  193. Spliced data sets from different sources, different instruments, and even different proxies…. is seldom ‘a good idea’.

    Many a slip betwixt cup and lip is too often the result.

  194. I think Willis is correct in that a boxcar 11 year smooth is bad; finite impulse response filters are easy to implement and can be offset to allow “instant” response, but can have bad aliasing effects. I routinely use infinite impulse response filters that exhibit lag, but have no frequency peak of their own to cause aliasing. I think that Jo Nova and the others using “11 year filters” would see less dramatic (but inherently partially lagged) results with an IIR filter.

  195. Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
    July 17, 2014 at 6:46 am

    I stopped reading any post or thread by W.E. after the sorry episode closing of the physics journal and the glee that W.E. showed over it.

    I love folks who claim they never read my work, and yet here they are, reading my work … it appears that you don’t understand that after making such an obviously false claim, whatever you subsequently say is totally discredited.

    In addition, I note that despite a clear and specific request you do not quote or cite my claimed “glee”, which I certainly have no memory of and greatly doubt … sorry, Mark, but so far you’re batting zero.

    w.

  196. All right, I’ll try it and see what happens.
    Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!

    nope, nothing.

  197. Anthony, Willis is running this blog into the ground. He’s a crank. He could have apologized personally like any normal person would do, but he’s turned it into this huge drama on your blog with his non-apology apology, and constantly telling commenters he doesn’t give a FF what they think. He has everyone all riled up and upset. You’re starting to sound snippy yourself. What’s happened over here? It’s sounding like Real Climate.

    [Sorry you think that way, I don’t think it’s as bad as you dramatically describe. From my position, I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t. So, let’s just consider me universally damned and carry on. If you have an issue with Willis, make it clear to him. – Anthony]

  198. as a matter of fact

    why [on earth] are we concentrating on knowing TSI (the yellow area)

    instead of knowing ESI (the red area)

    which is relevant for knowing what heat is actually getting on my head?

    Does anyone have an answer to this question?

  199. AJB says:
    July 17, 2014 at 11:04 am

    Chris4692 says July 17, 2014 at 8:45 am
    Mr. Evans’ graph (Figure 3) is not a running mean, it is a centered average.

    What’s the difference? It uses a weighting scheme determined by SSN peak and trough metadata (either official max/min times from an input table or derived) to suppress variable frequency edge distortion that results from using a fixed averaging window. Read the code.

    The comment I was addressing was about the signal being inverted. As I understand it, a running mean is placed on the graph at the end of the period being averaged. If that is the case, of course the cycles near the length of the average will appear to be inverted. That’s an artifact of how the results were chosen to be presented, not a characteristic of the data, and not specifically of the method of analysis. It is a characteristic only of the chosen method of presentation. If it bugs you, center the mean.

  200. Jon says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:25 pm
    Why does not the extra 100W/m2 show up in the data?
    Because the ‘data’ shows the ‘anomaly’, that is the deviation from a long-term [30 years] average.
    On much longer term the 100 W/m2 do show up, namely in glaciations, where the 100 W/m2 shows up as a 5 degrees C difference in temperatures.

  201. Bill Illis says:
    July 17, 2014 at 8:19 am

    The last solar max TSI was about 1361.8 W/m2 in 2001.

    This solar max TSI is coming in at about 1361.25 W/m2.

    It is, therefore, down 0.55 W/m2.

    Divide by 4 and multiply by 70% (for Albedo) and the Earth is receiving 0.1 W/m2 less energy than it received at the last solar max.

    That translates into a reduction of 0.15 * 10^22 joules/year of energy less that the Earth is receiving now than at the last solar max.

    By way of contrast, the Oceans are warming at 0.6 * 10^22 joules/year and the land/atmosphere/ice-melt is only accumulating 0.05 * 10^22 joules/year of energy.

    0.15 * 10^22 joules/year less is a meaningful amount. If it accumulated over 5 or 11 years, it would produce a cooling impact (versus current trends).

    Bill, as always your comments are thought-provoking. I find no fault with your figures. However, there are a couple of caveats.

    First, as I’ve shown in a large number of ways, and as David Evans agrees, there is no evidence of any ~ eleven year sunspot related cycle in any of the climate datasets. Since the peak to peak variation in TSI is much larger than the change from one cycle to the next, this indicates that the sun is NOT affecting the earth.

    David Evans explains that with a hugely complicated theory invoking a notch filter, atomic bomb testing, and an 11-year delay.

    I explain that with the idea that the temperature is thermostatically controlled and thus not a function of forcing.

    Second, you say the ~ 0.1 W/m2 decrease in forcing would be meaningful if “it accumulated over 5 or 11 years”. But since the variation in TSI from solar minimum to solar minimum is small, the average change in TSI is only have the size of the instantaneous difference at the peak.

    Finally, we have no evidence that the accumulated effect of the sun has any effect. While claims have been made about the Maunder and Dalton minima, the pattern of the cooling does not correspond with what we would expect—in both cases, the warming started well before the sun’s output ramped up. Until someone can answer that question, I hold that the effect is coincidental. Heck, according to most reconstructions the Maunder wasn’t at the beginning of the Little Ice Age, nor was it the coldest part of the LIA, so the claim that the Maunder was the cause of the LIA doesn’t hold water.

    So while your idea is certainly appealing, and theoretically possible, I fear that we have no evidence that such a small change in insolation has any effect.

    w.

  202. Chris: ” As I understand it, a running mean is placed on the graph at the end of the period being averaged….. ”

    You don’t understand it. I have pointed out that you need to read the information provided but you prefer to continue posting your ill-informed comments. Please feel free to come back when you know enough about the subject to comment.

  203. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:01 pm
    Thanks for your response, Christopher. I will let Leif respond to this part. However, given the number of charges of actual fraud against alarmist scientists that you have leveled against scientists in the past, I find it curious that you are so sensitive when your own side is accused of being “almost fraudulent” … and I find it odd that you advocate “minimum standards of courtesy in scientific discourse”. You were happy to accuse the IPCC of using a “fraudulent statistical technique” for using what you thought was an inappropriate statistical method in FAQ 3.1 but which they defended as being appropriate for the purpose. It’s OK for you to yell FRAUD! when you disagree with someone’s statistical analysis, but not for anyone else?

    I thoroughly endorse these remarks Willis, I hope Monckton’s ‘minimum standards of courtesy’ include eschewing the use of the ‘ad hominem’ attack, which he resorts to at the slightest provocation.

  204. neillusion says:
    July 17, 2014 at 10:02 am

    Willis…

    When you embrace anonymity, you lose credibility because you never have to take responsibility for your words.

    Really?
    Credibility is in the content, or not, nothing to do with anonymity or responsibility.

    So sayeth the anonymous man who can walk away from that very claim if it proves incorrect …

    w.

  205. further to my previous comment
    I am assuming that most here understand that TSI is the yellow+red
    ie everything under the chi square type distribution (blue line)

  206. geronimo says:
    July 17, 2014 at 10:08 am

    My name is Gerry Morrow (geronimo geddit?) you can find me in Ipswich in England and I don’t understand what you believe to be precious about identity, unless you want to insult people you don’t know. Personally I don’t give a FF, but Mrs Geronimo likes her privacy.

    Now you are clearly offended by what I said. Calm down, I’m a nobody, who happened to read your self-serving “apology” and try to tell you how it looked to people not involved in your personal attempt to be seen as “very clever”. Above all else in life the way you interact with strangers is the most important. So now I’m not anonymous what does that mean to you? Are you going to put me down with your ( self-convinced) superiority, or are you going to accept that an apology that blames the victim isn’t an apology.

    Neither one. My apology was clear and complete and blamed no one. Sorry you don’t like it, but as you are not among the people I’m apologizing to … so what?

    By the way, is there some sort of test you have to pass to become part of the Apology Police, or do you just appoint yourself? And is there a uniform and a badge? Do you have to make an test apology for e.g. getting on my case without quoting my words, just to prove you know how to apologize in the official approved fashion? Did you have special training in the proper method?

    Gotta say, my friend, your assumed moral superiority is … well … assumed, whether you are anonymous or not. I’ve apologized in the best manner and as completely and thoroughly as I know how. You don’t like it? You think your way of apologizing is the only right, correct and proper way? As Anthony said … tough noogies.

    Now, can we get back to the science?

    w.

  207. MarkD says:
    July 17, 2014 at 10:18 am

    Re: Willis @ July 17, 2014 at 9:33 am

    “Sorry, but when you choose to become anonymous, you lose the moral standing to do that.”

    I can only assume you approach science with a similar use of logic. The opinion expressed by a person you do not know still has validity and the morals remain whether you recognize them or not.

    So sayeth the anonymous man, who can walk away from those very words at any time …

    Mark, I listen to a man with skin in the game far more than I listen to someone anonymous like yourself. Sorry, but that’s the way of the world. My reputation is on the line. Yours isn’t, and your claim that that makes no difference in the real world is simply not true.

    Science is different, as I specifically said, because scientific statements are subject to falsification. But anonymous opinions? Not the same in any manner.

    w.

  208. Willis says
    Now, can we get back to the science?

    henry says
    eishhh
    this is what I have been saying all along…
    Cannot get no reaction..

  209. “lsvalgaard says:
    “Jon says:
    Why does not the extra 100W/m2 show up in the data?”
    Because the ‘data’ shows the ‘anomaly’, that is the deviation from a long-term [30 years] average.
    On much longer term the 100 W/m2 do show up, namely in glaciations, where the 100 W/m2 shows up as a 5 degrees C difference in temperatures.”

    Your graph showes the effect of the Earth being closer to the sun in Winter than during summer. Earth gets up to 100 W/m2 more radiation during Winter, october-march, than during summer, april-september.
    This shows the actual global annual temperature month for month

    http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2513/2574258/pdfs/E17.9.pdf

    Why is Earth warmer in the summer, April-september, when it gets up to 100 W/m2 less radiation fromthe Sun?

  210. Chris says:
    July 17, 2014 at 10:58 am

    Willis,

    “Many toes have already been stepped on in this discussion.”

    I rarely contribute, but in this I feel compelled. I think Jo and David were very clear in their hypothesis and its parameters. Whether it explains a natural occurrence or not, it is a fascinating observation that I agree is worthy of debate and deeper analysis.

    I appreciate your efforts to debate and analyze (and I generally enjoy your posts – though I think you are often unfair with critical commenters), but it seems to me you made a mistake in your interpretation of their data and assumptions. It also seems clear to me that you are deliberately turning that error into the central theme of your argument against the stated hypothesis.

    Great. Now the anonymous Apology Police have a member who knows what I am thinking, and that I am “deliberately” doing bad things. I guess there’s no limit to their powers …

    “No one expects the Apology Police! Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! Um, I’ll come in again…”

    w.

  211. “From my position, I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.”

    I suppose that is true, although Willis could always get his own blog and make everyone happy.

    I’m not going to bring anything up with Willis, he’s made it clear he doesn’t care what commenters think (despite the fact he wastes an awful lot of words for someone who doesn’t care.) Isn’t this YOUR blog? Reclaim it!

  212. I love folks who claim they never read my work, and yet here they are, reading my work … it appears that you don’t understand that after making such an obviously false claim, whatever you subsequently say is totally discredited.

    In addition, I note that despite a clear and specific request you do not quote or cite my claimed “glee”, which I certainly have no memory of and greatly doubt … sorry, Mark, but so far you’re batting zero.

    You can’t read it seems. I plainly said that I stopped reading your stuff, but did read this one. It was the title. I just knew you would not really apologize and I was right. But if you can fell better about yourself after making the ridiculous claim that I made “such an obviously false claim” then so be it. No doubt you will quote the Buddha in defense of your blatant projection. But the only “discredit” is in your own small and insecure mind — and I don’t see that as much of a problem to me.

    You can also make all the demands you want to make, but your glee at the closure of the physics journal was open and blatant. Your every word dripped of your ill concealed pleasure that those people were silenced. Just as your “apology” in this post was not an apology (not one at all) for the horrendous accusations you made at JoNova’s site. You got hammered there because there was no kid glove moderation to protect you. What you fail to understand is that you are making an impression on thousands of people with your antics. It is their judgment that you need worry about — not mine. You lost me a long time ago even though we agree on a lot in regards to science.

    Nor do I apologize for comparing Dr. Evans to Mann and Jones. Each of them invited criticism of his work “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available”, in your own words. I find that to be totally unscientific, regardless of whether or not the code and data is subsequently made available some weeks, months or years later … and sadly, we’re already into “months” and to date Dr. Evans is still channelling Mann and Jones—despite repeated requests he still has not released the critical code that shows how he set the arbitrary parameters that make his model work, nor has he released the results of his out-of-sample tests that according to Jo were completed weeks ago.

    No one could damn you more than you did yourself in the above quote from this thread. Dr. Evans laid out how he was going to make his data, code, and methods available from the get-go. Only an idiot (or a disingenuous person) could compare what he did to Dr. Mann’s actions.

    Keep digging fellow, this is something to watch.

  213. Jon says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    Why is Earth warmer in the summer, April-september, when it gets up to 100 W/m2 less radiation fromthe Sun?

    Good question, Jon. The main reason is the unequal distribution of the land, with most of it being in the Northern Hemisphere. The land warms and cools much more rapidly than the ocean, so the globe as a whole is warmer in the NH summer.

    The second reason is more subtle. Despite the fact that the instantaneous insolation is largest in January when the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, in fact over the year both hemispheres receive the same amount of total energy. This is because when the earth is close to the sun, it is moving faster and so it spends less time close to the fire. And on the other hand, when it’s further from the sun it moves more slowly, and so it spends more time collecting sunlight. Because of the immutable laws of physics, these two exactly balance out, and so both hemispheres get the same energy. At that point, the unequal distribution of the land makes all the difference.

    w.

  214. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

    @Leif

    “Why is earth warmer in the summer when it gets up to 100W/m2 less radiation from the sun”

    That is a bad question. Depending on where you live, you will be getting more radiation from the sun in the summer months.

  215. Willis “I explain that with the idea that the temperature is thermostatically controlled and thus not a function of forcing.”

    That is as simplistic as “it’s the sun stupid”.

    I think you are essentially correct for the tropics where you started. Extending that to whole planet is IMO so far unjustified.

    My volcano stack graphs show clear differences in response between tropics and ex-tropics.

    I know you’ve seen them, but I’ll include a link for reference:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=312

    Tropics maintain degree.day product, ex-tropics simply return to previous temps but loose degree.days.

    You make the logical error in confounding no correlation with no statistically significant correlation, it is not identically the same thing. If there is sufficient noise and other variability, there may be a correlation that is not “statistically significant” on one time scale, that does not prove that the effect does not exist or is not statistically significant on a different time scale.

    You hang your hat on the idea that if you can show that the 11y cycle has no statistically significant correlation, the sun has no effect on any time scale.

    That is not necessarily true. Your test is neither necessary nor sufficient ( in the mathematical sense of the terms. ).

    I can find a fairly good match to the Pinatubo volcanic forcing in SST but it’s not significant in relation to surrounding variability. So I did not use it. That does not mean it does not exist, it just means it can not be used to draw conclusions of any certainty. If there is a feedback controlling tropical SST there must be an effect to trigger the feedback. Even when the ‘governor’ kicks in the control variable ends up slightly displaced.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884

    That study shows that volcanic forcing is being played down in order to make the models work without giving up the high sensitivity and +ve feedbacks.

    I think that is direct proof of your thermostat hypothesis for the tropics. That result can not be automatically extended to the entire planet.

  216. Dear Willis,

    I can understand critiques of smoothing processes on time series data. That can easily go wrong. But somehow it must be possible to assess whether the cumulative tsi over a window of x years shows any trend. What if we took the area under the tsi graph and slided a window of x years over the whole graph? Do it for all x and see which one resembles the temperature record the most. For x = 11, would it look vastly different that the smoothed graph from Evans? Furhermore, for all x, make a delay of y years to see if that makes the result fit better with the temperature record. One particular pair of x and y would lead to the best fit. Then we would very much like to see how this “Best” graph looks like compared to temperature.

    Just an idea

    Regards Thorsten

  217. Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
    July 17, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    You can also make all the demands you want to make, but your glee at the closure of the physics journal was open and blatant. Your every word dripped of your ill concealed pleasure that those people were silenced.

    I can’t make any demands at all, nor do I. However, since despite repeated requests you haven’t come up with a quotation showing my purported “glee” … sorry, not interested.

    As to whether the people were “silenced”, as near as I can tell their claims only got louder. And as I said at the time, they got more publicity for their ideas because of the contretemps than they would have ever gotten from publishing them in some obscure journal. As John Robertson said on that thread:

    Best advertising of The Journal; Pattern Recognition in Physics’ to date.
    Massive discussion on two major science blogs.
    What? 1000 plus comments and some of us will now go to this site or Tallblokes blog and read, attempt to follow the conjecture there writ and draw our own conclusions.
    Without this viral publicity campaign, I would probably never have heard of this material and would not now plan to put some time aside to peruse it.
    Well played.
    Possibly the future of advertising.

    Truly, Mark, you’re way off base here. I didn’t think that they were silenced, that’s your fantasy, along with everything that flows from that flawed interpretation of my (unquoted) words.

    In any case, folks, unlike Mark I do provide citations and quotations. That discussion is here. I leave it to the reader to discern my purported “glee”, I can’t find it.

    w.

  218. A note on the accusations that those who use a “handle” or “nom de plume” or a “screen name” are anonymous cowards whose opinions are “worthless”.

    I have read this sort of defense here often. It is a version of the ad hominem rhetorical technique. It is going after the man and not addressing the argument itself. I would hope that those who use this technique all the time realize that only the easily fooled person buys into that argument. I hate to see it used here as it debases the whole tone of the site.

    I see it said that only those “with skin in the game” have opinions worthy of respect. Heifer dust! No opinion is worthy of respect without logical backing and that backing does not depend on the name of the person. (or else that is an appeal to authority is it not? There is a name for that fallacy also)

    So: could we cut the crap about screen names reducing a person’s worth here?

  219. In any case, folks, unlike Mark I do provide citations and quotations. That discussion is here. I leave it to the reader to discern my purported “glee”, I can’t find it.

    The fact you can’t find it is not very surprising at all. Nor is it surprising that you think this post of yours was “mending fences”.

    In that spirit, I apologize sincerely and completely for wherever I put in “something extra” in the previous discussion.

    This non-apology apology is worthy of a long time politician or a Hollywood star with an agent to write his stuff.

  220. “Nor is it surprising that you think this post of yours was “mending fences”. ”

    Hey, you know a cowboy’s idea of mending fences starts with a hammer and lots of barbed wire ;)

  221. Greg Goodman says:
    July 17, 2014 at 2:18 am

    Here is what 5y time constant applied to SSN results in , compared to hadSST3.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981

    —————————————————————————

    Holy Cow, Greg,
    Willis has been digging hard to find any correlation between climate variables and the sun and you just posted a link to the most glaring example I have ever seen. My apologies for not showing the rest of your post, but this is important and needs to get Willis’ attention, in addition to many others.
    Stan Robertson

  222. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 17, 2014 at 1:10 pm
    “Jon says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:58 pm
    Why is Earth warmer in the summer, April-september, when it gets up to 100 W/m2 less radiation fromthe Sun?”

    “Good question, Jon. The main reason is the unequal distribution of the land, with most of it being in the Northern Hemisphere. The land warms and cools much more rapidly than the ocean, so the globe as a whole is warmer in the NH summer.

    The second reason is more subtle. Despite the fact that the instantaneous insolation is largest in January when the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, in fact over the year both hemispheres receive the same amount of total energy. This is because when the earth is close to the sun, it is moving faster and so it spends less time close to the fire. And on the other hand, when it’s further from the sun it moves more slowly, and so it spends more time collecting sunlight. Because of the immutable laws of physics, these two exactly balance out, and so both hemispheres get the same energy. At that point, the unequal distribution of the land makes all the difference.
    ###########################

    Well my starting point was Isvalgaard’s

    That shows that Earth is closer to the Sun during Winter. So much that during NH Winter Earth is reiving 100 W/m2 more than during summer. I think that should show up in the Data?
    And I really have problems With Your story: “This is because when the earth is close to the sun, it is moving faster and so it spends less time close to the fire. And on the other hand, when it’s further from the sun it moves more slowly, and so it spends more time collecting sunlight. Because of the immutable laws of physics, these two exactly balance out, and so both hemispheres get the same energy.”
    They, SH and NH spend 6 months each, and SH should according your graph collect the most radiation ?
    Earths speed in Space is not a factor?

  223. Jon says:
    July 17, 2014 at 1:49 pm
    That shows that Earth is closer to the Sun during Winter. So much that during NH Winter Earth is reiving 100 W/m2 more than during summer. I think that should show up in the Data?
    Winter in the NH.
    And it does show up very dramatically: we are no longer in a glaciation. When during NH Winter Earth is receiving 100 W/m2 less than during NH summer we have a glaciation with mile-thick ice sheets reaching down to Central Europe and past the Great Lakes in America.

  224. The idea behind building a hypothesis is that it should be subject to the scientific method and tested ad infinitum to see if it is falsifiable. If it cannot be tested or subjected to the scientific method, then it is nothing more than conjecture.

    So why does everyone get steamed when their hypothesis is tested and a peer determines it false? And why does the peer get steamed when someone else punches holes in the methods that he/she used to falsify it in the first place?

    Why not, as scientists and professionals, can we not just learn from ours and others mistakes and use that knowledge (and wisdom) to perfect our science and hypothesis?

    Because flaming and slaying everyone is so much easier. Isn’t it.

    Isn’t it?

    • Greg Roane:

      Thanks for sharing. You gave a partially but not completely accurate description of the scientific method. Under this method a conjecture is falsifiable and tested to see if it is falsified by the evidence. In climatology, supposedly scientific conjectures are not falsifiable thus not being truly scientific. These pseudo-scientific conjectures provide governments with their pseudo-scientific arguments for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.

  225. The only positive thing I can say about this thread is that it’s another example of Anthony’s willingness to present his blog warts and all with very little censorship. And this thread is one bad-ass wart.
    Anonymously yours,
    sleeper

  226. Isvalgaard says
    “And it does show up very dramatically: we are no longer in a glaciation. When during NH Winter Earth is receiving 100 W/m2 less than during NH summer we have a glaciation with mile-thick ice sheets reaching down to Central Europe and past the Great Lakes in America.”

    When talking about the possible effects of CO2 its about 3-4 W/m2 for a doubling.
    Due to Earths noncircular orbit THE EARTH for the moment receives 100 W/m2 more during NH winter than during NH summer.
    SH receives totally far more radiation than the NH.
    I really expect that to show up in the annual Data for the SH?

  227. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    “Great. Now the anonymous Apology Police have a member who knows what I am thinking, and that I am “deliberately” doing bad things. I guess there’s no limit to their powers …”

    Chris says:
    July 17, 2014 at 10:58 am

    “I do not expect you to take this post from me, another anonymous commenter, seriously (though Anthony may pass along my email to you if you care to discuss directly or want to know my full name).”

    I guess I called it. Anyway, Willis, if knowing my last name would make you take my post to heart, you may, as I noted initially, retrieve my email from Anthony. I protect my anonymity on a skeptical blog because of my field of work. I choose not to put my wife and children in financial risk because I don’t believe in CAGW. I hope you can understand.

    Again, I hope you enjoy Montana!

    Chris

  228. Mr Eschenbach continues to try to justify his support for the very foolish allegations by another commenter here to the effect that Dr Evans had been “almost fraudulent”. In his latest attempt at justification, he relies on the fact that I had reported the IPCC to the Swiss authorities for alleged fraud. That was because, in my opinion, the IPCC had, with wilful intent to profit and to cause loss to others, published a deliberately deceptive but highly influential graph. I had first obtained an independent report from a statistician recommended to me at arm’s length by a third party. The statistician confirmed my understanding that the graph was deceptive. The deception was intentional, because the IPCC, to which I then wrote, refused either to justify the graph or to correct it. Is Mr Eschenbach seriously suggesting he considers the graph to have been correct? Or that, if incorrect, the error was inadvertent?

    There was no intent on Dr Evans’ part to deceive anyone, and certainly no attempt on his part to profit thereby. Instead, he has foregone his income for some years in order to concentrate on his research. Accordingly, none of the tests for fraud is satisfied.

    Mr Eschenbach continues to state that Dr Evans had used a “reconstruction that is known to be incorrect”. The IPCC no longer uses that reconstruction, but, as best I can understand what it says in AR5, it does not say it is “incorrect”. Besides, all of the datasets show the same drop in TSI as the Lean dataset if Dr Evans’ method is used, so it is manifestly irrelevant at this point whether the dataset preferred by Mr Eschenbach is used or not.

    Furthermore, Dr Evans has constructed and published a model, into which Mr Eschenbach may insert any dataset he prefers. The choice of a dataset not favored by Mr Eschenbach does not render the model inefficacious. That choice is supremely irrelevant, unless one has a propensity to pick nits.

    Though Mr Eschenbach is entitled to his opinion about whether Dr Evans has used “a very bad filter”, I suspect that Dr Evans may have more experience in that field than Mr Eschenbach, who may, therefore, prefer to be a little more cautious and temperate in his criticism. It may well be Mr Eschenbach whom events will show to have exhibited the “ignorance and error” of which he twice unpleasantly accuses Dr Evans, while also continuing to support the baseless allegation that Dr Evans’ actions were “almost fraudulent”, to the extent of finding them “understandable”. If Mr Eschenbach is not aware of the legal tests for fraud, he should not lend support to that manifestly baseless allegation any longer. He is now in serious danger of finding himself on the wrong end of a libel suit that – on the evidence of his extraordinary conduct in this affair – he would be certain to lose.

    Worse, Mr Eschenbach demonstrates the hollowness of his “apology” by saying of Dr Evans that “it’s hard to believe that there is not bad intent in there somewhere”. It would be best if Mr Eschenbach were to spend less time shouting the odds and accusing Dr Evans of “bad intent”, and more time quietly studying Dr Evans’ model.

    Worse still, yet again Mr Eschenbach accuses Dr Evans of having added 900 days of “data” to his TSI dataset. By now it should be plain that no data have been added to the dataset. The dots on the graph, which merely represent the mean TSI value from mid-2012 to early 2013 and are not, therefore, smoothed data, simply indicate that Dr Evans does not expect the TSI to continue to fall beyond the end of the solid graph of 11-year-smoothed data. They are not incorporated into the dataset, so they have not been “arbitrarily” added “to the end of the TSI”; their purpose is explicitly stated; and it is manifestly harmless. Mr Eschenbach should cease to try to taint Dr Evans by suggesting otherwise.

    Next, Mr Eschenbach complains that he could not himself show a graph starting 5.5 years before the inflection point in Dr Evans’ graph because there were insufficient data. It follows that he had insufficient data to justify his criticisms of the smoothing after the inflection point in Dr Evans’ graph by reference to the satellite data. That was an elementary error on his part, and a grave one in that he used it in a further attempt to malign Dr Evans.

    Bizarrely, Mr Eschenbach continues to insist that Dr Evans has not published his full model, even though Dr Evans has done so. If Mr Eschenbach were to study the model and the related material that has been made available, he will find full explanations of the parametrizations chosen by Dr Evans. Should he be in any doubt, he can write – politely, if possible – to Dr Evans asking for any specific information he has been unable to locate in what is a large corpus of work, whereupon (provided that he ceases his imprudent and unjustifiable campaign here and elsewhere against Dr Evans), he will no doubt obtain the information he demands in so unfortunate, unpleasant and public a manner.

    And what is all this about Dr Evans having “spent weeks gathering adherents to his cause”? Mr Eschenbach must now desist from such inflammatory language. Dr Evans was understandably anxious to explain his ideas in outline before releasing the full code and data that have now been released. It will be for those who have sufficient skill (I, for one, do not) to evaluate Dr Evans’ work and say whether they find it meritorious. But they should not be hasty to criticize his work until they have studied it.

    Mr Eschenbach says Dr Evans is “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available”. But Dr Evans has never refused to make anything available. He has made very nearly everything available already. I believe there are one or two documents still to come, but they merely summarize what is in the model rather than adding anything to it. There is certainly enough material now available to allow people to start studying the formidable body of work that Dr Evans has carried out; or they may prefer to wait until he has published the remaining items. But there is certainly nothing to criticize him for in this regard, for he has promised to release everything and continues to release material at a steady rate, indicating that there is not yet any reasonable basis for doubting his word, and certainly none for comparing him with Mr Mann, who has utterly refused to release all the code and data for the hokey-stick graph in a decade and a half.

    Mr Eschenbach should now cease his campaign against Dr Evans and apologize to him without reserve.

    I note that another commenter here has accused me of fraud, and has cited a particular website much of whose contents I had not previously seen. My lawyers will be visiting me early next week to deal with some of the allegations on that website.

  229. bones says:
    July 17, 2014 at 1:48 pm

    Greg Goodman says:
    July 17, 2014 at 2:18 am

    Here is what 5y time constant applied to SSN results in , compared to hadSST3.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981

    —————————————————————————

    Holy Cow, Greg,
    Willis has been digging hard to find any correlation between climate variables and the sun and you just posted a link to the most glaring example I have ever seen. My apologies for not showing the rest of your post, but this is important and needs to get Willis’ attention, in addition to many others.
    Stan Robertson

    Thanks, Bones. I fear without the code and data, it’s not possible to comment on Greg’s result. I’ve kind of given up looking at Greg’s graphs because he frequently doesn’t post the code and the data, so it’s useless to me … does this sound familiar? If Greg posts those, I’m happy to look at it.

    Purely from visual observation, however, I’m not impressed. While the major “v” shape occurs in both datasets, there appears to be little correlation between the 11-year cycles and the temperature. Much of the time they move in opposition to each other.

    Next, the degree of autocorrelation is going to be through the roof due to the smoothing (or exponential decay) of the data, so although there may be a correlation, it is likely to not be statistically significant.

    Finally, the early part of the HadSST is the output of a climate model, as we have little actual observations before the earth 20th century, and not that many even then … which makes any correlation less than useful. The climate models output linear transforms of their inputs, and since their inputs include solar, the outputs are almost guaranteed to contain a solar signal … but we have no such evidence for a purported linearity of the climate.

    However, as I said, if Greg posts the data and code, or at a minimum the data plus a clear explanation of the process, I’m happy to take a look at it.

    All the best,

    w.

  230. some tips from the new age department

    The Four Agreements are:

    1. Be Impeccable with your Word: Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the Word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your Word in the direction of truth and love.

    2. Don’t Take Anything Personally
    Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.

    3. Don’t Make Assumptions
    Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

    4. Always Do Your Best
    Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse, and regret.

    from Don Miguel Ruiz

  231. “but they’re still keeping those results secret as well.”
    Dang, there goes that “something extra again.”

  232. sleeper says:
    July 17, 2014 at 2:18 pm
    The only positive thing I can say about this thread is ……
    ……
    There is nothing positive I can say about this thread. Anthony has clearly sold out, looking now only for click bait ……. by allowing this to continue….ad nauseum.

    This blog has fallen soooooo far…
    Dave Day

  233. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:36 pm
    Bill Illis says:
    July 17, 2014 at 8:19 am

    Finally, we have no evidence that the accumulated effect of the sun has any effect …
    w.
    ————————————

    There is certainly an accumulation effect.

    The 6 month slow change in the seasons is evidence enough as well as the lags from the June and December solstices. Land, atmosphere temperatures lag (a varying) 35 days behind it and the ocean sea surface temperatures lag about 82 days behind it.

  234. Chris4692 says: July 17, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    OK if that’s your distinction then fine, except [trailing] running means (like Excel produces by default) destroy the temporal meaning completely. But never mind, David Evans is doing neither. As I said, read the code. He is using an adaptive centred running mean which takes account of varying cycle length and reduces distorion either side of short duration strong cycles fairly well for presentation purposes.

  235. Credibility is good. So is creativity. I appreciate the creativity that characterizes many user names.

    But, now I’m going to have to mentally remove our colleague Geronimo from Cochise County and transport him half way around the world. Drat it, I hate to being disillusioned…

  236. joannenova says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:19 am
    “It is not true regarding 11 year smoothed data which is the conversation is about. I don’t know why you keep repeating the strawman as if it is in reply to us”

    Ouch. I’ve always admired Joanne Nova, but with a single paragraph she destroys her credibility. That doesn’t make Eschenbach right about everything nor does it make Joanne Nova wrong about everything. But you simply can’t do what Joanne Nova just did.

  237. And next, someone’s probably going to tell me that Apache Who Knows lives in Manhattan….

  238. Maybe (probably) I just don’t get it. But isn’t Willis’ point that the gold line in Figure 3 is in error since it does not match up with the CERES or SORCE data sets? If that’s the case, then the red line (11-year smooth) based on the gold line will also be in error, and we really don’t need to talk about the red line (I noticed some commenters are discussing the merits of the red line). Sorry if my understanding is completely wrong; I hadn’t seen the original posts Willis mentions and I am merely a lay person.

  239. David Andrew Cochrane, Sheffield, UK says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    “but they’re still keeping those results secret as well.”

    Dang, there goes that “something extra again.”

    Thanks, David, but I fear you’ve lost me. Joanne has repeatedly refused to reveal the results of the out-of-sample tests. How is “they’re still keeping them secret” something extra? To me, it seems like a statement of fact … what am I missing?

    w.

  240. Bill Illis says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:36 pm
    Bill Illis says:
    July 17, 2014 at 8:19 am

    Finally, we have no evidence that the accumulated effect of the sun has any effect …
    w.

    ————————————

    There is certainly an accumulation effect.

    The 6 month slow change in the seasons is evidence enough as well as the lags from the June and December solstices. Land, atmosphere temperatures lag (a varying) 35 days behind it and the ocean sea surface temperatures lag about 82 days behind it.

    Thanks, Bill. Sorry for my lack of clarity. I meant that we have no evidence of an accumulated effect over decades, not over months.

    w.

  241. Dave says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    There is nothing positive I can say about this thread. Anthony has clearly sold out, looking now only for click bait ……. by allowing this to continue….ad nauseum.

    This blog has fallen soooooo far…
    Dave Day

    Thanks, Dave, but I fear I don’t understand your objection. Are you objecting because I apologized and have attempted to return to the science? Are you objecting because bystanders with no stake in the game found fault with my apology? Are you objecting because of what Joanne and Lord Monckton have posted? Are you objecting because I won’t accept advice about the manner in which I take responsibility for my own words from folks who take no responsibility for their own words?

    I fear that your lack of clarity does not serve your purpose. You obviously object to something … but what?

    Best regards,

    w.

  242. AJB says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    Chris4692 says: July 17, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    OK if that’s your distinction then fine, except [trailing] running means (like Excel produces by default) destroy the temporal meaning completely. But never mind, David Evans is doing neither. As I said, read the code. He is using an adaptive centred running mean which takes account of varying cycle length and reduces distorion either side of short duration strong cycles fairly well for presentation purposes.

    Chris, I can’t find that in the code. What I find is a module called “Smoothing”, which contains code described in the comments as:

    ‘- Out: tsOut[0..N-1] Arithmetic mean of all data points within + or – half of smoothYears.

    This seems to me to be a simple boxcar filter, which simply averages fewer and fewer points when it comes to the start or the end of the dataset.

    Which model and subroutine contains the adaptive filter you speak of?

    w.

  243. Chris says:
    July 17, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    “Great. Now the anonymous Apology Police have a member who knows what I am thinking, and that I am “deliberately” doing bad things. I guess there’s no limit to their powers …”

    Chris says:
    July 17, 2014 at 10:58 am

    “I do not expect you to take this post from me, another anonymous commenter, seriously (though Anthony may pass along my email to you if you care to discuss directly or want to know my full name).”

    I guess I called it. Anyway, Willis, if knowing my last name would make you take my post to heart, you may, as I noted initially, retrieve my email from Anthony.

    Chris, you accused me without a scrap of evidence of acting in bad faith, viz:

    I appreciate your efforts to debate and analyze (and I generally enjoy your posts – though I think you are often unfair with critical commenters), but it seems to me you made a mistake in your interpretation of their data and assumptions.

    OK, fair enough … although some clue as to what the mistake I supposedly made was would have been appreciated. However, you went on to say:

    It also seems clear to me that you are deliberately turning that error into the central theme of your argument against the stated hypothesis.

    Ummm … which error is “that error”?

    But set that aside, I’m not “deliberately turning that error” (whatever it may be) into anything. Not my style. If I see I’ve made an error, I admit it. For example, how many bloggers out there have a post entitled “Wrong Again”?

    Since your unpleasant accusation is not true, and since you have no way of knowing my mental processes or what I may have done deliberately or inadvertently … how would knowing your real name change my opinion of your willingness to make an ad-hominem claim that I am deliberately twisting the facts to suit my purposes?

    Finally, I take all comments from people about the science to heart, whether they are anonymous or not. That’s how science works—it doesn’t matter who said it, it only matters whether it can be falsified or not.

    However, call me crazy, but I won’t accept advice about the manner in which I should take responsibility for my own words when they are wrong, from anonymous people who never have to take responsibility for their own words, right or wrong.

    Best wishes,

    w.

  244. Willis Eschenbach says: July 17, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    See Smoothing, SmoothIrregularTS(). Also, Interpolate, InitializeInterpolatorForIrregularTS().
    Also on Comparisons sheet, scroll down to row 85. Note solar peaks table and three compute buttons.

  245. Willis: ” Purely from visual observation, however, I’m not impressed. While the major “v” shape occurs in both datasets, there appears to be little correlation between the 11-year cycles and the temperature. Much of the time they move in opposition to each other.”

    Which part of this text from my comment were you having trouble following, Willis?

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981

    Note that the short term peaks do NOT match solar. The last six intervals span about 53 years, that 8.83y each. Lunar perigee cycle is 8.85.

    This is what many of the rather lightweight papers Willis has been highlighting have been mistaking for a solar signal. More to do with expectations and bias confirmation it would seem.

    You’ve done relaxation models yourself and posted about them, so you don’t need my code, but it’s a good suggestion, so I’ve added a direct link the script from my site that I used.

    “Finally, the early part of the HadSST is the output of a climate model”

    Really? That’s the first time I’ve heard that. Where did get that idea from?

  246. Fences are never mended when there is a “yeah, but….” that follows. Seems after 275 comments feelings have only hardened and positions only more deeply entrenched. Reminds me of the dust up with Tallbloke. Much lost, nothing gained.

  247. Willis: “This seems to me to be a simple boxcar filter, which simply averages fewer and fewer points when it comes to the start or the end of the dataset.”

    Oh no ! He’s not running it into the buffers as well, is he? I thought a least he was padding it with the other data. Isn’t that what the dotted line was about?

    ABJ
    “See Smoothing, SmoothIrregularTS(). Also, Interpolate, InitializeInterpolatorForIrregularTS().”

    The last three relate to ‘irregular’ data, which SSN is not. That leaves us with “Smoothing”. Is that anything different to the straight boxcar running average Willis is referring to?

  248. Hi Willis

    Firstly Kudos for getting Lord Monkton to refer to you as “Mr” this appears to be a mark of rare distinction…..

    Far be it from me to offer advice to one who has, despite my best efforts, led a more windswept and interesting life than I. But I fear that there are those invested in this debate, probably not the principals,who will interpret your invitation to bury the hatchet as an opportunity to plant it in the back of your skull…

    Still I’ve been driving all day, and am on the verge of stir crazy, what do I know….

  249. Andy Krause: “Geronimo – “Above all else in life the way you interact with strangers is the most important. ” And then you go ahead with “self-serving”, “very clever” self-convinced” , you could try your own advice sometime.”

    I have tried my own advice. I find an apology with a caveat isn’t an apology. I told Willis so, politely, he came back with the “anonymity” card, and an unrepentant, not to say arrogant, refusal to accept he’d done anything wrong. As I said in the first post, I have no dog in the fight, and was only telling Willis how it looked from the outside, to some people. Not you clearly.

    When you’re in a hole you should stop digging, there are enough people, who admire Willis, telling him he’s out of order, that his so called “apology” isn’t an apology at all. And yes it is self-serving to apologise and say you don’t know what you’re apologising for,. Read my first post and then Willis’ response.

    Look at the responses from David Evans and Joanne Nova and compare them to the rants of your hero. That’s how he should have conducted himself instead of grandstanding for his adoring fans. (Are you an adoring fan?).

  250. “Ouch. I’ve always admired Joanne Nova, but with a single paragraph she destroys her credibility. That doesn’t make Eschenbach right about everything nor does it make Joanne Nova wrong about everything. But you simply can’t do what Joanne Nova just did.”

    What did she do Will?

  251. With all due respect to everyone; I dare say that this back-and-forth between many us and Willis has gone beyond the point of benefit and it’s mean . . .back-and-forth in both directions. At the risk of being the old school Marm. . . enough is enough. Yes, Willis is often overbearing and consequently, he’s not my favorite guy; but maybe we should all take a time out. Right now, the progression of this dialog is not good for our WUWT community. . . it not advancing science . . . and is only can creating schisms within a WUWT community of largely like-minded folks interested in truthfully understanding, evaluating, and advancing climate science.

    Maybe all wounds heal eventually; but there in no need to prolong the bleeding and continue the build-up of angst within our team. And maybe there’s a lesson here for all of us! Just my thoughts. . . let’s be humble; let’s be respectful and more eager to learn than pull down the other guy or gal!!

    Since I’m the School Marm. . . can we stop it!

    Best to you all . . . I hope you agree.

    Dan Backman . . .

    P.S. A school Marm in the US is the teacher that held the ruler tight! And yes, I’m not a Marm. . . the expressions just seemed right! My bad.

  252. Mary Brown: “Skeptics are skeptical and should fight about most everything. If everyone agreed and acted like cheerleaders, then we would start to look just like those…other people.”

    Disagreement isn’t the issue for me Mary. Willis has apologised and said he didn’t know what he was apologising for, moreover he remains robustly unrepentant for anything he said, which is fine, but if you’re not sorry don’t say you are but you don’t know what for, that’s all, it’s graceless.

  253. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 17, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    Christopher, thanks for your reply. I will let the first part of your remarks stand without much comment. I disagree with it, but it’s not really my fight. You seem to misunderstand my position, you seem to think that I approve of calling Dr. Evan’s graph “fraudulent”. I absolutely do not approve. I think it is understandable that people might think that, but I’ve made it clear that that is not my opinion, saying:

    I absolutely don’t think that David and Jo’s intent in that regard was bad.

    I hope that clarifies my position.

    Moving on, you say …

    Worse still, yet again Mr Eschenbach accuses Dr Evans of having added 900 days of “data” to his TSI dataset. By now it should be plain that no data have been added to the dataset. The dots on the graph, which merely represent the mean TSI value from mid-2012 to early 2013 and are not, therefore, smoothed data, simply indicate that Dr Evans does not expect the TSI to continue to fall beyond the end of the solid graph of 11-year-smoothed data. They are not incorporated into the dataset, so they have not been “arbitrarily” added “to the end of the TSI”; their purpose is explicitly stated; and it is manifestly harmless. Mr Eschenbach should cease to try to taint Dr Evans by suggesting otherwise.

    As I said, Christopher, David clearly said that he added arbitrary data from May 2013 to December 2015, viz:

    Composite TSI from May 2013 to December 2015 assumed as average TSI value from July 2012 to February 2013, to extend the smoothed curve (dotted line).

    I fail to see how putting that data at the end of the dataset and using it to extend the 11-year average is not “adding 900 days of ‘data’ to his TSI dataset”. However, it is a minor point, and not the source of the main problems with the graph. If you wish to describe it differently, that’s fine by me.

    Next, Mr Eschenbach complains that he could not himself show a graph starting 5.5 years before the inflection point in Dr Evans’ graph because there were insufficient data. It follows that he had insufficient data to justify his criticisms of the smoothing after the inflection point in Dr Evans’ graph by reference to the satellite data. That was an elementary error on his part, and a grave one in that he used it in a further attempt to malign Dr Evans.

    Mmmm … I don’t see how that logically follows. The 11-year smooth shows a drop in 2003-2005. The actual satellite data, despite going back well before 2003-2005, shows no such drop. Why would I need earlier data to say that?

    Nor am I attempting to “malign” Dr. Evans, I’m simply pointing out where I think he made an error. Dang, my friend, when did making a cogent, cited, and clearly argued objection to someones work become “maligning” them?

    Bizarrely, Mr Eschenbach continues to insist that Dr Evans has not published his full model, even though Dr Evans has done so. If Mr Eschenbach were to study the model and the related material that has been made available, he will find full explanations of the parametrizations chosen by Dr Evans. Should he be in any doubt, he can write – politely, if possible – to Dr Evans asking for any specific information he has been unable to locate in what is a large corpus of work, whereupon (provided that he ceases his imprudent and unjustifiable campaign here and elsewhere against Dr Evans), he will no doubt obtain the information he demands in so unfortunate, unpleasant and public a manner.

    Christopher, he has NOT published the full model. Why is this so difficult to get across to you? Both Steven Mosher and I have requested the code for how he set the arbitrary values of the parameters. Without that, we cannot test or falsify his claims. He has not revealed the code. So despite your earnest assurances, he has most assuredly not “published his full model”, despite repeated requests to do so.

    Nor are there “full explanations of the parametrizations chosen by Dr Evans” anywhere that I know of … and in any case, he needs to release the code, not the explanations. You and I have come up against this difficulty before. You still seem to think that an explanation in plain English can substitute for computer code. If it could, we’d write computer programs in English … which is why we need the CODE, not the fancy words and explanations.

    Finally, I asked some weeks ago for the results of the out-of-sample tests that Joanne had said were already done at that time. They still have not been revealed. I asked again in the previous thread for those tests. No reply. I asked in this thread for those test results … nothing.

    So I fear that you are not following the story. There is no way for us to do the out-of-sample tests on Dr. Evans model until he releases the model code that sets the parameters. Despite repeated requests, he has not released that code. In addition, they’ve said that they have done the out-of-sample tests, which would be at least a poor second since we are unable to do the out-of-sample tests ourselves without the code. Despite repeated requests, he has not released those out-of-sample results.

    So please, cease your futile effort to convince us that all is revealed. It is not. We cannot falsify his work, and as such, it is not science in any form.

    And what is all this about Dr Evans having “spent weeks gathering adherents to his cause”? Mr Eschenbach must now desist from such inflammatory language. Dr Evans was understandably anxious to explain his ideas in outline before releasing the full code and data that have now been released. It will be for those who have sufficient skill (I, for one, do not) to evaluate Dr Evans’ work and say whether they find it meritorious. But they should not be hasty to criticize his work until they have studied it.

    Again, Christopher, David specifically asked for people to comment on and criticize his work, while he was secure in the knowledge that he could deflect all inconvenient questions because the work was not published. I fear that your objection, that we acceded to his specific request and commented on and criticized his work before it was published, makes no sense. He asked for comments without publishing his work, and now you want to bust me for commenting? … perhaps that’s OK with you, asking for comments while not revealing your work, but for many of us, it is not OK at all.

    And it approaches farce for you to complain that we commented and criticized his work when he requested that we do so.

    As to “gathering adherents”, that was the effect of his choice to not reveal the data. If you go to his website and look at the posts from before he revealed the data, a number of people bought into his claims completely without ever seeing the model or the code or the results. If you have another term for a process which gets people on your side before they have all the facts, please scratch out my term and use yours. It was not my intention to be “inflammatory”, so I take the term back and I ask, what term would you use to describe the difficult process of getting people to believe in something without showing them any evidence?

    Mr Eschenbach says Dr Evans is “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available”.

    Christopher, that’s exactly what he was from the second post up to the eleventh post. He requested that we comment, but he was indeed “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available”. And he used that to great advantage, because any question he didn’t like, he could and did just say that when it’s all revealed we’d understand it … which may have been true, but certainly it made it impossible to falsify what he refused to reveal. So those words are indeed true, that is exactly what he did. He blew off my objections and a number of others, knowing that we couldn’t show that he was wrong.

    But Dr Evans has never refused to make anything available.

    I asked at the time of his second post for him to make his data and code available. He flatly refused to do so. I asked them at the time of the second post to reveal the results of the out-of-sample tests. He flatly refused to do so. I don’t understand how you can twist that to say he has never refused to make anything available. He refused flat-out to reveal them.

    More than that, he still has not posted the code for the setting of the parameters. This means that we are unable to falsify his work through the usual method, the out-of-sample test. So once again, to this very day he is still “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available”.

    He has made very nearly everything available already. I believe there are one or two documents still to come, but they merely summarize what is in the model rather than adding anything to it. There is certainly enough material now available to allow people to start studying the formidable body of work that Dr Evans has carried out; or they may prefer to wait until he has published the remaining items. But there is certainly nothing to criticize him for in this regard, for he has promised to release everything and continues to release material at a steady rate, indicating that there is not yet any reasonable basis for doubting his word, and certainly none for comparing him with Mr Mann, who has utterly refused to release all the code and data for the hokey-stick graph in a decade and a half.

    See above and below.

    Mr Eschenbach should now cease his campaign against Dr Evans and apologize to him without reserve.

    I have no “campaign against Dr. Evans”, or against anyone. Instead, I have a campaign for scientific transparency. The direction of the campaign is clear and simple—no code, no data, no science. I do my best to apply those simple scientific rules to skeptics and alarmists alike. You seem to think that the rules don’t apply to folks like Nikola Scafetta and David Evans because they are skeptics, or because they are friends of yours … sorry, but they do, and in spades. The skeptics need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

    First, Dr. Evans refused to reveal his work for a number of weeks, while at the same time inviting comments on his work. Worse, to date, although he has released some of his work, Dr. Evans work is still unfalsifiable because he has not released all of his code. I’m sorry, but in 2014 that won’t wash.

    I have indeed apologized for whatever I said to Dr. Evans that was over the top, for everything that was something extra. And I am sincere in that apology.

    However, I will not apologize for saying that he invited comments on his work while “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available”, because that was entirely true. And since his work still cannot be falsified because he hasn’t released the code for the parameters, it is as true now as it was then.

    And in the event, it gets worse. What he revealed was obviously NOT the work that he had under wraps in week 2 when I requested code and data. Instead he has released something totally different, with things like including nuclear bomb tests as a factor, and entirely different datasets … so we likely will NEVER see the work that I originally requested. What good are his promises to reveal everything, when he has simply revealed some new, changed incarnation of the work and has not revealed what was originally asked for?

    And since we’ll likely never see that work of David’s, the actual data and code that I requested in post 2 when he was telling us all about how good his model was … how is that different from what the alarmists like Mann and Jones have done? Like him, they’ve gone on to something new and improved, in the parlance of the Hockey Team they’ve “moved on” just as David has done, and just left their mistakes hidden.

    Science?

    Hardly.

    I note that another commenter here has accused me of fraud, and has cited a particular website much of whose contents I had not previously seen. My lawyers will be visiting me early next week to deal with some of the allegations on that website.

    Christopher, please, I implore you as a friend, cease with the legal threats. Every time you make such a threat of legal action against some scientist that you disagree with, your credibility sinks another notch.

    Yes, you have the means and the position and the title and the power and the friends and the money to cause trouble for people … do you truly not understand that your threats to use your power and money and advantages and hereditary title against some poor skeptical shlub like myself because you don’t like his claims just makes you look like an insecure bully? Is there truly no other way to defend yourself? Dang, dude, you can strip the hide off a buffalo with your unmatchable eloquence, or have half the world laughing at someone’s foolishness with your irascible wit … you don’t need legal means to set things straight, your intellect and your words are more than enough to do that.

    In hopes of greater understanding, I remain,

    Your friend,

    w.

  254. Re: Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 17, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    Claude Harvey says:
    July 17, 2014 at 6:19 am

    Willis! Willis! Willis! Can you not see how much “extra” you’ve put into some of your responses?

    Claude! Claude! Claude! Can you not see where I said above to QUOTE THE WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH!

    Willis! Willis! Willis! Civil doesn’t seem to work for you. Apparently you can NOT see it without being hammered over the head with what you’ve done. So…the following quotes are a small sampling of the disconnect between your announced goal of being able to “…move forwards without rancor or recriminations” and what you have actually accomplished:

    “…I apologize sincerely and completely for wherever I put in ‘something extra’ in the previous discussion.”

    ” I couldn’t tell you exactly what it was that I said that got folks upset, nor do I care.”

    “You don’t like that? So what?”

    “Now you’re the anonymous expert on apologies.”

    “I love the anonymice who don’t have what it takes to sign their own words.”

    “I have absolutely no interest in you, your name, or your opinions.”

    “I have no problem with anonymity.”

    “So sayeth the anonymous man who can walk away from that very claim if it proves incorrect …”

    “Great, it’s another member of the anonymous apology police.”

    “Now as I said, I ascribe all of that to ignorance and error.”

    “…it is very hard to believe that someone who has spent five years researching the question would not know that the Lean reconstruction is incorrect…”

    “But I believe it. I absolutely don’t think that David and Jo’s intent in that regard was bad.”

    “Dr. Evans is still channelling Mann and Jones.”

    “I have apologized for my part in the bad blood.”

    “However, I do not apologize for….”

    “Nor do I apologize for….”

    “No one else has done so, not Leif, not you, not Jo, not David, and that’s fine by me. I doubt greatly that I’m the only one with something to apologize for, but every man has to live up to his own standards, I don’t make the rules for anyone but myself.”

    I’m reminded of an old cowboy who sets out to mend some fences and manages to entomb himself in his own barbed wire. I’ll be very much surprised if any of the participants with whom you set out to mend fences have found your performance in the least comforting. As to the rest of us, anonymous or identified, you’ve made it abundantly clear you don’t give a rat’s fanny WHAT we may think.

    “Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result….”

  255. I believe that Willis’ original complaint was about the “press release” approach that Dr Evans has taken with regard to his studies. His contention that dripping bits and pieces of the results of those studies without the formal release of a scientific paper wherein everything is presented in its entirety is not how science should be done. In hindsight, it appears that the current situation about this whole mess that still continues to this minute is the direct result of this unscientific approach to releasing information. All of the name calling, the legal threats, the squabbling, the accusations, the defenses, the taking of sides could have been avoided with the proper, completed presentation of a scientific paper on the subject.

  256. AJB says:
    July 17, 2014 at 5:48 pm
    Willis Eschenbach says: July 17, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    See Smoothing, SmoothIrregularTS().

    Thanks for the info, AJB. That’s the one I was looking at. I still don’t see anything in there that changes the width of the filter.

    Also, Interpolate, InitializeInterpolatorForIrregularTS().

    That seems to set the time periods for the interpolation of irregular time series. Nothing in there about an adaptive filter.

    Also on Comparisons sheet, scroll down to row 85. Note solar peaks table and three compute buttons.

    I looked at the macros called by the buttons. The first one gives me an error message. The third loads the solar peaks from storage. The second appears to calculate new peaks based on “Driving Solar” … what does that mean?

    In any case, I still don’t see an adaptive filter of the type you describe.

    All the best,

    w.

  257. So Willis; by eyeball filter, your fig.1 CERES data seems to have what looks like an annual cyclic periodicity.

    Can we deduce from that, that this is in fact raw month by month measurements, so contains no fidgeting for some average annual (orbital) mean value at earth orbit ??

  258. With all due respect to everyone; I dare say that this back-and-forth between many us and Willis has gone beyond the point of benefit and it’s mean . . .back-and-forth in both directions. At the risk of being the old school Master. . . enough is enough. Yes, Willis is often overbearing and consequently, he’s not my favorite guy; but maybe we should all take a time out. Right now, the progression of this dialog is not good for our WUWT community. . . it not advancing science . . . and can only create schisms within a WUWT community of largely like-minded folks interested in truthfully understanding, evaluating, and advancing climate science.

    Maybe all wounds heal eventually; but there in no need to prolong the bleeding and continue the build-up of angst and dispute within our team. And maybe there’s a lesson here for all of us! Just my thoughts. . . let’s be humble; let’s be respectful and more eager to learn/teach than pull down the other guy or gal!!

    Since I’m the School Master. . . can we stop it!

    Best to you all . . . I hope you agree.

    Dan Backman . . .

  259. Greg Goodman says:
    July 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    Willis:

    ” Purely from visual observation, however, I’m not impressed. While the major “v” shape occurs in both datasets, there appears to be little correlation between the 11-year cycles and the temperature. Much of the time they move in opposition to each other.”

    Which part of this text from my comment were you having trouble following, Willis?

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981

    Note that the short term peaks do NOT match solar. The last six intervals span about 53 years, that 8.83y each. Lunar perigee cycle is 8.85.

    This is what many of the rather lightweight papers Willis has been highlighting have been mistaking for a solar signal. More to do with expectations and bias confirmation it would seem.

    I read your comment, I just wasn’t impressed with the logic. Why should the larger 11-year cycles not have an effect when you claim that the longer secular changes do have such an effect?

    You’ve done relaxation models yourself and posted about them, so you don’t need my code, but it’s a good suggestion, so I’ve added a direct link the script from my site that I used.

    Thanks, Greg. I’ll follow up on that. In the meantime, surely you’ve done a cross-correlation analysis and a test of statistical significance, no? What did they reveal?

    “Finally, the early part of the HadSST is the output of a climate model”

    Really? That’s the first time I’ve heard that. Where did get that idea from?

    They provide gridded global “data” for e.g. the year 1870. Do you think that the observations in 1870 have global coverage? And since obviously they don’t, where do you think they got the numbers?

    I say from a climate reanalysis model of some kind, although YMMV.

    Many thanks for the good stuff, I’ll take a look at it. Might be a bit of time before that, I’m going to town soon to listen to the Baja Boogie band and then I’m back on the road first thing in the morning.

    Again, thanks for the code and data … would that all scientific folk were so transparent.

    w.

  260. Willis says:
    “While claims have been made about the Maunder and Dalton minima, the pattern of the cooling does not correspond with what we would expect—in both cases, the warming started well before the sun’s output ramped up. Until someone can answer that question, I hold that the effect is coincidental.”

    I am going to work a bit on this, I’m sure there is an answer. It may be a proxy issue, in that solar proxies are not responding as fast as temperatures, or temperature proxies, are. In such a case you get could a warming signal before the solar proxies pick up an increase in TSI.

    “Sorry for my lack of clarity. I meant that we have no evidence of an accumulated effect over decades, not over months.”

    I think there is evidence, but it isn’t much, since there is a lack of relevant data. I’ll work on this also, for myself if nothing else. One paper by Usoskin indicates a 20 year lag over the last 1000 years to solar changes, although it uses proxies for both TSI and temperature which aren’t very accurate.

    I suspect that the evidence is there, its just that the data is poor enough, and also complicated by ocean cycles, to dismiss it.

  261. geronimo says:
    July 17, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    Andy Krause: “Geronimo – “Above all else in life the way you interact with strangers is the most important. ” And then you go ahead with “self-serving”, “very clever” self-convinced” , you could try your own advice sometime.”

    I have tried my own advice. I find an apology with a caveat isn’t an apology. I told Willis so, politely, he came back with the “anonymity” card, and an unrepentant, not to say arrogant, refusal to accept he’d done anything wrong.

    geronimo, let me try again. I have assuredly said that I did something wrong, otherwise I wouldn’t be apologizing. So your claim that I’ve refused “to accept [I’d] done anything wrong” runs aground on the reef of facts.

    And I made no caveats about my apology. I apologized for anything and everything that I’d said that was something extra.

    I also was clear what I was not apologizing for. Again, this was not a caveat. It was an attempt to clarify what I was and was not apologizing for.

    As to the “anonymity card”, I’m sorry, but I don’t take advice about the proper way to take responsibility for my words from a man who takes no responsibility for his own words. Call me crazy, but that’s how it works in my world.

    I’m sorry you don’t like my position, but as I said, it’s of little importance in my world. I have to do the best I can by my own lights, just as you have to do the best you can by yours.

    Regards,

    w.

  262. Here is my take on the situation:

    1. Willis said: “Since there is no fall in the underlying data of any kind, why does the red 11-year average line show abrupt cooling starting around 2004?”, and further on, “Finally, to the degree that David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line, it is already falsified.”
    It doesn’t show cooling, it simply shows a drop in the 11 year average. Any interpretation of that is extra. As far as I can tell, the model does not predict future cooling based on that line at all, and nowhere can I find that he ever said that.

    2. The graphs are deceptive. The first two only start at 2003, and their scale is much larger than the third, thus making the changes not look as dramatic. But more importantly, since it is hard to tell exactly where the data lines up with the first two and the third, essentially meaning that the drop cannot be seen in the first two, and therefore they should not be used as a visual indication of anything.

    3. What David Evans actually did was to run some scenarios through his model of possible solar output in the next few years to predict what could happen. Although if I understand correctly, the delay means that they are less relevant than what happened eleven years ago. His prediction then is the best estimate that the model gives. His explanation saying that there was a drop in 2003 is simply trying to give an explanation about why his mathematical model gives such a result.

    I see no reason why there is such a fuss. To me, the model looks solid, and time will only tell if it is right. The difference here is that no politicians are making policies, nor is anyone being paid ridiculous sums of money to produce these predictions. So why does it even matter, except that the model will be validated in the not so distant future, and if it turns out to be right we have made some progress in scientific knowledge.

  263. Tom in Florida says:
    July 17, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    I believe that Willis’ original complaint was about the “press release” approach that Dr Evans has taken with regard to his studies. His contention that dripping bits and pieces of the results of those studies without the formal release of a scientific paper wherein everything is presented in its entirety is not how science should be done. In hindsight, it appears that the current situation about this whole mess that still continues to this minute is the direct result of this unscientific approach to releasing information. All of the name calling, the legal threats, the squabbling, the accusations, the defenses, the taking of sides could have been avoided with the proper, completed presentation of a scientific paper on the subject.

    Thank you, Tom! I’m glad someone gets it.

    w.

  264. Perhaps facing reality as it is, together, will help mend fences all the way around.

    From today http://www.spaceweather.com/, “WHERE DID ALL THE SUNSPOTS GO? This week, solar activity has sharply declined. There is only one numbered sunspot on the Earth-facing side of the sun, and it is so small you might have trouble finding it. … Long-time readers absorbing this image might be reminded of 2008-2009, years of spotlessness when the sun plunged into the deepest solar minimum in a century. The resemblance, however, is only superficial. Deep inside the sun, the solar dynamo is still churning out knots of magnetism that should soon bob to the surface to make new sunspots. Solar Max is not finished, it’s just miniature.”

    Right now, the SSN is 11, and F10.7 is 92. There is a vast cold front extended all the way to the Gulf states, that dropped temps by 20-25 degrees in some areas, and has persisted for days by shear size and inertia. We also had a similar cool period during the last solar rotation 27 days ago or so when the SSN was 37 and F10.7 reached down to 94. Coastal and inland off the coasts are still now enjoying the heat delivered by the last solar uptick from merely a week to ten days ago, that occured in between these solar lows, when more a more active solar facing SSN went up to 256, and F10.7 up to 201, and the heat index reached into the 80’s and 90’s deep into the US and far north, briefly reaching us here in Michigan, where otherwise summer has been mostly chilly.

    TSI over the past few solar rotations here http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png

    Notice that the recent 3-month TSI, from one solar rotational peak to the next until now, had peak maximums that trended progressively downward, as did the minimum peaks. This indicates solar cycle 24 is slowing down, becoming less energetic. as everyone argues over TSI datasets.

    Solar cycle-to-cycle changes are significant, based on F10.7cm flux, in daily solar flux units (sfu) –
    SC#: (19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
    max: (383, 262, 375, 370, 315, 262)
    ave: (139, 113, 135, 123, 122, 100)
    min: (63, 66, 66, 66, 65, 65)

    The main point here is this solar cycle, at 100 ave sfu/day, is the least energetic cycle in our lives, and at the rate it’s going, that average will be much lower by the solar minimum. Let’s not even get started on SC25. Maybe the upcoming solar slowdown is one reason why Joe is saying http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HLN_Weather_Whys_July11.pdf. “Welcome back to the 1950s and soon the 1960s/70s (and then 1800?)” – by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM in HLN.

    ****

    Leif Svalgaard said some things the other day over at the Solar Notch Delay blog that still have me shaking my head. I discussed solar activity via F10.7 flux, but he kept arguing against the usefulness of the F10.7cm radio flux index as a TSI proxy, and then he argued about the meaning of the electric and magnetic field contributions to the sun’s overall output, radiant and particle, from the protons and electrons – charge-in-motion that comprise the solar plasma + wind, and then he argued about the solar wind’s electric-magnetic effects on the Earth’s magnetosphere.

    What I said to Leif came out of my electical engineering undergraduate university education 30 years ago supplemented with recent internet searches, only to be argued with by Leif. Thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation , in addition to many other sources I found, I sleep well knowing I was right and can prove it, & so can Pamela Gray’s high school students.

    To make a long story short, Leif offered this beautiful graph set here http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Indices-1960-2014.png that apparantly he didn’t realize illustrated one of my points very well. At least now I won’t have to prove F10.7 is a decent TSI proxy.

    If only Leif would add the list of graphs I’ve listed here to his solar indices graphic: WSO polar mag field, the IMF magnitude and tilt angle, the solar wind speed/density, solar flare index, cosmic rays, the Earth’s polar cap index, PC, Ap, the geomagnetic index, and maybe IDV/IHV – then we’d have the all-time greatest hits of Leif’s great solar-geomagnetic career in one place! A big poster with all that together would make one helluva teaching aid!

    The relevance to this post: TSI varies continually. It is lower today as SSN and F10.7 is low, compared to a week ago, and is much lower than “normal” cycle averages. F10.7cm flux does work as a TSI proxy, and with it’s measurement going back to 1947, could be used to normalize different TSI readings in the satellite era, if it isn’t already. Maybe Leif could crank out a few regression equations to show the usefulness of the four TSI solar indice proxies, including SSN?

    Would David Evans have been better off using an F10.7cm flux proxy, or SSN, instead of TSI?

  265. “””””……
    HenryP says:

    July 17, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    as a matter of fact

    why [on earth] are we concentrating on knowing TSI (the yellow area)

    instead of knowing ESI (the red area)

    which is relevant for knowing what heat is actually getting on my head?

    Does anyone have an answer to this question?…….”””””””

    Well that oughta be self evident.

    In order to be able to piece together a picture of what planet earth’s atmosphere etc does, to affect our weather / climate, you need to know what you have to begin with for that system to work with.

    And what is getting on your head, is mostly solar radiant energy. It is your head, that is turning it into “heat”, along with its contact with the warm atmosphere.

    And I did mean mostly solar RE. You will also get some earth surface originating LWIR radiant energy impinging on your head, but I doubt you can feel that as “heat”.

    Try holding a 16 oz or so bottle of water near your head, and see how much “heating” you feel from that. Because that is about what the mean earth surface is sending at you.

  266. I think the Willis doesn’t really like the sun being a major influence on climate, is that 1) the data on TSI and the sun in general isn’t very good, especially going back past the last few decades, meaning its open to being dismissed and 2) it weakens his pet thermostat model a tad.

    However both can still be influential, just to a greater or lesser degree.

    Bit I think you are wrong in dismissing solar influence during the LIA for example, as the data isn’t accurate enough to make claims like “the warming started well before the sun’s output ramped up”, (e.g. proxy issues etc), and there also may be other short term influences such as changes in ocean cycles, like which occurred ~1977 when the earth started warming again after the PDO went positive-the Great Pacific Climate shift, or whatever it is called. This occurred out of sync with TSI as well, yet there is still broader correlation with increased TSI and late 20th century warming.

  267. Greg Goodman says:July 17, 2014 at 6:20 pm

    There are only two Greg :-). Module Smoothing, routine SmoothIrregularTS() and Module Interpolate, routine InitializeInterpolatorForIrregularTS(). While I haven’t found time to single step it in debug mode yet and could be wrong (who knows what is actually being called from where and when in all this!?), it looks pretty obvious to me that the averaging window is being clipped. Why else would you need an additional time() array and completely different logic from SmoothRegularTS() above which *is* a simple box-car? Precisely how that additional array is being prepped, I have yet to establish definitively. That will need a lot more digging and hours spent in debug mode to confirm.

  268. Willis,
    You write a lot of good stuff, but like a lot of writers you can be quirky and raw. Many writers use pen names. Tom Paine used a pseudonym. Our host apparently changed his name. Certainly our President did. I chose the name ‘hunter’ when I started posting on that internet thingy nearly 15 years ago as a play on words. I liked to hunt as a kid, I like to hunt for truth. And at the time I had recently been a prosecution witness in a murder trial. I was trying to be a bit lower profile since the convicted defendant was found to be asking his pals to look me up for a chit chat. But the internet beckoned and I wanted to post but not be hunted down, as it were. I stuck with my handle out of habit. Now I am in an industry that has taken a strongly different stand from mine on climate. And I have had clients stop doing business with me. I don’t need to face a career limiting situation over expressing my thoughts and so I stick with my long time handle.
    You keep repeating your assertion that those who use handles are unworthy of your consideration. Frankly that only makes you look weak. Play the ideas, not the man, to paraphrase a saying. But I doubt if you will change, since you are a writer, quirky and raw.
    Respectfully,
    hunter

  269. Willis: ” What good are his promises to reveal everything, when he has simply revealed some new, changed incarnation of the work and has not revealed what was originally asked for?”

    Well I think that was the point of asking for comments before releasing the model. Like an open source equivalent of passing a draft around to a few colleagues for comments before submitting a paper. The delay was likely because he was considering some of the comments and maybe trying to improve it.

    I see no reason to berate him for changing some things, nor for not releasing anything in earlier versions that he now judges to be flawed.

    I was actually disappointed he did not address some of the key issues , like the filter, that I posted about several times at JoNova’s. Mind you, if he took my advice he’d bin the current model and start again. It’s obviously his choice whether he does that now ( or later ;) ).

  270. Bob Weber says:
    July 17, 2014 at 7:35 pm
    The relevance to this post: TSI varies continually. It is lower today as SSN and F10.7 is low, compared to a week ago
    Irrelevant for the topic. TSI is now higher than it was 2003-2005, contrary to Evans’ claim. That cycle 24 would be low is as I predicted a decade ago [that it would be the weakest in a century]. Furthermore all the solar indicator vary just like the sunspot number [or inversely for cosmic rays] so you can use any one of them as your solar activity indicator. There is nothing special about F10.7.

  271. ABJ “SmoothRegularTS() above which *is* a simple box-car? ”

    Thanks, and Willis confirmed that the data is padded by infilling with an average value. The padding trick was marked on the graph itself, IIRC.That was dotted where appropriate and seems above board . This is what I’d concluded by eye when this was first published a few weeks back .

    I’ve seem enough of the sort of distortions that running means produce and the various ways people fudge the end of the data instead of cutting off when it runs out, that I can usually suss what’s been done.

    I think the 9y lunar plus the long term solar shown here:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981

    plus the volcano effect producing an extra 1.8 W/m^2 at the end of 20th c. would all add up to a more convincing alternative non AGW model.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955

    There may even be some room for CO2 element in such a model but without the unwarrented amplification fudges.

    Hey, lunar plus solar plus AGW, there’s something for everyone ( to hate ). That should be sufficient to ensure nobody in this bipolar mess accepts it even if it fits perfectly. LOL.

  272. Here’s the real problem, Willis. It’s jolly bad form to refer to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley as “Lord Christopher Monckton.” Chaps in the know only put the first name in the middle when the “Lord” is not really a peer of the realm, but given a courtesy title as in “Lord Peter Wimsey” the son of the Duke of Denver.

    The correct form would be “Lord Monckton,” “Christopher Lord Monckton,” or simply “Christopher Monckton.” But never, oh never “Lord Christopher Monckton.” Because you wouldn’t want to make a fool of yourself with the porter when enquiring for Lord Monckton at his club.

    Get it right, Willis, old chum.

    • I wonder what the attorneys to “Lord Monckton,” “Christopher Lord Monckton” etc advise him regarding his chances in a defamation lawsuit over his characterization of me as a “troll.”

  273. Christopher, I hear ya. Don’t EVA call me Pammy. Pam is the proper shortened version of Pamela. Let it be Pam or Pamela, the latter being a more languid version, if there is such a thing for anyone by that name. And if need be, “Pamela Sue!” to get my attention when I’m in trouble. We must get these things right mustn’t we.

    LOL! The English are so funny!

  274. Terry Oldberg says:
    July 17, 2014 at 9:08 pm

    No worries mate!

    At best one could only claim he misspelled because you only have one “L” in TeRryOLberg.

  275. Driving the point home: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/17/the-sun-has-gone-quietsolar-cycle-24-continues-to-rank-as-one-of-the-weakest-cycles-more-than-a-century/

    As I previously mentioned, F10.7 is used because it’s got a data record going back before the satellite era. Also because many other parameters are tied to it, and because people all over the world can and do make their own homemade solar radio receivers to monitor solar activity for various purposes. We can stay on the ground and measure solar activity by it’s radio emissions.

    From http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

    1998.5 1361.1838
    1999.5 1361.4072
    2000.5 1361.6130
    2001.5 1361.5530
    2002.5 1361.5834
    2003.5 1361.0274
    2004.5 1360.9153
    2005.5 1360.7460
    2006.5 1360.6647
    2007.5 1360.5636
    2008.5 1360.5324
    2009.5 1360.5516
    2010.5 1360.7969
    2011.5 1361.0680
    2012.5 1361.2332
    2013.5 1361.2924

    A problem I see right off is the 2003.5 TSI figure is at the half-year mark, like every year, so making any statement about whole years 2003-2005 with these numbers is dicey right from the get go. TSI peaked in late 2001, and started to drop at the beginning of 2002, as did F10.7 [see http://oi57.tinypic.com/jqg961.jpg (thank you ren!)]

    From page 33, you say, “The models assume that TSI is ‘riding’ on a background given by the solar cycle average of the Group Sunspot Number.” Why did they assume that?

    “This assumption has been invalidated by the last decade’s observations.” How? Just curious.

    Leif, how do you go from LEIF2007 in red on page 34 (lower left), from your http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf , which has a Maunder Minimum TSI baseline of 1,365.6, down to the MM floorat 1,360.15-ish from your plot on page 33? Why did you change it? From http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#plots , the same spot on the curve is now adjusted to about 1,360 [LASP is showing a slowly varying background in their plot.] Why is your MM baseline different than [their MM baseline]?

    How does reconstructing the SSN record take out the slowly varying background rise you say didn’t happen? Where did the idea there was a rise come from? Ground TSI measurements?

    Today’s TSI is what I want to know, as the SSN=11, and F10.7=92; and I’ll bet TSI dropped over the past week after peaking with the SSN@256, SF@201. Where is the best daily TSI info?

  276. Another one, “Why is your MM baseline different than yours?” is supposed to be “Why is your MM baseline different than THEIRS?” Hey it’s after midnight here – and I’m hitting the hay.

  277. Bob Weber says:
    July 17, 2014 at 9:16 pm
    As I previously mentioned, F10.7 is used because it’s got a data record going back before the satellite era. Also because many other parameters are tied to it, and because people all over the world can and do make their own homemade solar radio receivers to monitor solar activity for various purposes. We can stay on the ground and measure solar activity by it’s radio emissions.
    So does many of the other solar indicators. The SSN even goes WAY further back and people all over the world can and do make their own count.

    Leif, how do you go from LEIF2007 in red on page 34 (lower left), from your http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf , which has a Maunder Minimum TSI baseline of 1,365.6, down to the MM floorat 1,360.15-ish from your plot on page 33? Why did you change it? From http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#plots , the same spot on the curve is now adjusted to about 1,360 [LASP is showing a slowly varying background in their plot.] Why is your MM baseline different than yours?
    All TSI baselines have been adjusted down by about 5 W/m2. The early measurements were contaminated by scattered light that let extra light into the sensor.

    How does reconstructing the SSN record take out the slowly varying background rise you say didn’t happen? Where did the idea there was a rise come from? Ground TSI measurements?
    The idea of adding a background given by the running 11-yr average SSN seems to have two sources: 1) to explain a solar influence [because without the background, the reconstructed TSI did not match the temperature record], and 2) it was thought that the many tiny magnetic bipoles that erupt each day and presumably add a contribution to TSI varied with the solar cycle. Modern research [e.g. Hagenaar, 2008] shows that this assumption is wrong and that the eruption rate is constant, hence does not provide a solar-cycle varying background.

    Today’s TSI is what I want to know

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

    and my graphs: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png

  278. I reckon the title of this post should be changed to:

    Performing A Very High Dive Into A Small Dry Barrel, by Willis Eschenbach.

    Joking aside, this is really ugly stuff being put on display here at WUWT.

    What’s with all the in-fighting?!

  279. Leif – thanx for all of that. Right now SSN=0 !!!!!!!! We made it! F10.7=89. Nice and cool…

  280. WIllis, it seems that the smoothing code is in some cases a red herring. If you work back from where the graphs are drawing their data from you can see that much of the 11-year smoothing is actually done in spreadsheet formulae. Simple centred running means using =AVERAGE(). See the graph at about row 3829 col AJ on the “Comp Solar” sheet as an example.

    Now look at the one with the blue dots at about Row 3856 Col AA that caused all the consternation in the first place. That is using computed values. If you put break points in the two routines I noted and click one of the Compute buttons at the top of the page you’ll see they are called several times. By using the step out button on the debug toolbar you can follow the call tree back up to the code invoked by the button. You can also see what’s in that time() array by enabling the Locals Window. Now all we have to do is figure out where it’s coming from and to what end. Not tonight, I can only take so much unstructured VB in one sitting! It might help if we knew what was meant by an “irregular” time series. I have a horrible feeling we’ll end up with straight box-car again regardless.

  281. “Terry Oldberg says:
    July 17, 2014 at 7:29 pm
    Greg Roane:

    Thanks for sharing. You gave a partially but not completely accurate description of the scientific method. Under this method a conjecture is falsifiable and tested to see if it is falsified by the evidence. In climatology, supposedly scientific conjectures are not falsifiable thus not being truly scientific. These pseudo-scientific conjectures provide governments with their pseudo-scientific arguments for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.”

    According this:

    http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/3/3/299/pdf

    “2. The Plan

    For more than 25 years the conventional view has been that an international political solution to climate change can be negotiated if driven by the engine of science. That is, if a strong enough scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of anthropogenic climate change could be forged and sustained, then the compelling force of such rationality would over-ride the differences in worldviews, beliefs, values and ideologies which characterise the human world. Such a scientific consensus would bring about the needed policy solutions. This is the “If-then” logic of computer programming, the conviction that the right way to tackle climate change is through what Dan Sarewitz at Arizona State University has called “The Plan” [8]. And there are those who still believe in this project. They excoriate others who obstruct and obscure this pure guiding light of rationality—a position adopted, for example, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in their recent book Merchants of Doubt [9].
    From the vantage point of 2014 we can now see that the credibility of such a narrative hinged on a set of circumstances peculiar to the late 1980s and early 1990s. These included: (i) the belief in the ‘end of history’ and the triumph of (neo-)liberal democracy; (ii) the seeming continued marginalisation of religion in public life; and (iii) the emergence of a globalised environmental science. This latter enterprise secured its first big success in 1987, when the predictive power of the newly minted Earth System science was co-opted by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. It was the convergence of these circumstances in the years around 1990 that helped fashion the conventional climate change project—“The Plan”—and allowed it to surge forward with optimism.
    At the time it seemed entirely reasonable that with one of the last “enemies” of progressive Enlightenment liberalism having been swept away (i.e., communism), a new irrepressible world order would emerge. And it would be one that would now fully exploit the predictive power of fruitful globalised science.”

    Climate science was politicized to promote “progressive Enlightenment liberalism” and a new irrepressible world order?

  282. george smith says
    In order to be able to piece together a picture of what planet earth’s atmosphere etc does, to affect our weather / climate, you need to know what you have to begin with for that system to work with.

    henry says
    I figured out that what happens with the ultra-ultra short wave (USW)
    [which seems to vary and no one can really measure that variation – mostly because USW destroys anything that you want to measure it with]
    at the TOA is interesting but way too complicated for anyone here to understand [completely]. They think that they know it all from just observing ozone but that is not true. There is a lot of other stuff going on up there. For example, above the oceans relatively more peroxides are formed from the USW, that also absorb, re-radiate and subsequently back radiate. There are also nitrogenous compounds being formed from the USW + N2 + O2. Now, all that THERE is Trenberth’s missing energy.
    So I am saying let us measure the red stuff only:

    i.e. that what we actually get on our head
    Does not that makes things easier?
    It is kind of very odd that I can correlate deceleration of warming with the deceleration of the solar magnetic field strengths and the simultaneous increase in ozone. We could probably use [average] ozone concentration [over time] as a proxy for USW [over time]

    but TSI as such is just a waste of time.

  283. Tom in Florida says:
    July 17, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    Well said.

    I have no skin in this one. But I am learning a lot about a great many things. For that I thank all. Some of this is how the sausage can get made sometimes, And a lot of that involves skin thickness. I see Willis’ apology, understand what he said, looked past any hints of acrimony, and have looked past a lot of the acrimony in the relevant comments. As Viscount Monckton, I have no expertise in this area, but I admit a heightened sensitivity to Willis’ concern for full and proper disclosure. I couldn’t agree more with Willis that after Climategate, in particular, credibility is transparency. OK, so maybe somebody got it wrong, admit it, Your credibility takes no hit. Of the 3 ways humans acquire knowledge learning from mistakes is probably the most valuable. Especially when it comes to discovery, of everything, including misprision.

    However all should take note that these days, at the first sign of obfuscation, such as not providing full access to your materials and methods, I reach for my “hairy eyeball”. Which, interestingly enough, it is my opinion that every personality involved in this little bug-tussle does, and often does very well. But we all have our quirks and moments, don’t we?

    One last thought I would ask each to take to heart. It actually isn’t possible for anyone to insult anyone else. Although you can transfer the power to be insulted to someone of your choosing.

  284. Climate science was politicized to promote “progressive Enlightenment liberalism” and a new irrepressible world order. And it would be one that would now fully exploit the predictive power of fruitful globalised science.(predictive power of globalized policy based science)

  285. hunter says:
    July 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm

    You keep repeating your assertion that those who use handles are unworthy of your consideration. Frankly that only makes you look weak. Play the ideas, not the man, to paraphrase a saying. But I doubt if you will change, since you are a writer, quirky and raw.

    Thanks, hunter, but I never said a single word about anonymous posters being “unworthy of [my] consideration”. Please quote what you object to.

    As to “play the ideas, not the man”, I totally agree regarding scientific claims, as they are independently verifiable or falsifiable. I don’t care in the slightest who makes the scientific claim. The only issue is whether it is true or not.

    However, call me crazy, but I refuse to take advice regarding the manner in which I should take responsibility for my own words, from a man such as yourself who (for whatever reason valid or not) declines to take responsibility for his own words. Since you don’t take responsibility for your words, why should I believe anything you say about how I take responsibility for mine?

    This has nothing to do with worthiness. It has to do with having skin in the game. I don’t pay attention to people who sit on the sidelines with nothing to lose, who can walk away from their own words, and who are not the person to whom I’m apologizing, when they want to opine on the fine points of making a public apology. You and they take absolutely no responsibility for what you say, you can avoid a public apology any time you want by just changing your alias … so why should I pay any attention to your opinion about public apologies?

    This doesn’t mean that you are wrong for using an alias. I’m sure you have valid reasons, there are many of them—job, clients, family, safety concerns, they are all good reasons.

    It is simply that when you embrace anonymity, you avoid taking responsibility for your words, and as a result, you lose credibility. It’s not my rules. It’s the nature of responsibility.

    For example, people on this thread are busting my chops, perhaps correctly, perhaps not, for things I said months ago. I can’t walk away from that. I have to either defend what I said, or admit I was wrong, or apologize, as the case turns out.

    You are under no such obligation. You could turn up tomorrow posting as “fisher” and no one would know the difference.

    So you’ll excuse me if I discount your opinion about my apology for whenever I was over the top. It’s not personal in the slightest. Nor is it a judgement on anonymity. It is a consequence of the fact that you do not take responsibility for your words, so I fear your opinions on the manner in which I should take responsibility for my words is of little interest to me.

    Again, this is not a value judgement on you in the slightest, you sound like a good guy.

    It’s just what happens when you decide to become anonymous—you lose credibility.

    Best regards,

    w.

  286. @Willis Eschenbach

    “Thanks, Bill. Sorry for my lack of clarity. I meant that we have no evidence of an accumulated effect over decades, not over months.”

    My impression was that your cyclical pattern analysis did not defect an effect over years rather than decades. Did I miss something?

    I’m not entirely sure why Bill Illis’s point is inconsistent with your ideas on a thermostatically controlled climate system. A thermostatically regulated climate would suppress cyclical ups and downs, yet this would not rule out a possible gradual shift in the the thermostats preferred setting over time, perhaps.

  287. http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/3/3/299/pdf

    “And there are those who still believe in this project. They excoriate others who obstruct and obscure this pure guiding light of rationality—a position adopted, for example, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in their recent book Merchants of Doubt”

    Willis says
    “It’s just what happens when you decide to become anonymous—you lose credibility.”

    Maybe better than losing ones job?

  288. ren says:
    July 17, 2014 at 10:33 pm
    lsvalgaard what is your model changes the TSI with a further decrease in solar activity? Probably since 2003, nothing will change? All evenly?
    As solar activity can’t be less than nothing, TSI can’t be less than when we had no solar activity, e.g. in 2009

  289. just exactly what do you mean ‘does not take responsibility for your words’?
    i want to see palsied parsing twist that nonsense into an objet d’art
    did you ever work the dunk tank at the carnival?

  290. Willis’s basic problem seems to be this: “The 11-year smooth shows a drop in 2003-2005. The actual satellite data, despite going back well before 2003-2005, shows no such drop.”

    The problem seems to be that Willis thinks that the 11 years has something to do with the solar cycle. (And so he may be disappointed when the result of that smoothing isn’t similar to the solar cycle.) I took a quick glance at joannenova’s website and this is my interpretation:

    (1) TSI has an influence on earth’s average temperature. (2) The influence lasts for about 11 years and is roughly constant for those 11 years. (3) Then the influence roughly drops to zero. Given those assumptions, an 11-year square filter is perfectly approporiate. And it’s not unheard of for physical systems to exhibit this sort of behavior. A handful of resisotrs and capacitors can make a nice approximation. Or a collection of pipes of various lengths and diameters, with fluid flowing through them, will do as well.

    I’m too busy to debate this, and it seems like it’s been well hashed already anyway. A good reference is Statistical Theory of Signal Detection by Carl W. Helstrom. This is the book the CAGW crowd should have used. It seems to me that there will never be enough data to confirm the (statistical!) theories we’re talking about, at least in our lifetimes. What’s needed is a model so precise that it’s good enough to predict next year’s rainfall. Then you will start nailing down its accuracy. Right now we don’t even know if there will El Nino in six months.

  291. @Willis:

    Finally, I asked some weeks ago for the results of the out-of-sample tests that Joanne had said were already done at that time. They still have not been revealed. I asked again in the previous thread for those tests. No reply. I asked in this thread for those test results … nothing.

    Where did you “ask” for the results of the out-of-sample tests? I know you have mentioned it here.

    Have you emailed Dr Evans directly to ask for them?

  292. lsvalgaard
    Can you provide data (in watts) what was the amount of UV radiation up to 120 nm in 2001 and 2013?
    Sorry, whether Svalbard is a Dutch name?

  293. Apologies have varying weights. There are two kinds of weight; absence of either or both leaves conversational fluff or ploys.

    Repair Acceptance of responsibility for past actions and damages, including reparations, restitution, or amends. The intent is here to undo past harm.

    Reform Commitment to avoid repetition, an implicit or explicit promise to act differently “going forward”.

    Anything else is an attempt to at least temporarily gain the benefits of true apology without doing the necessary work.

  294. Will Nitschke says:

    “I’m not entirely sure why Bill Illis’s point is inconsistent with your ideas on a thermostatically controlled climate system. A thermostatically regulated climate would suppress cyclical ups and downs, yet this would not rule out a possible gradual shift in the the thermostats preferred setting over time, perhaps.”

    I think there is fairly good evidence that tropics have quite strong -ve f/b which provide pretty good thermal regulation. However, tropical climate, specifically tropical storms , that Willis refers to explain the phenomenon, does not apply globally. Though due to the major ocean gyres there is a degree of mixing which allows the tropics to help stabilise adjacent regions.

    This I demonstrated with the following series of graphs ( follow the links in text ):

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=310

    This would mean that the planet is not totally immune to variations in radiative budget. Here is the tropical reaction to Mt Pinatubo:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884

    That seems a more reasonable idea that a strong thermal control with shifting “preferred settings”.

  295. Wouldn’t it have been more informative to deconstruct Jo Nova’s graph?

    Sure looks like a sudden drop in TSI in recent years.

  296. Willis,
    Thanks. Your reply does fulfill what I predicted in the post.
    My rephrasing of your point was accurate, and you repeated it in your reply.
    Your obsession with “skin the game” is interesting.
    Do you likewise reject any book written pseudonymously?
    Best wishes,
    ‘hunter’

  297. I hope it is now very clear to all that Dr Evans has neither been “almost fraudulent” nor “fabricated” any data, and that he is not guilty of “bad intent”. Allegations of this sort have no place in civilized scientific discourse. If a fraud had been perpetrated, the appropriate place to talk about it would have been at the police station. Certain commenters here have wilfully persisted in trying to blacken Dr Evans’ name either by outright allegations of fraud or fabrication or by the repellent and near-equally damaging device of pretending that such baseless allegations were “understandable”, or that “bad intent” seemed to be indicated when, plainly, it was not.

    One of these commenters ingeniously persists in trying to give the impression that Dr Evans had fabricated 900 days’-worth of data, when Dr Evans has been entirely explicit about his having merely given an indication, that formed no part of the dataset upon which the smoothed TSI curve had been plotted and was differentially marked on his graph, that the fall in TSI shown by the 11-year smoothing was about to come to an end. This was entirely innocent, and the fact that a commenter persists in moaning about it does not in any way alter its blamelessness. That commenter has been altogether too eager to find fault pettily where none exists.

    That commenter also seems not to understand how 11-year smoothing works. In order to establish a data point on an 11-year-smoothed curve, it is essential to have 5.5 years’ data either side of that point. Including those data makes it plain how the 11-year smoothing correctly shows a sharp decline. Omitting some of those data, as that commenter did, had the effect (one hopes inadvertently) of falsely concealing the basis on which the fall in 11-year-smoothed TSI had been determined. For those who may not have followed the TSI record, the peak of the previous cycle was noticeably above the peak of the present cycle. The decline in TSI, therefore, appears to be continuing, as several solar physicists have predicted. If it continues thus to decline, it is possible that the reduction in TSI over a long enough period may overwhelm the warming signal from greenhouse gases and cause cooling. Dr Evans thinks that is likely, and he is in good company in thinking that, though it is above my pay-grade to determine whether he is right, except by waiting and seeing.

    That commenter has continued vexatiously to complain that Dr Evans has not published his full model and, in particular, that he has not published the basis for his parametrizations. He says he has asked for that information, but stops short of saying he has written to Dr Evans and asked for it politely. Certainly, he cannot have examined the model very closely before complaining, for the parametrizations are sufficiently explained in the material that has already been released.

    Nor do I, with an admittedly limited understanding of modeling, understand why that commenter is asking for “the code” associated with the parametrizations. Not all parametrizations require code. Frankly, if that commenter genuinely wishes to obtain these and other details of Dr Evans’ work, rather than trying to blacken his name by demanding them very publicly and impolitely here, in a malevolent and carping tone, his first port of call is surely Dr Evans himself.

    However, if I were Dr Evans I should be most disinclined to reply unless and until that commenter had published – here and at Jo Nova’s excellent website – an unreserved, unqualified and full apology for and retraction of all remarks he had made in support of the allegations that Dr Evans had acted “almost fraudulently” or had “fabricated” data or had unreasonably withheld it. Dr Evans is under no legal, contractual, moral, or other obligation to supply anything to anyone who has behaved with such persistent and inexplicable rudeness and malevolence as that commenter has.

    That commenter has unwisely accused me of having attempted to convince him that, in regard to Dr Evans’ project, “all is revealed”. That commenter has a rule that his words must be cited accurately. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I had in fact explicitly stated that further material was to be released. Indeed, it would probably have been released long before now if that commenter, who has behaved lamentably throughout, had not diverted Dr Evans into having to provide replies to his stream of venomously-expressed and ill-founded allegations.

    That commenter says he is not in a position to falsify Dr Evans’ work. In that, at least, he speaks the truth. In attempting to falsify it he would be as much out of his depth as me. He would, however, be at a further disadvantage, since his persistence in maligning Dr Evans in the most intemperate tone indicates that he bears a vicious and unreasoning grudge against him, for reasons that I cannot fathom and in which no one but that commenter is in the least interested. Yet he persists in maintaining that he has not mounted a campaign against Dr Evans. Well, it is apparent to an increasing number of commenters here that that is exactly what he has done. He must forthwith desist.

    That commenter further falsely states that Dr Evans had “flatly refused” to make his data and code available. This is an outright falsehood. Dr Evans has repeatedly stated that he will make everything available, and has made the greater part of it available already, which would give any reasonable observer some confidence that the remainder will be made available just as soon as Dr Evans is ready.

    That commenter further complains that Dr Evans has not published what the commenter thought he was going to publish. He suggests, for instance, that Dr Evans had not originally included the influence of the bomb-tests in his work, but had included it subsequently. In fact, the bomb-tests were included in the work long before Dr Evans made any part of it public, and I can find nothing in what he has published to date to give anyone a reasonable excuse for assuming that he had not included it all along.

    In any event, since Dr Evans had invited comments on his approach before he published his full model, he would surely have been well within his rights to take account of those comments that were constructive, rather than artfully malicious, before finalizing and publishing his work. There is nothing in the least unreasonable in that, and it has long been the practice among true men of science rather than amateurs with a grudge. It is my own practice to consult relevant experts, and sometimes to consult more widely, before submitting papers for publication in the learned journals. That way, errors that might otherwise have been submitted are eliminated at the earliest possible stage. Where on earth is the harm in that?

    That commenter finally presumes to give me legal advice. With respect, that is not a matter for him, nor am I aware that he has legal qualifications. I had not until recently realized the extent to which websites all over the place were accusing me of falsehoods and fabrications of which I was not guilty. One of these accusations was so effective that even our kind host here was initially taken in by it. However, unlike the commenter who has made such an uncommon nuisance of himself here, he quietly investigated the allegation in question, found it to have been entirely unmeritorious, and was good enough to publish the results of his researches. It will now be necessary for me to have that and other libels retracted and apologized for, so that no one else is taken in.

    My recommendation to the commenter who has so thoroughly lost his temper here is that should now back off for a week or two of reflection, and then bring his campaign against Dr Evans to an end with a proper apology.

    Finally, I should myself apologize to those who must be baffled by the intrusive prolixity of these exchanges. However, Dr Evans is a good friend, who has been working patiently on his theory for many years and, after much thought, has decided to publish it in outline first and then in detail. In due course, once he has taken the voices, I expect he will submit a series of papers to the reviewed journals, where they will be subjected to the well-established process of scrutiny by suitably-qualified scientists both before and after publication. I have intervened here only in an attempt to restrain the persistent and perplexing calumnies that have been directed at him, so that he gets a fair chance to publish without his name having been baselessly blackened. Geld verloren, nichts verloren. Mut verloren, alles verloren.

  298. Anonymity is actually good: It allows the ideas to flow without risk to the one making the idea.
    Sharing ideas should not be at the cost of one’s job, social harassment, or worse.
    Anonymity is a part of the right to privacy and frankly it raises warning flags when any group or person demands that there be no anonymity or they will reject (or worse) the one pushing the idea as well as the idea itself.
    Extreme example: The USSR and its obsession with controlling debate. Anonymity was criminalized. Do people feel better knowing that the NSA can at will strip away any privacy a person has in their communications?
    People lose their *jobs* over this climate debate.
    Willis is sort of bullet proof (or so he thinks) in this- by the way that is a metaphor, so please let’s not get into hysterics- but not all of us are.
    Does that make us less sincere or credible?

  299. ren says:
    July 18, 2014 at 1:31 am
    Can you provide data (in watts) what was the amount of UV radiation up to 120 nm in 2001 and 2013?
    The total amount is very small 0.005 W/m2 with a variability of 100% from minimum to maximum, so less from one maximum to the next. But all of this radiation is completely absorbed by the atmosphere above 100 km, so is not important for the climate.

    Sorry, whether Svalbard is a Dutch name?
    Svalgaard is a Danish name.

  300. lsvalgaard says:
    ”The graph shows a full solar cycle [12 years]. Each year is plotted separately, so there are 12 curves [on top of each other].”

    Ok, the title didn’t really convey the content to me, that’s all.

    3) Note that Northern Hemisphere Summer is during the lower TSI values… Now consider how this effect is amplified / negated as the orbital cycle moves through Milankovitch cycles

    ”Actually not, the difference is enormous [almost 100 W/m2] as the date where we are farthest from the Sun varies from July [now] to January [during a glaciation].”

    Not what? Look, we know the NH gets warmer in its summer than the SH gets in its summer even though it receives almost 100 W/m2 less energy. When this less energy is in NH winter we get glacial conditions (most of the time). The difference between the glacial and interglacial is only about 10K (rounding up) from an “enormous” TSI variation. Yet I’m to believe a paltry 3.7 W/m2 causes a 3K increase in temperature. Not buying it.

  301. ren says:
    July 18, 2014 at 5:30 am
    Sorry, I meant the Svalbard archipelago near Norway.
    Svalbard is Old-Norse and means some like ‘the cold coast or shore’. The Dutch name was Spitsbergen.

  302. lsvalgaard on July 18, 2014 at 4:36 am said,

    Svalgaard is a Danish name.

    – – – – – –

    Leif,

    Speaking of Danish . . . I still owe you another bottle of Danish aquavit in appreciation for receiving an ongoing detailed solar education over many years from you here at WUWT . . .

    (Anth0ny gets occasional paypal donations from me , you get aquavit. You have the better deal I think)

    I’ll bring it over in the fall.

    The education continues . . .

    John

  303. Ren the UV light fluctuations as pointed out by Joe D’Aleo and many others play a major role in the atmospheric circulation pattern by promoting blocking.

    This was evident in the 2008-2010 solar lull and evident in the past during the Maunder and Dalton minimums.

    Historical data shows us the true story . Look for much more blocking to establish itself as this decade proceeds in response to this prolonged solar minimum, and very low UV light readings.

  304. Notice how there is yet to be a temperature graph produced which shows the range of global temperatures INCREASING during a prolonged solar minimum period or the range in global temperatures DECLINING during a period of prolonged maximum solar activity.
    Guess what the same thing is going to happen once again going forward into this decade. Global temperatures will be falling in response to weak solar conditions and the associated secondary effects.

    What is being missed by many read below.

    The point is the temperatures of earth will always vary even when solar output is constant, due to random, chaotic climate changes within the climate system of the earth. What solar variability determines is what range the temperatures of the globe will be in ,not the random temperature changes up/down once the climate is in a given climate regime.

    Next one has to take into the account the initial state of the climate. How close to glacial if in interglacial and vice versa, which will determine how much of an influence GIVEN solar variability will have on the climate. Given solar variability effect on the climate , will always vary depending on what the initial state of the climate is at the time the sun is exhibiting variability. This is why solar/climate correlations tend to get obscure at times. The climate system has much noise in the system and unless solar activity changes from a distinct prolonged active to a distinct prolonged minimum phase of activity solar/climate trends are hard to see. The initial state of the climate again also obscuring the solar/climate connection at times.

    This is why this period of time is so great. We have switched from an very active sun last century to a very quiet sun post 2005 and the given state of the climate is such that it should respond to solar variability to one degree or another.
    Look for exciting times ahead including the winter of 2014-2015 .

  305. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 17, 2014 at 5:04 pm
    I meant that we have no evidence of an accumulated effect over decades, not over months.
    w.
    ———————

    The oceans have been accumulating about 0.4 * 10^22 joules/year of energy over at least 4 decades now. Then, we have the slow energy accumulation which occurred as the last ice age was ending which lasted for 7,000 years.

    So, the Earth can and does accumulate and drawdown energy.

    Let’s say, the Sun was 4 W/m2 lower in the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age. As it rose back up to todays levels over a few hundred years, the oceans and land slowly warmed up, equilibrating to the new high solar insolation levels.

    Let’s say the oceans/land were accumulating 0.3 * 10^22 joules/year of energy over this period (a similar rate to what they have been accumulating in the last 4 decades).

    Over 300 years, the oceans warm 0.4C, not unlike what is assumed to have occurred. I think that is a physically reasonable explanation.

  306. Golly, if this is Willis’ idea of “mending fences” I’d hate to see what is his idea of blowing them up is.

    He claims to apologise, while leaving out the essential element of saying what he is apologising for. This is a standard trick … “if anything I said offended you…” etc.

    Then, when people call him on it, he discounts their opinions because (even though he admits that they may have good reasons for it), they do not use their real names.

    Then, a couple of them come out with their real names. Suddenly, it’s not their anonynminity, it’s that they are the “apology police”.

    Then, he denies that using a “nym” means that he discounts what people say, after spending several rants, here and on other posts, saying the opposite.

    Accusing Evans of being just like Michael Mann was a bridge too far for a lot of people. Utterly scurrilous.

    And yes, the New Hemingway, the great literary stylist, your use of “wroth” was both pretentious and grammatically illiterate.

    Suggest that you stick to the travelogues in future – although I notice that they are not getting as many comments as the recent (and far more interesting and relevant) one on wine corks.

  307. Is “sval” does not mean the Danish “swallows”?
    Name Abbreviation Wavelength range
    (in nanometres) Energy per photon
    (in electronvolts) Notes / alternative names
    Ultraviolet A UVA 400 – 315 nm 3.10 – 3.94 eV long wave, black light, not absorbed by the ozone layer
    Ultraviolet B UVB 315 – 280 nm 3.94 – 4.43 eV medium wave, mostly absorbed by the ozone layer
    Ultraviolet C UVC 280 – 100 nm 4.43 – 12.4 eV short wave, germicidal, completely absorbed by the ozone layer and atmosphere
    Near Ultraviolet NUV 400 – 300 nm 3.10 – 4.13 eV visible to birds, insects and fish
    Middle Ultraviolet MUV 300 – 200 nm 4.13 – 6.20 eV
    Far Ultraviolet FUV 200 – 122 nm 6.20 – 10.16 eV
    Hydrogen Lyman-alpha H Lyman-α 122 – 121 nm 10.16 – 10.25 eV spectral line at 121.6 nm, 10.20 eV
    Extreme Ultraviolet EUV 121 – 10 nm 10.25 – 124 eV ionizing radiation, completely absorbed by the atmosphere
    Vacuum Ultraviolet VUV 200 – 10 nm 6.20 – 124 eV strongly absorbed by atmospheric oxygen, though 150–200 nm wavelengths can propagate through nitrogen

  308. hunter says:
    July 18, 2014 at 4:26 am
    Anonymity is actually good: It allows the ideas to flow without risk to the one making the idea.
    Sharing ideas should not be at the cost of one’s job, social harassment, or worse.
    Anonymity is a part of the right to privacy and frankly it raises warning flags when any group or person demands that there be no anonymity or they will reject (or worse) the one pushing the idea as well as the idea itself.
    ==============

    Well said.
    I don’t care who makes a point. Either the point is valid or it is not. The fact that there is or is not a name attached to a point is totally irrelevant. One should play the ball (the point made) and not the man (the person making the point).

  309. Bill Illis said:

    “Let’s say, the Sun was 4 W/m2 lower in the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age”.

    Hi Bill.

    Better to say that the proportion of solar energy reaching the surface was 4Wm2 lower in the Maunder minimum.

    That brings you into line with the suggestion from many of us, including David Evans, that some solar characteristic other than simple TSI changes global cloudiness and albedo.

  310. When Willis Eschenbach said, “I fear I waxed wroth”, he was being neither pretentious nor ungrammatical. Johanna is incorrect on both counts. He was using the Anglo-Saxon adjective “wroth”, which is to the noun “wrath” what “angry” is to “anger”. And this apparent archaism, like so many Anglo-Saxon usages, is still in quite frequent use in Britain today. It will be found, for instance, in the Jeeves stories of P.G. Wodehouse.

    Bill Parsons wins the laurel wreath for best comment in this thread. He writes: “‘I fear I waxed wroth.’ Who is ‘Wroth’?”

  311. The Hermit says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:48 am
    This is a bit off-topic, but the sunspot number for the day has dropped to 0:
    That seems like it would be a very rare occurrence during a solar maximum year. Is it a rare as it would seem?

    For weak cycles this happens. A good example is cycle 14.

    Bill Illis says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:51 am
    Let’s say, the Sun was 4 W/m2 lower in the Maunder Minimum
    Except that there is no evidence for such a large difference. It is much more likely that the difference is smaller than 1 W/m2.

    ren says:
    July 18, 2014 at 7:00 am
    Is “sval” does not mean the Danish “swallows”?
    Svalgaard means ‘swallow yard’

  312. I never said a single word about anonymous posters being “unworthy of [my] consideration”. Please quote what you object to…

    However, call me crazy, but I refuse to take advice regarding the manner in which I should take responsibility for my own words…

    I don’t pay attention to people who sit on the sidelines with nothing to lose…

    why should I pay any attention to your opinion about public apologies?…

    So you’ll excuse me if I discount your opinion …

    Nor is it a judgement on anonymity…

    I fear your opinions on the manner in which I should take responsibility for my words is of little interest to me…

    This is all in one post… god Anthony, get rid of this lunatic. Even the travelogues are pedantic and self-serving, and (imo) just clutter up this blog.

    Why would one make a PUBLIC apology and then waste so much breath on those who he claims to not care about? Nuts. Just apologize personally to those involved and get on with the science.

    Your target audience used to be people like myself, who may not have the scientific credentials to understand it all, but want to keep up with the discussion and learn things. When I was first interested in climate, I would read Real Climate and WUWT, among others, and quickly saw the difference in tone and inclusiveness. The quality of this blog has really declined, and I don’t think you will be reaching (or impressing) as many new-comers as you might once have.

  313. Some here are stuck on Evans’ graph depicting a set of TSI data series that he has smoothed with an 11-year box car filter. They all demonstrate an apparent drop in TSI. These folks are believing this graph of a statistical maneuver over what the raw unfiltered data and the running averaged data is showing. So let me offer a suggestion on how to take the rose colored glasses off. To Steve as well as others.

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    July 18, 2014 at 4:12 am
    “Wouldn’t it have been more informative to deconstruct Jo Nova’s graph?

    Sure looks like a sudden drop in TSI in recent years.”

    This issue of applying a statistical maneuver that seems to show your a-priori bias (IE it shows what you think is happening) is a normal part of research but it can result in a type I error (false positive, as in yes there is an affect when actually there is not), or a type II error (false negative, as in no there is no affect when actually there is).

    In biased research, done sometimes without knowledge of statistical artifacts or undo bias, the researcher continues to apply statistical maneuvers to the data until he/she gets an analysis that supports his/her belief about observed phenomena. This can lead to a type I error. Or the opposite happens, the researcher applies a statistical maneuver that is not capable of finding regular signals inside noise. This can lead to a type II error. Notice that I said, “done sometimes without knowledge of statistical artifacts or undo bias”. The key here is to understand the motives of the researcher. Most often the motives are good but the understanding of statistics and the power of their own bias is very poor. Sometimes the motives are not good and the researcher tries to make such errors on purpose.

    It is not good to be over-enthusiastic about finding evidence for a new paradigm, or the reverse, refuting someone’s suggested new paradigm.

    Notice that the Evans’ graph takes different data series and smoothes them with an 11 year box car filter. If you were to take the same derived and number of noisy random raw data sets, obtained from white noise, and smoothed them with an 11 year box car filter, I wonder if you would get the same kind of sudden change at the ends? I am thinking yes.

    If that were the case, you would have to say that the graph’s depiction of TSI decrease was an artifact of the statistical maneuver, not an actual TSI measurement.

    The warning here is to thoroughly know the ins and outs of the statistical maneuver you are applying. I audited a graduate level introductory course in statistics (often done when your course load is full and your bank account is empty). It was enough of an education to know one should reverently enter into the world of statistics. Get an independent opinion from an expert statistician before you show your work in public. If you don’t you could be showing us your dirty underwear instead of what you think is a shiny new invention.

  314. The Hermit says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:48 am
    This is a bit off-topic, but the sunspot number for the day has dropped to 0:
    That seems like it would be a very rare occurrence during a solar maximum year. Is it a rare as it would seem?

    For weak cycles this happens. A good example is cycle 14.

    Yellow = daily values
    Pink = 27-day means
    Black = Yearly means

  315. Agnostic says:
    July 18, 2014 at 12:41 am

    @Willis:

    Finally, I asked some weeks ago for the results of the out-of-sample tests that Joanne had said were already done at that time. They still have not been revealed. I asked again in the previous thread for those tests. No reply. I asked in this thread for those test results … nothing.

    Where did you “ask” for the results of the out-of-sample tests? I know you have mentioned it here.

    Thanks for the question, Agnostic. I asked 1) over at JoNova’s blog in one of the 11 posts, 2) in the post here on “Notch model finally released, and 3) on this thread. If you want to find them, google “out-of-sample” in those locations, I can’t be bothered. This nonsense has consumed too much of my time already.

    w/.

  316. T Control says:
    July 18, 2014 at 8:16 am
    The quality of this blog has really declined
    You are right about that, especially after that WUWT has been hijacked by Monckton and his ilk, sycophants, and minions.

  317. Well, Chris, if you can find a single person in a British pub (the few that are left) who has a clue what “waxing wroth” means, good luck.

    “Waxing sick” might just rate, except that hardly no-one knows what “waxing” means, unless it relates to body hair removal.

    Since P G Wodehouse died 40 years ago, and much as I love his work (I’m giving you beans here), his idioms are not exactly relevant to contemporary discourse.

    Arthur Brown, who performed on a flaming cross in the 1960s, knew about “waxing wroth.”

    Could I put in a bid for “waning meekth?”

    Sorry if I’ve offended anyone, which I may have done. It’s my “passionate” personality.

    I apologise in advance. But as to specifics – who are you, the Apology Police?

  318. Pamela Gray says:
    July 18, 2014 at 8:20 am

    Notice that the Evans’ graph takes different data series and smoothes them with an 11 year box car filter. If you were to take the same derived and number of noisy random raw data sets, obtained from white noise, and smoothed them with an 11 year box car filter, I wonder if you would get the same kind of sudden change at the ends? I am thinking yes.

    Notice that Mr. Evans stops his 11 year centered moving average (red line) 5 1/2 years before the end of his data, therefore there are no end effects.

    After that, in order to answer the question “what happens if the current low solar activity continues?” He extends his data set with the average of a portion of the most recent data to produce the blue dots that give so many here so much consternation. Mr Evans describes what he is doing in his analysis. It’s only necessary to read what he says and to accept what he says rather than trying to impute some nefarious motive to have a very good idea of what he is actually doing.

  319. Below I made a list of climatic factors which favor cooling. I am in agreement and many in the scientific community (as was evidenced during the recent climatic summit ) are in agreement with the points I am trying to make about the climatic system of the earth using current /historical data to back it up with not to mention many recent new research papers.

    This current solar situation we are now in is going to make matters much clearer going forward.

    Climate factors all favor coolng on balance

    1.Climate Factors Colder Overall When Viewed Objectively
    2.Milankovitch Cycles- favorable for glaciation presently and for the next 4000 years.
    3.Solar Activity – favorable for colder temperatures post 2005 and continuing until at least 2030.
    Solar activity will be high favorable for cooling once the weak maximum of solar
    cycle 24 ends, Will be in the very near future.
    4.Ocean/Land Arrangements- highly favorable for glaciation and colder temperatures presently
    and well into the future.
    5.Solar Secondary Effects- neutral for cooling during the weak maximum of solar cycle 24 will
    become highly favorable going forward when solar cycle 24 maximum
    ends.
    6.Lunar – neutral. I don’t see a strong connection with this factor hence neutral.
    Commentary welcomed.
    7.CO2 – unknown. Higher then when past glaciations were initiated through
    Milankovitch Cycles but unknown if glaciation would have occurred
    back then if CO2 concentrations would have been higher.
    8.Ice Dynamic – unfavorable ,since most of the large ice sheets form the last N.H.
    ice age are gone. Still Greenland is a source.
    9.Earth Magnetic Field- neutral but will be heading toward favorable as this keeps weakening
    gong forward into the future.
    10.When one looks at this picture presented in the above I think it is safe to say the climate is not heading for warmer times but rather toward colder times and the possibility of a return to glacial conditions sometime in the not very distant future is possible.(0- next 4000 years )

  320. What doesn’t kill you, improves you. This solar business has been simmering in genteel fashion for quite some time and was overdue for a hard workout. The over-enthusiastic and poorly supported biased comments are made much more clear under the glaring light and bolded statements than under soothing candle light and soft whispers. Each camp seems over tolerant of its population of biased research, no matter the degrees held or peer reviewed status of the researcher. It all has the rancid taste of gamesmanship to me.

    I give no quarter to either side of the CO2 or Solar driver debate with natural intrinsic variability in the middle. Why? We haven’t fully understood or investigated the middle. How then can we begin to cheerlead these outside influences, let alone recommend policy?????

    I say rankle on about the speculations, proposals, and papers but leave the personal ad hominems behind. There is enough in just the CO2 and Solar “work” to tear apart.

  321. Chris4692 says:
    July 18, 2014 at 8:59 am
    Notice that Mr. Evans stops his 11 year centered moving average (red line) 5 1/2 years before the end of his data, therefore there are no end effects.
    None of this matters, as his basic premise is wrong, namely that TSI has decreased a lot since the 2003-2005 timeframe until today. It has not http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png

  322. The real solar story post 2005 is the dramatic drop off in the AP index to sustained low levels that previously have not occurred as far as duration of time.

    This is a very important indicator of solar magnetic effects here on earth which have an impact on the climate.

    During the 20th century solar magnetic effects were on a tear increasing very significantly. This has all since changed.

    Solar has gone from extremely active before 2005 to extremely quiet post 2005 and this is going to have more climatic impacts as we head forward.

  323. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    July 18, 2014 at 8:55 am
    TSI was off by .15% during the 2008-2010 lull more declines to come going forward.
    And is now up 0.1% since 2009

    IMF got down to around 4.0 that will also be lower going forward.
    And is now [for 2014] 5.5 nT

  324. Chris, my critique stands. Do you know what an 11-yr smoothed filter does to the end of the data sets wherever you choose to end it? And do you know what his calculation was for the average of a “portion” of recent data? What was the portion and what kind of averaging was it? Did he try different kinds of averaging? And did he then compare his statistical result to the raw data to make sure his maneuver was not showing an artifact? I take it you have never done paid for research or put your results to test in peer review. I have. And I had to ask those questions of my work.

  325. This is all about data(past/present), expectations from the data and a given future result due to data. That is what matters and nothing else.

    Time will prove which arguments and presentations are correct and which ones were wrong.

    This is why it is nice to see such completely 180 degree opinions. It should result in making it rather easy to see which of us was on the correct path and which of us were not.

    This should all take place during the course of the current prolonged solar minimum.

    A God Sent as far as finding out the scientific truth.

    .

  326. Chris4692 says:
    July 18, 2014 at 8:59 am
    Notice that Mr. Evans stops his 11 year centered moving average (red line) 5 1/2 years before the end of his data, therefore there are no end effects.
    His ‘data’ [at least the smoothed data] ends in 2008:

    5 1/2 years after that is 2013.5. Where did he get the ‘data’ from for the last years? He made them up. It doesn’t matter that he admits that he made them up. Fabricated data is fabricated data.

  327. All this waxing eloquent about recurring patterns in global mean temperature gives me a headache. Three things are certain: 1) GMT will either rise, it will fall, or it will remain the same; 2) Every trend in GMT likely to be seen within the next several decades — up, down, or flat — has already been seen previously within the last four hundred years, and will likely be seen once again at some point in the future; and 3) Regardless of which way GMT goes over the next several decades — up, down, or flat — the claim will be made by climate scientists that observed temperatures are consistent with climate model predictions.

  328. Chris, let me give an example of potential bias in the selection of statistical maneuvers. I was looking for evoked brainstem responses to high frequency tone busts. These bursts, delivered bia earphones, had a narrow frequency range and sudden onset and offset. We knew enough about human auditory nerve synaptic junctions that we could have done a series of longer and longer box car filters to look for these jumps where we hypothesized they would be (the first through the sixth synaptic junction in the auditory nerve pathway through the lower to upper brainstem). We would have found them and they would have been exact from subject to subject. However, that’s gaming the investigation. Instead we applied a simple averaging. The brainwave random noise from all the electric activity (which the electrodes pick up) cancels out, the periodic synaptic signals (made to do so by the regular auditory signal the subject could hear) add up if they are indeed there. Which one is the robust method of brainstem activity?

  329. And Chris, had I used a boxcar filter method, my paper would have never seen the light of day in peer reviewed journals or the conventions it was presented to. And I would have had the unpleasant experience of having Oregon State University remove it from their library archives of student research.

  330. During this maximum of solar cycle 24 it is amazing that TSI only recovered by .1% from the .15% drop during the recent solar lull and it is equaling amazing that the IMF field is only at 5.5nt.

    I would have thought a further recovery during a solar maximum interval for both items.

  331. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    July 18, 2014 at 9:40 am
    During this maximum of solar cycle 24 it is amazing that TSI only recovered by .1% from the .15% drop during the recent solar lull and it is equaling amazing that the IMF field is only at 5.5nt.
    No, it is not amazing at all. As both values are what we would expect for the weak cycle 24. The sun is doing just what it usually does.

    Salvatore Del Prete says:
    July 18, 2014 at 9:45 am
    If I were a betting man I bet the TSI data for the past 10 years – present will be revised.
    It most certainly will http://www.leif.org/research/DudokdeWit_announcements.pdf and probably upwards a bit [taking ACRIM into account]

  332. @Willis

    Yes I know you remarked on it here, but given the large number of comments both here and at Jo’s, and considering it clearly vexes you in that you feel it is needed to validate the model, don’t you think it worth sending a private email to Dr Evans to ask him where you might find it within the material already released, or if it has not been released to send it you?

    I am not sure, with the greatest of respect to you and this fine blog, he is necessarily trawling every remark or criticism you (or anyone else for that matter) makes in order to determine where he might have fallen short. Remiss of him, I’m sure, but in order to authoritatively criticise a failing in his methods and science, don’t you think it worth making sure you have everything you need to do so? And if you feel you don’t, a politely worded email direct to him (much as you did to Phil jones all those years ago) might get you what you need?

  333. Agnostic says:
    July 18, 2014 at 10:01 am
    don’t you think it worth sending a private email to Dr Evans to ask him where you might find it within the material already released, or if it has not been released to send it you?
    Or better: why doesn’t Evans simply come here and explain himself?

  334. Interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years
    inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides
    F. Steinhilber,1,2 J. A. Abreu,1,2 J. Beer,1,2 and K. G. McCracken3,4
    Received 26 February 2009; revised 19 August 2009; accepted 4 September 2009; published 26 January 2010.
    [1] We have reconstructed the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), its radial component,
    and the open solar magnetic flux using the solar modulation potential derived from
    cosmogenic 10Be radionuclide data for a period covering the past 9300 years.
    Reconstructions using the assumption of both constant and variable solar wind speeds
    yielded closely similar results. During the Maunder Minimum, the strength of the IMF was
    approximately 2 nT compared to a mean value of 6.6 nT for the past 40 years,
    corresponding to an increase of the open solar magnetic flux of about 350%. We examine
    four cycles of the Hallstatt periodicity in the IMF with a mean period of 2250 years
    and an amplitude of 0.75 nT. Grand solar minima have largely occurred in clusters
    during the Hallstatt cycle minima around the years 5300, 3400, 1100, and +1500 A.D.
    The last cluster includes the Dalton, Maunder, and Spo¨rer minima. We predict that the
    next such cluster will occur in about 1500 years. The long-term IMF has varied
    between 2 nT and 8 nT and does not confirm a proposed floor (lower limit). There is a
    slowly changing long-term trend of amplitude 1.5 nT, with a minimum around the year
    4600 and a maximum around 0 A.D. that may be of solar origin but which also may be
    due to unknown long-term changes in the atmospheric effects or geomagnetic field
    intensity.
    Citation: Steinhilber, F., J. A. Abreu, J. Beer, and K. G. McCracken (2010), Interplanetary magnetic field during the past

    Research in this article says

    IMF mean is 6.6nt for pat 40 years and we are at only 5.5 nt during a solar maximum it seems pretty weak to me.

  335. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    July 18, 2014 at 10:04 am
    IMF mean is 6.6nt for pat 40 years and we are at only 5.5 nt during a solar maximum it seems pretty weak to me.
    But very much as expected. For the equally weak SC14 the average IMF was 5.2 nT. Nothing unusual about that.

  336. Lockwood’s latest research supports solar variability along the lines of Willie Soon and may other solar research scientist. Conclusion is solar variability is real and varies by more then .1% which I support 100%.

  337. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    July 18, 2014 at 10:38 am
    If we take years 2008-2014 the IMF field has a range of 4.0nt-5.5nt in contrast to the average IMF of 6.6nt for past 40 years..
    My conclusion weak.

    But not amazing, as cycle 14 was just as weak: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-and-HMF.png

    Salvatore Del Prete says:
    July 18, 2014 at 10:41 am
    Lockwood’s latest research supports solar variability along the lines of Willie Soon and may other solar research scientist.
    As I showed, Lockwood’s model is incorrect. http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.ppt
    Conclusion is solar variability is real and varies by more then .1% which I support 100%.
    That you agree is to the further detriment of Lockwood et al. :-)

  338. I’m not a scientist but I make the effort to learn and follow the climate science discussion. It is a fascinating subject. Climate science is the premier issue of the age and has become a substitute for political discussion we have become jaded with. That is why laymen are invited in to join the discussion.
    Skimming down this post and comments, the takeaway seems to be that the earth is cooling and all the science that says it is warming is a result of bad actors and falsified data.
    This reminds me of years ago listening to Radio Moscow on the short wave for the first time. That world was upside down to what I knew. Voice of America would extol the virtues of private enterprise and Radio Moscow communism. My young mind might as well been listening to Martians. Quite disconcerting.
    I’m sorry, but I cast my lot with the main stream, practicing climate scientist that say the earth is warming and man made CO2 is the primary culprit. The physics of it seem obvious and well known for over a hundred years. It amazes me how you all deny it or call it bogus science.
    It seems clear to me that ice everywhere is losing mass, not gaining; the ocean is warming, sea level rising, and becoming more acidic. The overall climate system continues to gain energy even if the land temperature trend has not risen as fast since 1998. Each decade is still warmer than the one before. Antarctic sea ice on a warming sea is hardly evidence of a cooling world.
    You guys give the pretense of a scientific discussion but just saying that the stuff you don’t like is bogus is hardly having a scientific discussion. If you want a genuine discussion, you can’t just stereotype the “other” side. As part of this comment thread repeated many times, comments should address precisely what is being said.

  339. Avery Harden says:
    July 18, 2014 at 10:54 am
    As part of this comment thread repeated many times, comments should address precisely what is being said.
    Agree completely. However, many comments are not about ‘the science’ but are, to be generous, about peddling the commenter’s agenda or just simply malice.

    • Isvalgaard, I’m new to this discussion, maybe I’m missing something; but is your premise that any warming trend, or cooling as some here seem to presume, is solely dictated by the sun. Do you rule out increasing greenhouse gases as having an effect on temperatures?

  340. I agree re: the Notch Filter author. As a master’s candidate I had to defend my thesis not once but twice, at the beginning (scathing), and at the end, which was not too bad because the initial defense of the proposal gave me such good feedback. I did that while I still had two small children at home and one on the way. A learning attitude is all it takes.

    Does the author of the Notch Filter proposal have such an attitude about his proposal? My opinion has not been solidified yet but I am leaning towards “does not have”. I would hazard a very good guess that this proposal effort would not pass muster with a thesis or dissertation committee. It is expected that the researcher maintain a learning attitude throughout the process, disclose the entire body of work for inspection, and seek the advice of such a committee to improve ones work.

  341. Avery Harden maybe you’re right. I do not know where you live, but if in medium altitudes get ready for the harsh winter, as the previous one in North America.

  342. BTW, Willis, what is a “more Canadian manner”?

    Canada is the land of a violent sports game – hockey, plus fights outside pubs, serial killers, eco-terrorists, mass shootings, road rage, fraudsters and other things you see in the US.
    Canada has fewer inner-city problems (than Detroit and LA for example) but US cities like Seattle do not have much either.

    The notion of Canada being so much nicer is a scam perpetrated by neo-Marxists and believed by naiive people in both countries. The believers tend to have an anti-human psychology, like those you’ve chronicled herein who make wild claims about climate and species.

    Examples of serial killers include child molesters like Clifford Olsen and killers of women on Highway 16 west of Prince George BC (one killer now in court, a strong suspect died in the US, others probably still on the loose). And there’s the killer of an oilfield worker in AB (eco-terrorism), the Squamish Five eco-terrorist group, Karla Homolka the murderous abuser, and the “canal killings” (apparent murder of teenage daughters by parents and brother because they were not obeying strict rules from parents, arranged to look like they drove a car into a canal in ON).

  343. Pamela Gray says:
    July 18, 2014 at 9:19 am

    Chris, my critique stands. Do you know what an 11-yr smoothed filter does to the end of the data sets wherever you choose to end it? And do you know what his calculation was for the average of a “portion” of recent data? What was the portion and what kind of averaging was it? Did he try different kinds of averaging? And did he then compare his statistical result to the raw data to make sure his maneuver was not showing an artifact? I take it you have never done paid for research or put your results to test in peer review. I have. And I had to ask those questions of my work.

    Mr Evans says that he used an 11 year centered moving average. By that I take it to mean that he used an 11 year centered moving average. There is no mystery about the terminology. There is a slight variant, he might have used, but there is no reason for him to have used it here and it would make little difference. Using monthly data I would have called it a 132 month moving average but that’s a minor quibble. A data point 5 years and 7 months after the center of that average would have no effect on the computation of that average, so there is no end effect due to the averaging technique. The computation is stopped with the computed point 5 years and 6 months before the end of the data series. If you have not encountered moving averages in peer reviewed, published, scientific research you do not read much climatological research. The statistics in Climatology are rather more primitive than in the electronics that you apparently work with. Mr Evans extended the data to see what happens based on an assumption that he stated, and differentiated by blue dots rather than a red line.

    Mr Evans also says that he used the raw data in his model, not the moving average. So the moving average amounts to no more than an illustrative visualization technique. Based on Mr Evans’ statements and presentation the red line and the blue dots do not affect the model. The discussions here about those illustrative techniques and how they were calculated amount to so much hand-waving of no consequence.

    My graduate work in Environmental Engineering had a much larger dose of statistics than typical, though it was done in the days of Fortran and Punch cards. My work in Engineering since then has taught me to concentrate on what matters. The details of how red line and the blue dots do do not matter. Mr Svalgaard’s comments on the underlying data are the greater concern: on those I’ll watch for further developments.

  344. last paragraph should include “The details of how the red line and blue dots were calculated do not matter.”

  345. Avery Harden says:
    July 18, 2014 at 10:54 am
    “I’m sorry, but I cast my lot with the main stream, practicing climate scientist that say the earth is warming and man made CO2 is the primary culprit. The physics of it seem obvious and well known for over a hundred years. It amazes me how you all deny it or call it bogus science.
    It seems clear to me that ice everywhere is losing mass, not gaining; the ocean is warming, sea level rising, and becoming more acidic.The overall climate system continues to gain energy even if the land temperature trend has not risen as fast since 1998. Each decade is still warmer than the one before. Antarctic sea ice on a warming sea is hardly evidence of a cooling world.”
    ————————————————————————————————————————–
    You have just repeated every talking point of the warmistas and that is all they are, talking points for the masses.
    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    “Climate science is the premier issue of the age and has become a substitute for political discussion we have become jaded with.”
    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    Another talking point when clearly every poll taken lists climate change very far down the list of issues of concern. The socialization of America, Mideast war, and now a civilian plane being shot down; these are far more serious and relevant issues today. But since you have swallowed the kool aid, you will reject my comments.

    • ren, help me understand your comment and how it relates to mine. I basically commented that the blog thread assumed a cooling world and I pointed out that there was lots of evidence that ice was melting, temps rising, ocean warming and that Antarctica sea ice sitting on a warming sea could not be presumed to be evidence of cooling. So, help me understand your comment related to pressures and comparisons to the “north”. Thanks.

  346. Chris4692 says:
    July 18, 2014 at 11:23 am
    Mr Svalgaard’s comments on the underlying data are the greater concern: on those I’ll watch for further developments.
    As I pointed out in my very first comments the ‘construction’ of the composite TSI record by Evans has severe problems. There are now very strong evidence that the Sun’s magnetic field determines the variations of TSI. We have several ways of assessing the Sun’s magnetic field, e.g. by the field [HMF B] in the solar wind and by the field on the Sun’s surface [given by the sunspot number SSN]. From that we can reconstruct TSI. Here are my best estimates of HMF B, SSN, and TSI since the 1840s [covering the interval where the data is good enough for this]: http://www.leif.org/research/SSS-HMF-TSI-Evans.png
    On the middle TSI plot, I also show the centered 11-yr running average [same method as Evans, and suffering the same defects, except without any fabricated data at the end].
    The bottom panel shows Evans’ graph of the quantities involved. It is sufficiently different to make me doubt the validity of his analysis. I proposed to derive the parameter set using my TSI and then run Evans’ model, but without luck, as it has not been ‘revealed’ [like tablets from the mountain] how to do this.

  347. Cycle 14 was much stronger then solar cycle 24 as one can see from looking at various data sources.

    Lockwood’s latest research shows clearly that solar variability is a given and that solar activity was much lower during the Maunder Minimum then the 2008-2010 lull and for a much longer time period.

    HE is confirming all of my thoughts and I expect my solar criteria to be met as this prolonged solar minimum continues.

  348. Data for sunspots shows that solar cycle 24 has had less sunspots then solar cycle 14 for 44 months out of the first 60 months. This recent blip in solar cycle 24 just that a blip in my opinion.

    Not to mention the AP index which has been lower and for a much longer time duration for solar cycle 24 versus solar cycle 14.

    Going forward I expect solar cycle 24 activity to become less then much less then solar cycle 14 activity as far as sunspots are concerned.

  349. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    July 18, 2014 at 12:24 pm
    Cycle 14 was much stronger then solar cycle 24 as one can see from looking at various data sources.
    Not so: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png

    Lockwood’s latest research shows clearly that solar variability is a given
    Sure. But his model for the early part is wrong.

    Not to mention the AP index which has been lower and for a much longer time duration for solar cycle 24 versus solar cycle 14.
    Nonsense, as we are only halfway into SC24. And, as is usually the case, the Ap index will likely increase to a high during the declining phase:

  350. jo

    ‘The graph of smoothed TSI is merely a check to explain why there was a steep fall in the model. The model does not use 11 year smoothing, nor does it use the “red line” as Willis claims (“…David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line”):. I have explained this before, here on WUWT and to Willis. ”

    This is why I have repeatedly ask for the data and code used to create the model.

    not the code FOR the model\
    BUT the data and code used to CREATE the model

    That is the central claim

  351. “Mr Evans says that he used an 11 year centered moving average. By that I take it to mean that he used an 11 year centered moving average. There is no mystery about the terminology. There is a slight variant, he might have used, but there is no reason for him to have used it here and it would make little difference. Using monthly data I would have called it a 132 month moving average but that’s a minor quibble. A data point 5 years and 7 months after the center of that average would have no effect on the computation of that average, so there is no end effect due to the averaging technique. The computation is stopped with the computed point 5 years and 6 months before the end of the data series. If you have not encountered moving averages in peer reviewed, published, scientific research you do not read much climatological research. The statistics in Climatology are rather more primitive than in the electronics that you apparently work with. Mr Evans extended the data to see what happens based on an assumption that he stated, and differentiated by blue dots rather than a red line.

    Mr Evans also says that he used the raw data in his model, not the moving average. So the moving average amounts to no more than an illustrative visualization technique. Based on Mr Evans’ statements and presentation the red line and the blue dots do not affect the model. The discussions here about those illustrative techniques and how they were calculated amount to so much hand-waving of no consequence.”

    lots of asssumptions.

    I renew my question to david and jo.

    will they release the data as USED and the code as RUN to CONSTRUCT the model.

    simple.

    then folks will see exactly how it was done

  352. As the data just presented shows the AP index for solar cycle 14 was much shorter in duration of time then solar cycle 24 is thus far. Chances are the AP index will head even lower going forward not higher as solar cycle 24 maximum passes by.

  353. The data shows that for most of the first 60 months the sunspot number has been lower for sunspot cycle 24 then for solar cycle14. This recent blip brought solar cycle 24 sunspot activity higher for a few months but this likely will not last. Meantime the AP index remains in the tank, and will likely stay in the tank going forward..

  354. As the data just presented shows the AP index for solar cycle 14 was much shorter in duration of time then solar cycle 24 is thus far. Chances are the AP index will head even lower going forward not higher as solar cycle 24 maximum passes by.

    Correction – I meant to say the AP index minimum for solar cycle 14 was much shorter in duration

  355. From the graph below follows that ozone regeneration lasted from 1990 to 2002, so 12 years, since 2002, occurs a regression of ozone.

    Ozone regeneration time depending on changes in the UV can be an important factor in climate change.

  356. Agnostic says:
    July 18, 2014 at 10:01 am
    @Willis

    Yes I know you remarked on it here, but given the large number of comments both here and at Jo’s, and considering it clearly vexes you in that you feel it is needed to validate the model, don’t you think it worth sending a private email to Dr Evans to ask him where you might find it within the material already released, or if it has not been released to send it you?

    #########################

    Willis, myself and others have been asking for the same thing. But without any luck.

    There are TWO main scientific claims in Evans work.

    Claim 1. Using some referenced data and verbally described methods, Evans derived a model.
    Claim 2. This model can be used to predict /forecast the global temperatures in the out years.

    These are TWO different claims and need to be evaluated seperately.

    Claim 1 can be examined TODAY. we need the data AS USED and the METHOD (code) as Performed. Not a description of where to find the data, but the values, the actual file used.
    And we dont need a description of the method, we need the code as run.

    Claim 2 cannot be asssessed for years.

    The materials for claim 2 have been released. the materials for claim 1 have not.

    Willis asked for the out of sample testing. he was assured it was done. The data was promised but not delivered. I suspect it is in Mann’s censored folder.

  357. “Allegations of this sort have no place in civilized scientific discourse.”

    mendacious twits, both of them

  358. Willis Eschenbach says “Mending Fences”. Posted on July 16, 2014by Willis Eschenbach
    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
    ++++++++++++++++
    “Mending Fences”, ???

    Is this head post some inane joke?

  359. Lord

    ‘Bizarrely, Mr Eschenbach continues to insist that Dr Evans has not published his full model, even though Dr Evans has done so. If Mr Eschenbach were to study the model and the related material that has been made available, he will find full explanations of the parametrizations chosen by Dr Evans. Should he be in any doubt, he can write – politely, if possible – to Dr Evans asking for any specific information he has been unable to locate in what is a large corpus of work, whereupon (provided that he ceases his imprudent and unjustifiable campaign here and elsewhere against Dr Evans), he will no doubt obtain the information he demands in so unfortunate, unpleasant and public a manner.”

    Willis and I have been asking for the same thing and Dr. Evans refuses, in Mannian manner, to refuse the release of the material.

    In his series of posts Dr. Evans made two different claims.

    Claim 1. He claimed to derive a model using data and a series of methods. he claimed that out of sample testing was conducted in making this model.

    Claim 2. He claims that the model will predict temperatures.

    As I’ve pointed out here and at Jo’s these are two different claims. Claim 2 cannot be tested today. Claim 1 can be tested.

    Dr. Evans has released the model which allows people to assess claim 2. But claim 2 rests on claim 1. And Willis has been clear in his requests for the information in support of claim 1.

    We would like to see and have asked for

    1. The out of sample testing performed. This was promised but has not been delievered
    2. The actual data used.
    3. The actual steps in code used to CREATE the model.

    This is no different than the requests we have made of mann and santer.

  360. I say from models, to solar strength or weakness relative to other cycles ,to solar/climate connections there is no agreement and this is how it will remain until this prolonged solar minimum clears up matters one way or the other.

    This site is once again good because it is giving everyone a fair chance to express his/her opinion as much as one likes. Can’t ask for more then that.

  361. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    July 18, 2014 at 12:49 pm
    I say Lockwood’s model is sound.
    Well, you have no standing to say so. You have no experience in these matters, have not published anything, have no background, and generally have just fallen for confirmation bias. So, say want you want, believe what you want, but don’t think that that is science. And please hold back on your flood of comments that are all off topic for the article posted.

  362. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    July 18, 2014 at 1:26 pm
    This site is once again good because it is giving everyone a fair chance to express his/her opinion as much as one likes. Can’t ask for more then that.
    But you should stay on the topic, and you generally don’t.

    • Avery Harden:

      In the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 I argue that in the period which
      ended with the publication of IPCC Assessment Report 5 climatologists of the main stream reached their conclusions about global warming through applications of the equivocation fallacy. Refute it if you can.

  363. lsvalgaard says: July 18, 2014 at 1:27 pm
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    An appeal to his own authority, typical. Note well this…. lsvalgaard has not proved his laughable assertion that the claims by Evans are FRADULENT.

  364. Steven Mosher says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/mending-fences/#comment-1689060

    Henry says
    We really don’t need any models. Any kid from the street who knows a bit about stats and earth physics can figure it out for himself that the world is cooling. ….

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    Note that the final results on the bottom of all three tables show a cooling trend and the results in the last table suggest that there cannot be any man made warming…..there is no room for it in the equation…..

    Cannot believe you guys are still arguing endlessly about the [useless] TSI and SS numbers.

    Why don’t you try to pair off the drop in the solar magnetic field strengths

    with the deceleration in maximum temperatures?

    @Avery Harden
    Truth is that 97% of all climate scientists are BS because their jobs and even my pension depends on it being true. It is BIG MONEY.

  365. @Steven Mosher

    Willis, myself and others have been asking for the same thing. But without any luck.

    I absolutely understand that you and Willis (and others) feel you need this data, or at least some indication of where to find it with the already released material. I can see that point of view and it seems eminently reasonable. What doesn’t seem reasonable to me is to imply that Dr Evans is ‘withholding’ or ‘hiding’ the information you are so keen on seeing because he hasn’t responded to blog comments.

    Willis asked for the out of sample testing. he was assured it was done. The data was promised but not delivered. I suspect it is in Mann’s censored folder.

    ….and see, to me, that comment in bold strikes me as “mendacious” to borrow a term Christopher Monckton is fond of using. I may be wrong, but it does not seem to me that either you or Willis or Leif have really taken the time and trouble to understand what is going on with Dr Evans model. As a consequence conclusions have been jumped to and a vast amount of energy has been wasted on trying to get those we count on to do honest unbiased analysis to look at it objectively.

    It would benefit us all if that could be done. I really don’t know if Dr Evans model is valid and I don’t have the time or tools easily to hand to find out for myself. Guys like yourself and most especially Willis, who has become something of a “laymans champion”, are who people like myself, with enough technical knowledge to follow most discussions, but maybe not enough to undertake them, look to to do those kinds of analyses. But it is obvious to me Willis hasn’t understood what has been attempted and has backed himself into a corner with what are strawman arguments. I would be inclined to give Dr Evans the benefit of the doubt (as I did to climate scientists who were making extraordinary claims about anthropogenic warming) and assume that he knows what he is talking about and is not some naive newbie. If something strikes you as odd, then concluding immediately that it is a “newbie” mistake doesn’t convince us that you have understood what is going on, only that you have jumped to conclusions He may still be wrong, but the manner and content of the arguments being put forth aren’t getting it done. This is what I am finding so disappointing, the discussion and argument is not being conducted honestly.

    It would be better if you just said: “Look, I don’t understand what he has done, and I don’t have time or inclination to fully parse it in order to make an informed and objective assessment.”

    I would even accept you (or Willis) saying; “in order to take any analysis further, I have emailed Dr Evans to request the location of data I require that would help me understand what is going on the model and test it. Until I have reply with the information I need I am in no position to comment on its veracity.”

    If he doesn’t respond and continues not to respond to a direct emailed request, I think you would then be in a position to say that the model is without merit because it can’t tested properly. But complaining that he hasn’t provided you with the information, when he has said he has, and complaining on blog comments without directly contacting Dr Evans, is pretty poor form to say the very very least.

  366. @Avery Harden
    Truth is that 97% of all climate scientists are BS because their jobs and even my pension depends on it being true. It is BIG MONEY.
    That should actually read
    Truth is that 97% of all climate scientists are BS’rs because their jobs and even my pension depends on man made warming being true. It is BIG MONEY.

    Note that all current results [never mind my own]

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    show that global cooling will continue. Those that honestly think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever.
    if you are interested you can read some of my musings here:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/

    On same issue, there are those that argue that it is better to be safe than sorry; but, really, as things are looking now, they are now also beginning to stand in the way of progress. You still pointing to melting arctic ice and NH glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.

    Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

    Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. Antarctic ice is already increasing.

    To those actively involved in trying to suppress the temperature results as they are available on-line from official sources, I say: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me. Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.

    It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

    Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……

  367. johanna says:
    July 18, 2014 at 8:58 am

    Well, Chris, if you can find a single person in a British pub (the few that are left) who has a clue what “waxing wroth” means, good luck.
    =====================================
    You can find me in a British pub; I know what it means. And if you ask me really nicely, I’ll tell you the name of the pub.

    Monckton of Brenchley – Remember, never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it. ;-)

  368. How come 97% of climate scientists have a consistent and unified understanding of how the climate works and the other 3% spend their time name-calling, arguing and defending their pet theories?

  369. Avery Harden says:
    July 18, 2014 at 10:54 am

    For the purposes of discussion I accept and accede to everything you said.

    My question to you is what sort of weather/climate should we be expecting to have at the now 11,717 year old Holocene interglacial?

    If you haven’t been keeping up, 11,500 years would be exactly half a precession cycle. Seven of the last eight warmings to the interglacial level have each lasted about half a precession cycle.

    From my research on the subject the jury is still out on whether or not we will end up having an extended interglacial, like that eighth one, which was MIS-11, the Holsteinian interglacial.

    What would appear to be fairly certain is that if the Holocene is winding down, approaching its normal natural end, then:

    “The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”!

    conclude Neuman and Hearty (1996) http://www.researchgate.net/publication/249518169_Rapid_sea-level_changes_at_the_close_of_the_last_interglacial_(substage_5e)_recorded_in_Bahamian_island_geology/file/9c96051c6e66749912.pdf

    There are actually two answers to the question I posed to you. (1) If the Holocene is winding up to wind down then next up is the climatic “madhouse” known as glacial inception, with up to at least 3 major thermal excursions, the last one, so far, always being the strongest with sea level highstands that can be anywhere from 1 to 2 orders of magnitude higher than the IPCC’s worst case scenario known as “business as usual”, meaning we do nothing at all about CO2.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/29/glacial-inception/

    (2) However the second answer is far more interesting. If the IPCC is right about anthropogenic warming, then Ruddiman’s 2003 Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis is probably also correct. Muller and Pross (2007) sum it up well:

    “The possible explanation as to why we are still in an interglacial relates to the early anthropogenic hypothesis of Ruddiman (2003, 2005). According to that hypothesis, the anomalous increase of CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere as observed in mid- to late Holocene ice-cores results from anthropogenic deforestation and rice irrigation, which started in the early Neolithic at 8000 and 5000 yr BP, respectively. Ruddiman proposes that these early human greenhouse gas emissions prevented the inception of an overdue glacial that otherwise would have already started.”

    conclude Muller and Pross (2007) http://folk.uib.no/abo007/share/papers/eemian_and_lgi/mueller_pross07.qsr.pdf

    Avery, this simply cannot be had both ways, I hope you understand. Either CO2 can, and indeed may already have, prevented an overdue glacial inception, or it cannot and THAT climatic “madhouse” is what lies ahead. No matter how you try to cut it, that is literally all that the climate debates come down to, period.

    What we are playing here is climate poker. The dealer calls for cards. You draw the ‘wild card’ known as CO2/AGW. Do you think you have a ‘pat’ hand?’

    I draw Sirocko and Seelos (2005):

    “Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..”

    “The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the [glacial] inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”

    http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf

    As you are to the dealer’s right, it’s your bet. Check your hand and your stacks of chips (civilization as we know it). If you are right, and you decide to “go all in” make absolutely sure you understand the stakes. Being right about both CO2 and its removal from the late Holocene atmosphere means you just took the only thing so far on the table that might get us across the ~4,000 year insolation gap “before it then increases again.”

    We are waiting…………..

    While we are waiting, we are discussing what in essence might be the very tipping point everyone is afraid of, but of the opposite sign of the one expected. Insolation today is very close to that at the glacial inceptions known for the end-Eemian and end-Holsteinian interglacials. Now if the sun really does look to go even quieter in coming years AND we throttle CO2 ASAP, could this be all that is needed to tip us into glacial inception?

    Bet you didn’t see that one coming.

  370. Agnostic says:
    July 18, 2014 at 1:48 pm
    it does not seem to me that either you or Willis or Leif have really taken the time and trouble to understand what is going on with Dr Evans model.
    Since he has not released how the parameter set is constructed, one cannot try to understand the model, but my point is not the model as such, but that the data used very likely are not correct, and that garbage in – garbage out follows. Now, I have offered Evans what I believe is data closer to reality, but to no avail. One can argue that my data is also wrong, but another dataset would offer a sensitivity test of the model, something Evans should do as part of a scientific approach in any case. If the code had been released, I could do this sensitivity test myself, but, alas, as things stand, I cannot. Nor can anybody else with their preferred dataset. This is my problem with Evans work. In addition, it is not credible that Evans had no idea that the reconstructions of TSI are controversial. If he claims that he had no idea, then that shows a lack of competence.

  371. Does everybody here know something I don’t? Why is it that nobody seems astonished that Dr. Evans won’t release the code and data Willis and Steven keep asking for and put the matter to rest? Seriously, does he not have it? Or is it that he has it but is worried about releasing it for some reason? What on earth is happening here?

  372. Mark Bofill says:
    July 18, 2014 at 3:14 pm
    Seriously, does he not have it?
    Over on his blog I asked him directly whether the determination of the parameter set was done by code, i.e. a model, or if it was just manual random fiddling with 11 parameters until the result looked as desired [“with four parameters I can fit an elephant, with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”]. Never got an answer…

  373. let me take some time to remind people why willis and I demand the

    1.data AS USED
    2. code AS RUN

    The first one is simple. Suppose I tell you that I used GISS, and I gave you a link to the dataset
    and said ‘go fetch’. Is that good enough for me to test your claim?

    Does anybody remember, does anyone here remember the first man to FOIA Jones?
    Huh? any of you? It was willis. Why? because we asked for the data and Jones pointed us to the pile where he claimed it resided. And Willis rightly recognized that pointing at the pile was not good enough. We needed to know, we needed a copy of the data that jones actually used.

    Returning to GISS, suppose I tell you that I used GISS data. Is that good enough? No.
    why not? Because the data may have and probably has changed from the time I downloaded it.

    So we ask for the data AS USED. not because we cant go to a link. but because we want to eliminate sources of error. Evans used data to make his model. he needs to post copies of that data as Used. This prevents us from making mistakes when we evaluate his work.

    next we want the code as run. we want the code used to CREATE the model.
    Dr. Evans offers instead a verbal description of mathematical operations. This is not good enough since the best record of what was done is the ACTUAL CODE AS RUN.

    Now why do we ask for the code as run.

    here is another story none of you remember.

    I give a hint. remember the email where Jones describes why Steve mcintyre cannot replicate his results. an undisclosed variance correction.

    Dear Phil,

    In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other multiproxy
    publications, I’ve been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is obviously
    more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially emulate
    your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the
    early periods.

    Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available materials, I
    would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well as the
    code used in these calculations.

    There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some distinguished
    economists, here [1]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf discussing the
    issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts in
    respect to MBH98.

    Regards, Steve McIntyre

    Mike,
    Presumably you’ve seen all this – the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email from
    McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m concerned he has the data – sent ages ago. I’ll
    tell him this, but that’s all – no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of
    lines of
    uncommented fortran ! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series.
    I know why he can’t replicate the results early on – it is because there was a variance
    correction for fewer series.
    See you in Bern.
    Cheers
    Phil

  374. “.and see, to me, that comment in bold strikes me as “mendacious” to borrow a term Christopher Monckton is fond of using. I may be wrong, but it does not seem to me that either you or Willis or Leif have really taken the time and trouble to understand what is going on with Dr Evans model. ”

    well you would be wrong.
    in the second place There is no OBLIGATION to try to understand what he has written when the PROOF is in the data and code.

    so, yes I read it.
    yes, I understand it.
    Now, i want to do a SIMPLE CHECK
    I want to check that his CODE matches the description of it.

    he made a claim. I under stand it. Now I want to see his work.

    Did you not learn to show your work?

    the work is simple The data he used, the code he ran,

    for craps sake guys.. not a single one of you gave Willis or steve crap when they went after Jones and hansen or Mann for their stuff.

  375. I’m catching up, sorry I haven’t been following this closely until now. JoNova links his excerpts that talks about a ‘monkey’, (sounds like a routine that randomly fiddles the parameters until the output matches the observations to me (Appendix L1)) and a couple of other stages, the details behind this text is what the parameter discussion is about, right?

  376. lsvalgaard says: July 18, 2014 at 3:20 pm
    Never got an answer…”
    ++++++++++++++++++++
    Moncton has it right regarding the treacherous, duplicitous behavior by svalgaard to wit,

    ” However, if I were Dr Evans I should be most disinclined to reply unless and until that commenter had published – here and at Jo Nova’s excellent website – an unreserved, unqualified and full apology for and retraction of all remarks he had made in support of the allegations that Dr Evans had acted “almost fraudulently” or had “fabricated” data or had unreasonably withheld it.”

  377. Mark Bofill says:
    July 18, 2014 at 3:42 pm
    JoNova links his excerpts that talks about a ‘monkey’, (sounds like a routine that randomly fiddles the parameters until the output matches the observations to me)

    So, just good old curve fitting with no physics. Evans says:
    “We arrived at parameter set P25 as the one to represent the solar model to the world, but please be aware that its selection was partly ad hoc and arbitrary, it might not contain the true parameter values, and it wasn’t even the set with the best fit to the temperature data.”

    If so, the result is VERY sensitive to the solar input data. As I said: GIGO.
    There is no model, only curve fitting with enough free parameters to fit anything.

  378. Richard D, funny. Were I Dr. Evans, I’d be more inclined to show clearly and methodically why I was right and Dr. Svalgaard was wrong. Maybe that’s just me though.

  379. Dr. Svalgaard, that’s how I read it too. This is not my field though, so I freely admit the possibility that I’m just misunderstanding what I’m looking at, if someone wants to jump in and explain how fiddling with the parameters until the results match the observations is something more.

  380. Mark Bofill says:
    July 18, 2014 at 4:01 pm
    if someone wants to jump in and explain how fiddling with the parameters until the results match the observations is something more.
    Perhaps Richard D [or Mr Monckton himself] can educate us on this, if Evans is ‘disinclined’…

  381. lsvalgaard says: July 18, 2014 at 4:04 pm “Perhaps Richard D [or Mr Monckton himself] can educate us on this”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Try and stay on topic as you so admonished the op up thread. We were discussing “Mending Fences”, :)

  382. You girls are a laugh. Treat Dr. Evans with absolutely horse shit attitude then chastise him for not crawling over to this blog and explain himself. Har har…….

    The operative word in the title of this thread is MENDING!

    Where the -all is the MENDING WillASS?

    Saalllvagaarrd is whinging, the psuede-o-skeptic Mosher is positively giddy at jamming a wedge in anything that splits and weakens true skeptics and you Willis, have explained yourself with alarming clarity, repeatedly (with that fire hose) wondering why you aren’t making friends (something I imagine you’ve had problems with all your life).

    Yes I can imagine why Dr Evans wants desperately to help you out.

    Keep going girls, it’s Friday night and I can’t enjoy summer because of climate cooling. I need more humor.

  383. Well, OK. Maybe wondering about ‘the monkey’ is off topic.

    It seems to me that a couple of Willis’s main points, getting back to the science, are…

    • One of the spliced datasets is the Lean TSI reconstruction, an outdated dataset that the authors of the reconstruction themselves admit is inaccurate.

    • Another is the PMOD dataset. It is known to be reading low by 0.2 W/ms at the solar minimum, introducing a spurious apparently strong recent “cooling” where none exists.

    …that there are problems with Lean TSI and PMOD.

    I read over here http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/

    Lean 2000, PMOD, and ACRIM are mainstream datasets. The datasets for the critical period from the mid 1980s on are basically the PMOD and ACRIM measurements. Svalgaard implies these measurements are “totally wrong”, while putting forward only reconstructions to cover the period before 2003. So, this is a case of measurements vs reconstruction.

    and gather that Dr. Evans stands by the choice of these datasets. Unless I’m reading something out of date there.

    So this seems to boil down to a question of fact. Are these datasets good? Are there problems with them? Are they useful for this purpose, or do they compromise the results?

    I guess it’s time for me to go learn something about them.

  384. Richard D says:
    July 18, 2014 at 4:16 pm
    Try and stay on topic as you so admonished the op up thread. We were discussing “Mending Fences”, :)
    “if someone wants to jump in and explain how fiddling with the parameters until the results match the observations is something more.”
    If Evans would do this, that would be a step on the way to mending fences.

  385. Mark Bofill says:
    July 18, 2014 at 4:35 pm
    So this seems to boil down to a question of fact. Are these datasets good? Are there problems with them? Are they useful for this purpose, or do they compromise the results?
    I guess it’s time for me to go learn something about them.

    Here is my list of arguments for reconstructing TSI:
    Recent advances in reconstructions of solar activity can be described thus [I’ll number them for easy reference. Papers and analyses can be given for each point, but are better presented if and when a point is up for discussion]:
    1) Variations of TSI are the result of variations of the Sun’s magnetic field.
    2) The sunspot number is a very good measure of solar magnetic fields.
    3) Variation of the UV flux is due to variations of the Sun’s magnetic field.
    4) The F10.7 microwave flux is a very good proxy for the UV flux and it is at the same level at every solar minimum.
    5) The variation of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field is caused by the UV and is a very good proxy for said UV since 1781.
    6) The solar magnetic field is dragged out into the heliosphere and can be measured directly by spacecraft or almost as accurately by its effect on the Earth’s ring current (Van Allen Belts) whose magnetic effect can be measured on the ground, since 1830s.
    7) The magnetic effects caused by the solar wind can also be monitored at auroral latitudes, allowing determination of both the solar wind magnetic field and the solar wind speed. Different research groups agree on these determinations.
    8) Cosmic Rays modulation depends [inversely] largely on the heliospheric magnetic field.
    9) These various determinations [by several researchers] of the solar magnetic field agree, so we know with good accuracy the solar magnetic field back to at least the 1830s, and hence also TSI.
    10) The sunspot number has recently been revised and the result is that solar activity in each of the centuries 18 to 20 is very similar: a minimum about every 100 years near the turn of the centuries and a local maximum in mid-century.
    11) There is therefore no Modern Grand Maximum.
    12) A result of all of the above is that solar activity reaches almost the same low level at every solar minimum.
    13) Early reconstructions of TSI assumed that the solar cycle variation was riding on a varying background level which itself varied as a function of solar activity
    14) This background was assumed to be caused by a solar-cycle dependent emergence of small magnetic [so-called] ephemeral regions. Modern measurements show that this assumption is false and that the emergence rate of ephemeral regions is almost constant in time and thus does not vary with solar activity.
    15) Thus, reconstructions that show varying background level [e.g. Lean, Krivova, Wang, and others] are not correct, and conclusions based on them are similarly suspect.
    16) All our determinations show that solar activity recently is very much the same as a century ago.
    17) This means that the decrease of solar activity from the 1870s to the 1910s is very much similar to the decrease from 1980 to now. In particular, TSI now is very likely the same as it was 100 years ago

  386. Bill Illis says:
    July 18, 2014 at 5:53 pm
    Dr. Evans released his datasets and code here (10 days ago for those with faulty memories).
    No, he didn’t. What is missing is how to construct the ‘parameter set’, which is the MODEL. Without that, the code to just RUN the model is useless.

  387. lsvalgaard says:
    July 18, 2014 at 5:59 pm
    ——————–

    I think you are still trying to argue that solar activity/TSI is not down when it clearly is.

    There is a possibility your solar model is not accurate you know or is there no chance at all.

  388. Bill Illis says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:11 pm
    I think you are still trying to argue that solar activity/TSI is not down when it clearly is.
    You are too vague. TSI is generally down the past 40 years, but TSI the past decade is up.

    There is a possibility your solar model is not accurate you know or is there no chance at all.
    There is always that chance, but the date constructed by Evans is definitely wrong. This is not question about chance.

  389. lsvalgaard says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:16 pm
    Bill Illis says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:11 pm
    I think you are still trying to argue that solar activity/TSI is not down when it clearly is.
    You are too vague. TSI is generally down the past 40 years, but TSI the past decade is up.
    ———————-

    TSI in the past decade?

    There is a solar cycle you know and TSI is way down from the peak of the last solar cycle. It is down 0.55 W/m2.

    When did it start becoming a lower number?

  390. Bill Illis says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:19 pm
    There is a solar cycle you know and TSI is way down from the peak of the last solar cycle. It is down 0.55 W/m2.
    Central to Evans’ claim of the sharp drop in temperature [0.5C] is his contention that from the 2003-2005 timeframe until today, TSI has decreased substantially. Note his annotation on the bottom panel of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-HMF-TSI-Evans.png
    This is not correct. TSI has increased since then

    which means that neither TSI, nor temperatures are ‘falling off a cliff’

  391. lsvalgaard says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:26 pm
    ———

    You are comparing 2003 which was on the down-side of the last solar cycle with today which is at the peak of the solar cycle.

    It is like comparing 3/4 the way through a cycle with a 2/4 way through. It is disingenuous.

  392. Bill Illis says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:31 pm
    You are comparing 2003 which was on the down-side of the last solar cycle with today which is at the peak of the solar cycle. It is like comparing 3/4 the way through a cycle with a 2/4 way through. It is disingenuous.
    No, I am not. Evans is making that comparison. Tell him It is disingenuous. Do you even look at the links I provide?

  393. lsvalgaard says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:34 pm
    Bill Illis says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:31 pm
    No, I am not. Evans is making that comparison. Tell him It is disingenuous. Do you even look at the links I provide?
    ——————

    I look at all the links you provide.

    You are the one being disingenuous.

  394. lsvalgaard says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:34 pm
    ———————–

    Show us TSI from 2000 to June 2014.

  395. Bill Illis says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:37 pm
    You are the one being disingenuous.
    Do you get and understand that it is Evans who is making the claim that TSI since 2003-2005 to today has fallen off?

  396. lsvalgaard says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:42 pm
    Do you get and understand that it is Evans who is making the claim that TSI since 2003-2005 to today has fallen off?
    You evaded to answer the question

  397. Mosher is sticking a wedge in between skeptics?

    1. Willis is a heretic not a skeptic
    2. If I were so what. The request is valid
    3. I treat everyone the same. Show your work.

    Why? Well we know from empirical studies that authors cannot reproduce their own work it a disturbingly high percentage of cases.

    Every excuse I hear here for not sharing code I have heard before. From Mann. From Jones. From scaffetta.
    Every personal attack I’ve heard before from warmests

    Lame excuses pathetic attacks.

  398. Bill Illis says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:54 pm
    Looks kind of “down” to me. Maybe I’m missing something, but then down is down.
    Fact is that Evans claims a much larger decrease than there really is. Plus that he claims that TSI decreased sharply from 2003-2005 until now, while in reality TSI increased. See the little black arrow in the bottom panel. In reality it is up [see the little black arrow in the middle panel].

  399. lsvalgaard says:
    July 18, 2014 at 7:01 pm
    Bill Illis says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:54 pm
    Looks kind of “down” to me. Maybe I’m missing something, but then down is down.
    Fact is that Evans claims a much larger decrease than there really is. Plus that he claims that TSI decreased sharply from 2003-2005 until now, while in reality TSI increased.
    ——————–

    Just to use your method of timeline cherrypicking, how much did TSI decline from 2003-2005 to 2008-2009.

  400. Dr. Svalgaard,

    Here is my list of arguments for reconstructing TSI:

    Thank you. I might end up learning a thing or two about Sun if I keep this up despite myself. :)

  401. Bill Illis says:
    July 18, 2014 at 7:08 pm
    Just to use your method of timeline cherrypicking, how much did TSI decline from 2003-2005 to 2008-2009.
    See for yourself http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-HMF-TSI-Evans.png
    Evans picked 2003-2005 and 2013-2014, not me.
    But we can easily answer your cherry picked timeline
    Average TSI 2003-2005: 1360.93
    2008-2009: 1360.58, i.e. down 0.35
    2013-2014: 1361.35, i.e. up 0.77

    Do you get and understand that it is Evans who is making the claim that TSI since 2003-2005 to today has fallen off? You have evaded answering twice now.

  402. Reply to Mosher ==> There *is* no justification for this: “why willis and I demand…..”

    Nothing whatever gives either of you any right to demand anything of anyone.

    You do have the right, like anyone else, to politely contact a colleague directly and privately and ask for clarifications and/or to request copies or pointers to original data sets and code used in a piece of scientific work you are interested in. The preferred public communication on such would be a blog comment something like “I have contacted Dr So-and-so by email and asked for copies of original data and code used in his calculation. I’ll let you know in a few days the results of this request.”

    Writing angry or ill-mannered posts on a blog or blogs making demands of others is not collegial science — especially if one already owes others direct personal apologies for public statements made “in the heat of the moment” — although, truthfully, there should *never* be any such.

    There are many examples of citizen scientists who exhibit exemplary skills in interpersonal communication — who are careful about what they say, remember to be polite, grant others the respect they would have granted to themselves, etc. You will notice that they seldom get themselves into this kind of mess.

  403. No it’s just BS. The freak in somebody formerly formally normal strikes out, idiotically, as a shitty PR stunt.

    “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more; it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” – William Shakespeare (Macbeth, 1606)

    “When I reflect on the fact that I have made my appearance by accident upon a globe itself whirled through space as the sport of the catastrophes of the heavens, when I see myself surrounded by beings as ephemeral and incomprehensible as I am myself, and all excitedly pursuing pure chimeras, I experience a strange feeling of being in a dream. It seems to me as if I have loved and suffered and that erelong I shall die, in a dream. My last word will be, I have been dreaming.” —Madame Ackermann (Pensées d’un Solitaire quoted in The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, 1902)

  404. TomB says:
    July 17, 2014 at 6:47 am
    “I find that my true friends are the ones with the courage to tell me when I’m wrong.”

    I disagree. A true friend knows how to remove a roadblock in one’s thinking, or reveal a blindspot, with love and understanding and tact. Too many people think as you do, that they have an obligation to display the courage you speak of otherwise they are not much of a friend. They might further this thought by saying that if the telling of the wrongness causes offence then the friendship was not very strong anyway. Both thoughts are erroneous and destructive. “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” Proverbs 15:1

  405. Lame excuses pathetic attacks.
    Lame? No I nailed you as a phoney skeptic. You are warmist through and through.
    Pathetic attacks?
    No because you are what I said you are. That isn’t pathetic, you are pathetic.

  406. hunter [July 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm] says:

    … I chose the name ‘hunter’ when I started posting on that internet thingy nearly 15 years ago as a play on words. I liked to hunt as a kid, I like to hunt for truth. And at the time I had recently been a prosecution witness in a murder trial. I was trying to be a bit lower profile since the convicted defendant was found to be asking his pals to look me up for a chit chat. But the internet beckoned and I wanted to post but not be hunted down, as it were. I stuck with my handle out of habit. Now I am in an industry that has taken a strongly different stand from mine on climate. And I have had clients stop doing business with me. I don’t need to face a career limiting situation over expressing my thoughts and so I stick with my long time handle.

    Hunter is exactly correct. Folks should completely disregard any of this incredibly bad, almost criminal advice to “come out” and drop the alias and post in their own name. More often than not I am personally a big fan of Willis but in this regard no-one is wearing a thicker pair of rose-colored glasses. I mean, just review very recent events in real life …

    * IRS targeting of certain groups.
    * National Security infiltration of every facet of the Internet and beyond.
    * Moderately skeptical scientists getting fired and treated like pariahs.
    * Discussion (so far just talk) of skeptics’ family life and children.
    * Creepy activists showing up unannounced in person (as alluded to by Anthony himself)

    … pretty much every possible thing that one should worry about has already occurred and yet the cognitive dissonance is still strong enough in some otherwise brilliant people to pursue the myth of a Marquess of Queensberry ruled debate where everyone argues gentlemanly and then retires to cappuccino and pastries while watching unicorns graze in the sunset.

    The enemy plays for keeps, they always have, and they have just barely begun to fight. Let’s not forget that contrary to the big lie that Lewandowsky has pushed all the real kooks are counted among the AGW crowd. They not only have the grassy knollers, Apollo deniers, and 9/11 slimeballs, but even more dangerous are their unabomber and ‘Earth First’ type eco-Nazis. These psychos kill not just dogs, but people as well. Their religion demands it. And that religion is what guides them, not some evolved logic or intelligence, and certainly not some adherence to unwritten rules of decency, and definitely not any scientific principles.

    With the bureaucracy of almost all governments, especially that of President DingleBarry infested with these vermin from top to bottom it is pretty dumb for anyone in a paying job to stick their head up. Their groupthink among them is strong and reinforcing, and ousting people from a career is greeted not by thoughtful criticism, but by more cheering. The enemy is collecting scalps, they feel no remorse when they chalk up another, it emboldens them. And “our” guys who counsel us to walk off the cliff voluntarily won’t be waiting to catch you at the bottom.

    In this day and age NOT expending every effort at anonymity (as difficult as it truly is) is not only crazy, it is practically suicidal. It is really an act of social darwinism like those stupid kids on YouTube videos riding a bike off a ramp, into a wall, jumping off a ledge and kicking each other in the balls.

    As far as this contentious thread goes (and the previous few), I am dumbstruck at all the brainpower being spent on this arguing. Meanwhile the issue of fraudulent temperature adjustment withers on the vine (what was it, one single thread here about it so far?). Mosher himself couldn’t design a better distraction. Here’s hoping that Jo Nova, Willis, Tallbloke, Monckton and Lief spend a few moments on that issue when they grow weary of beating each other up.

    P.S. Attacking Anthony does not make any sense at all to me. Do you want him to lock this place down like Gavin’s Unreal Climate? What do you think is going to happen if you keep poking him with a stick? I’m not talking about the AGW trolls that appear here and are trying to accomplish exactly that, I’m thinking of the skeptics that enjoy an uncensored blog here yet still are dumb enough to complain about it. I hope and pray Anthony keeps disregarding the concern trolls that criticize him for his traditional light-handed moderation.

  407. lsvalgaard
    You gave a very good scientific points. I would add that:
    18) ozone layer delays the effect of sun;
    19) cosmic rays is a good proxy for UV.

  408. Kip Hansen says:
    July 18, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    Reply to Mosher ==> There *is* no justification for this: “why willis and I demand…..”

    Nothing whatever gives either of you any right to demand anything of anyone.

    You do have the right, like anyone else, to politely contact a colleague directly and privately and ask for clarifications and/or to request copies or pointers to original data sets and code used in a piece of scientific work you are interested in.

    I endorse Mr Hansen’s approach. Despite Mr Robert in Calgary’s comment. Although science being done looks very much like a food fight, there should be an effort to maintain civility. Civility rarely happens: the stakes are too inconsequential.

  409. Chris4692,

    The problem is, folks like Kip Hansen (and johanna) have a pathological hatred and jealousy of Willis. Instead of ignoring these threads, they pop in to indulge their rage.

    Kip wanted to smack someone around and since Willis is traveling at the moment, it seems Kip decided on Mosher as a stand in whipping boy.

    His manners lesson is built around one use of the word demand.

  410. willis-
    it’s precisely because i am ‘anonymous’ that you can get away with your irresponsible speech.
    were i not, i’d have to request mr watts’ publish a retraction and apology and dismiss the party who committed the libel and who has established a pattern of this behavior.
    i know you imagine that ‘any press is good press’ and can rationalize your insults as driving traffic to this site:
    “And my posts here on WUWT attract about a million page views per year … ”
    but guess what- wuwt is already on top. it’s not because of you. to some degree it’s in spite of you.
    and now that i realize this is the game, i guess it’s up to an anonymous coward to demonstrate the appropriate response to it.
    all the best to mr watts. it’s been great. ain’t no more. bye.

  411. Agnostic says:
    July 18, 2014 at 10:01 am

    @Willis

    Yes I know you remarked on it here, but given the large number of comments both here and at Jo’s, and considering it clearly vexes you in that you feel it is needed to validate the model, don’t you think it worth sending a private email to Dr Evans to ask him where you might find it within the material already released, or if it has not been released to send it you?

    Many thanks for the suggestions, Agnostic. I asked for the out-of-sample tests on Jo Nova’s blog back around post two of eleven, from memory. I was told that they had already done the tests, and that they would release them at some point.

    I asked again when Joanne was participating in the “Solar Notch Model Released” thread here. I was roundly ignored.

    I’ve asked again here on this thread for both the code setting the arbitrary parameters and their own out-of-sample tests several times on this thread. Again, no reply.

    I’m done with these folks. The idea that I should crawl on my knees to them to ask pretty please will they release their hidden information to me personally is laughable. It is up to them to rejoin the scientific community by revealing both the out-of-sample tests and the code for the setting of the arbitrary parameters, not to me personally, but publicly so that anyone can examine them. To date they have chosen not to do so. That’s up to them. I have no further interest in the matter. All that my calls for scientific transparency have brought me is abuse from skeptics who should know better, who should be in the forefront of the calls for transparency.

    In addition, we’ll never see the data and code that I asked for back in post two of eleven. In the words of the Hockey Team, they’ve “moved on” to their new whiz-bang model with extra added nuclear test goodness. So for example, the graph that caused so much trouble (Figure 3) is now in the past, Joanne says they have nothing to do with that now.

    Joanne is obviously reading this thread, as she posted above.

    So they know what they need to do for their work to be considered science. They are choosing not to do it. Up to them.

    To me, this whole thing is totally mystifying. I and others have spent literally years fighting for the principle of scientific transparency in the form of the required archiving of code as used and data as used. The motto of this struggle, thanks to Steven Mosher, has been “No Code, No Data, No Science”, and it is perfectly true. Unless we have someone’s code and data as used in their investigation, it cannot be falsified, and thus it is not science.

    As an example of what has been accomplished in this fight for honest science, Steve McIntyre and I and others have written repeatedly to Science magazine and the National Science Foundation urging total transparency, and our efforts are finally bearing fruit. Science magazine now (in theory) requires the archiving of code as used and data as used, and the NSF now requires (in theory) the recipients of the NSF grants to archive the results of their funded studies. So we are winning, albeit slowly.

    And after all of that, after all the fights with folks like Michael Mann and Phil Jones and Lonnie and Ellen Thompson to get them to release their data and code, after the struggles with NSF and Science magazine to get them to require scientific transparency, for David and Jo to claim that the rules don’t apply to them, and that it is perfectly acceptable for them to not release their code and data until such time as they dang well please, and up until today it hasn’t pleased them to do so, that was … well … an unpleasant surprise.

    I have done my best to try to get them to change their minds. I have implored them to release the data and code. I have failed totally. I’m done with it. They can do what they want with their code and data, but it’s not science of any sort until they release it all.

    The real tragedy here is that they obviously still think that their model is valid, despite the host of very trenchant and insightful comments by a host of people both here and on the JoNova blog from engineers, scientists, and interested observers. They’ve taken a defensive stand, and have doubled down on their model.

    Ah, well. Science is self-correcting. Me, I’m going to go back to doing my own scientific investigations, and let go of trying to get them to do science. All that’s brought me is grief. I post my own data and code with every investigation that I report on, as do Steve McIntyre, Steven Mosher, Anthony Watts, and the rest of the real scientists on the planet. David and Jo can come join us in the 21st century or not, it’s their choice.

    My best to you,

    w.

  412. LeifI believe that you underestimate the ionization by the GCR. Since many days you can see an excess of ozone in the southern magnetic pole. It’s the middle of the polar night in the south. GCR is only able to ionize oxygen in the area below Australia. Note that this anomaly not in transit.

  413. So to recap:

    Evans shows sharp TSI drop.
    There is no drop.

    Jo Nova said of course there’s no real drop, it shows up in the smoothing.
    Thus Evans should have used a different technique that matched reality.

    Evans used bad TSI data, including bad TSI reconstructions built on faulty assumptions with said reconstructions in an IPCC Assessment Report (and a million other places) which Monckton notes was not noted by the IPCC as being bad.
    Since the IPCC track record is to never admit anything is in error until they are smacked hard upside their heads with a 2×4 of Undeniable Proof, the IPCC not noting that an error they implicitly condoned is an error should in no way be considered confirmation of veracity.

    Evans released a spreadsheet that cranks out his predictions when fed a certain set of numbers, whose source is not revealed, and this is called full release of data and code.
    When enough info has been released one can program up the thing in anything from Pascal to COBOL using numbers available from either publicly available data or from subroutines crunching what is or is derived from publicly available data, then you have full release of data and code.

    What is also noted is Monckton’s commendable loyal defense of a family friend, which has been done very vocally, repetitiously, and repetitiously, including numerous threats of actions both litigious and for the forcible discharge from an academic position, for the making of scurrilous accusations that Evan’s position is not scientifically defensible while it was repeatedly shown to not be scientifically defensible although it was advised by some to wait until Evans scientifically defends himself which was said to have been done although apparently actually attempted by his proxies and indeed some think Evans has remarkably acquitted himself although he has yet to directly address… practically anything.

    Good job there, old chap. Quite admirable.

    And so it goes. Mend fences, and the deer and the wolves both complain you got no right to do so. Even more so when it’s your own owned fence.

  414. johanna says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:58 am

    Golly, if this is Willis’ idea of “mending fences” I’d hate to see what is his idea of blowing them up is.

    He claims to apologise, while leaving out the essential element of saying what he is apologising for. This is a standard trick … “if anything I said offended you…” etc.

    I’m sorry, johanna, but I fail to see the problem with my apology. I clearly apologized for whatever I said that Jo or David or Lord Monckton thought was over the top, for whatever I said that they thought was “something extra”.

    The difficulty is, I don’t know what I said that in their opinion was over the top. They have not said what they found was something extra, although obviously they were upset. Rather than go through the “you said”, “yes, but you said” process that goes nowhere, I simply apologized for wherever and whenever I was over the line.

    Now, I’m sorry that you don’t like that, but I don’t see that you have a dog in this fight. If Lord Monckton wants to tell me exactly what he found to be over the top, or if Jo or David want to discuss the question of whether my apology is satisfactory, I’m happy to do so. If they want me to apologize for X, whatever X may be, I’m glad to discuss that.

    But I always talk to the organ grinder rather than the monkey, so I fear that the passionate objections of you and the rest of the Apology Police mean nothing to me. I deal with the principals, not with their apologists.

    Finally, as I stated above, I don’t take advice on the proper way to take responsibility for my words from someone like you who never, ever has to take responsibility for your words. You can walk away from your words at any time, I’ve never seen you apologize for one single thing, so what would you know about the proper form of a public apology?

    So you can howl at the moon all you want. This is not the first time you’ve claimed that you were the spokesmodel for someone else … at least if you are the same johanna, which we have no way of knowing. And I don’t deal with spokesmodels, johanna. I deal with the individuals that I owe the apology to. If they’re unhappy with it, we can talk about it.

    But discussing it with you goes nowhere. There is nothing I could ever say or do that would ever satisfy you, so any attempt to do so is a waste of time and effort.

    Best regards,

    w.

  415. A similar anomaly in the north, with a low solar activity, appears again over Canada and central Siberia in accordance with the Earth’s magnetic field. It will again harsh winter in the Northeast of North America.

  416. Blade says:
    July 18, 2014 at 9:10 pm

    Hunter is exactly correct. Folks should completely disregard any of this incredibly bad, almost criminal advice to “come out” and drop the alias and post in their own name.

    For those who are reading impaired, please take another shot at this one:

    VERY IMPORTANT: It is important in general, and in this discussion in particular, that you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH. Note that this doesn’t mean just referencing their entire comment. Quote the exact words of their comment that you think are in error, and tell us why you think those words are wrong. If you do not quote the exact words that you disagree with, none of us will know what you are referring to … and out of such misunderstandings grows animosity and misunderstanding.

    Finally, please don’t delve into the rights and wrongs of what has happened in the previous discussions. I am not interested in the slightest in ascribing blame or responsibility. I have accepted my own responsibility for my own actions and apologized for wherever I was over the line. What I or the others did in the past is a blind alley, so please confine your comments to the science, and as the saying goes, “Let the dead past bury its dead”.

    Blade, obviously you think someone here has said that anonymous people should “come out”. However, I find no one on this thread who has advised anyone to “come out”, most certainly not me.

    Contrary to your unpleasant fantasies, here is what I actually said about anonymity:

    Thanks, Stacey. You are correct that there are many valid reasons for posting anonymously—job, family, public position, concern for personal safety, the list is long.

    And I have no problem with any of them. But there is a price that you pay for anonymity.

    When you embrace anonymity, you lose credibility because you never have to take responsibility for your words.

    This is not a value judgement on my part. It is a simple fact. You and other anonymous posters never ever have to apologize for what you’ve said, because you can just change your alias and walk away. I cannot do that. I have to take responsibility for what I’ve said, and either defend my words or admit that they were wrong or apologize for them.

    Do you see how foolish you look when you make wild-eyed accusations with no basis in fact? QUOTE THE WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH, otherwise as in this instance all you do is demonstrate that you are both unpleasant and uninformed, a bad combination.

    w.

  417. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:06 am

    “I deal with the principals, not with their apologists.”

    Fair enough.

    The principle here is do the principals have principles? If the problem, as Willis, Leif and Steve have daylighted it, is that there is not enough principal available to assess the principles involved, then not all the principal components are yet available for principal component analysis.

    Everything else is just feldercarb.

    Without the appropriate data isn’t what has occurred here better described as MatheMANNics?

    Or is it that we do indeed have enough data for a Yamal but not enough yet to perform a McIntyre, Svalgaard, Mosher or Eschenbach?

    That, ladies and gentlemen, IS the question…….

  418. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:40 am
    “This is not a value judgement on my part. It is a simple fact. You and other anonymous posters never ever have to apologize for what you’ve said, because you can just change your alias and walk away. I cannot do that. I have to take responsibility for what I’ve said, and either defend my words or admit that they were wrong or apologize for them.”

    Frankly, just because someone posts under their own name is no guarantee that people will take responsibility for what they’ve said. All you have to do be willing to do, is brazen your way through. Respectfully, Willis, there have been multiple cases where you have not done what you claim here that you **have to** do – see Mosh’s recent criticism of you in the Beer thread or Roy Spencer’s criticism of your originating the thermostat hypothesis several months ago for a couple of examples.

    Cheers, :)

  419. lsvalgaard says:
    July 18, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    Here is my list of arguments for reconstructing TSI:

    Leif

    Thanks a lot for this. It puts everything nicely into context – really useful.

  420. MarkD says:
    July 18, 2014 at 9:05 pm
    Lame excuses pathetic attacks.
    Lame? No I nailed you as a phoney skeptic. You are warmist through and through.
    Pathetic attacks?
    No because you are what I said you are. That isn’t pathetic, you are pathetic.

    Steven Mosher forgot to add “childish”.

  421. Mr Eschenbach seems to have departed from all reason. He now says he does not know what it was that I have been questioning in his comments about Dr Evans. Yet I have repeatedly explained that, in surely sufficient detail, in this and the previous thread on the subject. I do not propose to do so again. If he will not, will not, will not be in the least bit reasonable, then I must put his attitude charitably down to the ancient disease of the mind known to the theologians as “invincible ignorance”.

    For his own peace of mind, he should desist from attempting to comment on Dr Evans’ work until Dr Evans has published his reviewed papers on his findings. Then, since he seems more than usually determined to do Dr Evans down regardless of the merits of his work, he can attempt to write a reviewed rebuttal of it. However, I must instruct him that in the learned journals the sort of repeatedly malevolent and tendentious language he has unjustifiably used of Dr Evans here will not be tolerated or published.

  422. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 19, 2014 at 3:59 am
    Dr Evans has published his reviewed papers on his findings.
    Let us first see the papers published in ‘learned journals’. So far, Evans’ ‘work’ does not look publishable in any shape or form.

  423. @Willis and Steven Mosher

    Right, so you think it sufficient to make your requests for important information on a blog rather than a direct email? Even though you emailed Phil Jones?

    Do you not think it is fair to say, from the perspective of outside observers, it seems unfair to admonish Dr Evans for not responding to blog posts for specific information, when you could just as easily email direct? Clearly you think it is reasonable, but I am wondering if you might be able see that from another point of view it can appear unreasonable.

    Is it not possible that they are not following your every word that closely, thinking that they have already answered your criticisms? Personally, if you think being directed to the information is vital to be able to test or replicate (which I fully agree is perfectly reasonable) then direct communication with dr Evans seems to me to be the most efficient and reasonable method to use. Is it not?

  424. Evans’ theory hangs by just two threads. The first is the drop in TSI from 2003 to 2008.5 as presented from several different sources including Leif Svalgaard. All 6 data sets of TSI are dropping rapidly and this is the basis of Evans’ claim for a cooling earth.

    I don’t understand why someone like Leif (this topic is in his wheel-house) would resort to listing 19 points about TSI and presumably why Evans’ theory is wrong without discussing the above graph. Anyone who thinks an 11 year filter on TSI makes it wrong is out to lunch. Evans correctly ends his graph in 2008.5 because his filter is centered at year 6 and he runs out of data in 2014.5. A slight variation in TSI period from 11.0 to 10.7 years will have no real effect on the record either. The filter is a straw man argument and draws us away from the drop in TSI starting around 2003.

    So is PMOD, SORCE/TIM, ACRIM, Leif Svalgaard, Composite TSI, Lean 2000 Monthly and Sunspots SIDC all wrong, or is Evans doing something wrong with all these data sets – because they ALL point to a rapid drop in TSI from 2003 to 2008.5 (not present day).

    The second thread supporting Evans’ theory is the extreme non-linear behavior between TSI and temperature that would have to exist in order for such small changes in TSI to have such large changes in global temperatures. I can’t accept his theory for that reason. If the earth was that sensitive to small TSI changes I doubt we would exist. But I accept his graph and wonder why Leif or Willis don’t discuss that more directly.

    @Pamela. Don’t confuse time series analysis and statistics.

    @Leif. Look at the link and tell me again the data is wrong. Your name is on the graph too. If the graph is wrong you should be able to tell us why in one sentence.

  425. Willis:

    Some people would prefer that you be more specific in your apology, after all, watching someone else apologies in great and excruciating detail can be fun. More groveling please! However, may I make a time and effort saving suggestion? If they want your apology to be more detailed, well, do it the warmist way, just make something up, and apologize for that. See, you save all that time and effort of looking through your back posts.

    Hmm, on further reflection, that would take, like, effort, so, an even better idea, let someone else make something up, steal their idea, and apologize for that. Here is an example of exactly what you wrote (trust me!) which I am sure deserves the most sincere and heartfelt and gratuitously satisfying apology possible.

    (Note to reader, reading beyond this line will leave you scarred for life, don’t say I didn’t warn you!)

    The weather beaten trail wound ahead into the dust racked climes of the baren land which dominates large portions of the Norgolian empire. Age worn hoof prints smothered by the sifting sands of time shone dully against the dust splattered crust of earth. The tireless sun cast its parching rays of incandescense from overhead, half way through its daily revolution. Small rodents scampered about, occupying themselves in the daily accomplishments of their dismal lives. Dust sprayed over three heaving mounts in blinding clouds, while they bore the burdonsome cargoes of their struggling overseers.

    “Prepare to embrace your creators in the stygian haunts of hell, barbarian”, gasped the first soldier.

    “Only after you have kissed the fleeting stead of death, wretch!” returned Grignr.

  426. Note, they are not “adjusting” the temperature record, they are putting in “something extra”.

  427. I am just wondering…

    This 11 year filter has obvious problems, because the sunspot record shows that only the average of sunspot cycles are 11 years, the specific individual cycles are not. Is it possible to make a filter that, by looking at the exact data, each of the 24 or so solar cycles, filters each by the exact number of years of each cycle, cycle by cycle, and then splice all those 24 or so filtered results together? I mean, there is only maybe at most 24 of them, no need for a blanket filter to save time, how much time could it take to do only 24 of them in this computer aided age? Is it possible?

    “The average American has one ball and one tit. You now know everything you need to know about statistics.” – from _Mr Natural’s Rules of Women and the Universe_, circa 1977

  428. Legatus says:
    July 19, 2014 at 7:10 am
    “I am just wondering…
    This 11 year filter has obvious problems, because the sunspot record shows that only the average of sunspot cycles are 11 years, the specific individual cycles are not. Is it possible to make a filter that, by looking at the exact data, each of the 24 or so solar cycles, filters each by the exact number of years of each cycle, cycle by cycle, and then splice all those 24 or so filtered results together? I mean, there is only maybe at most 24 of them, no need for a blanket filter to save time, how much time could it take to do only 24 of them in this computer aided age? Is it possible?”
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    I would think a lot of us regular folks are wondering the same thing. Perhaps this method would not produce any significant results. After all, didn’t I read that Jo Nova and Dr Evans say they spent several years and lots of their own money on this model (parapharsing here)? Pretty disappointing if one does that and comes up with nothing.

  429. Shawnhet says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:59 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:40 am

    “This is not a value judgement on my part. It is a simple fact. You and other anonymous posters never ever have to apologize for what you’ve said, because you can just change your alias and walk away. I cannot do that. I have to take responsibility for what I’ve said, and either defend my words or admit that they were wrong or apologize for them.”

    Frankly, just because someone posts under their own name is no guarantee that people will take responsibility for what they’ve said. All you have to do be willing to do, is brazen your way through.

    Thanks, Shawnhet. You’ve taken my statement and inverted it. My point was that people posting anonymously never have to take responsibility for their words. They can walk away from their words, change their alias, and never take responsibility.

    I never said the inverse, that people posting under their own name have to take responsibility for their words. I said I have to, but that’s just me. However, what I can’t do is walk away from them. I said them, my friends and enemies know I said them, I can’t disown them as anonymous posters can do.

    Again, I’m not saying that anonymous = wrong. There are lots of good reasons for someone to embrace anonymity … but there are also costs if they do so.

    All the best,

    w.

  430. Steve from Rockwood says:
    July 19, 2014 at 5:38 am
    Evans’ theory hangs by just two threads. The first is the drop in TSI from 2003 to 2008.5 as presented from several different sources including Leif Svalgaard.
    No, he uses TSI from 2003 to 2013 [plus some fabricated data thereafter]. He did not use the smoothed data.

  431. The good Viscount has reminded me the existence of PG Wodehouse’s Edwin, son of Lord Worplesdon. Edwin, an adolescent, and a Boy Scout, felt that it was his duty to do a good deed every day.The catastrophic consequences of that kind of thinking are catalogued at length, and in depth, in Wodehouse’s “Joy in the Morning.” Which happens to be by the bedside just now.

    Pip pip.

    J

  432. Steve from Rockwood says:
    July 19, 2014 at 5:38 am
    Evans’ theory hangs by just two threads. The first is the drop in TSI from 2003 to 2008.5 as presented from several different sources including Leif Svalgaard.
    Also, note that Evans has a fall-off of more than 0.7 W/m2. Twice as large as the actual fall-off.

  433. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 19, 2014 at 3:59 am

    Mr Eschenbach seems to have departed from all reason. He now says he does not know what it was that I have been questioning in his comments about Dr Evans. Yet I have repeatedly explained that, in surely sufficient detail, in this and the previous thread on the subject. I do not propose to do so again.

    Lord Monckton, I fear that your claims that I have insulted Dr. Evans are meaningless to me. If you want to tell me if and where I’ve insulted you, I’m more than willing to listen.

    But unless Dr. Evans shows up to tell me that you are now his official spokesman regarding apologies, you claiming that I owe Dr. Evans an apology is as meaningless as if I were to claim that you owe Dr. Svalgaard an apology … I’m not Leif, I’m not his spokesdude, so you would be free to ignore any claims I might make that you’ve insulted him, and you’d be well advised to do so. If Leif wants an apology, that’s his business and none of mine, he can ask for an apology if he wishes … and the same is true with Dr. Evans. If he wants a different or more specific apology from me, that’s his business, not any of yours.

    Finally, I have already apologized to Dr. Evans, to Joanne Nova, and to you for whatever I said that you think was over the top. If that apology REGARDING YOU is insufficient in your opinion, please let me know where and how, and we can discuss it.

    And if you believe that you owe no one an apology after threatening people with monetary action and triple damages over what they said, not about you, but about a third person in a scientific discussion … well, in that case I may end up being the only person apologizing at all in this sorry episode.

    However, I do note that despite your call that I should treat Dr. Evans with kid gloves, you are quite happy to say that I’ve lost my mind, that I’ve “departed from all reason”. However, be clear that I’m not asking for an apology or for triple damages for the attack on my reputation, because to me that’s simply part of the cut and thrust of debate …

    w.

    PS—Your main objection seems to be that I said that like Dr. Mann, Dr. Evans had not revealed his code and his results. This is still true to this day, we still have not seen the code to set the arbitrary parameters, nor has he released his out-of-sample results. Since without those we cannot falsify his work, it is no more science than the work of Michael Mann. And at this point it appears that we will never see the data and code that I originally requested, they’ve “moved on” from that to the new, improved code with nuclear trimmings.

    So what I said regarding Dr. Evans refusal to release his code and his results was a statement of fact rather than an insult of any kind. However, if Dr. Evans objects to the way I stated that fact, he’s free to let me know, and we can discuss it.

  434. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 19, 2014 at 8:12 am
    Monckton, I fear that your claims that I have insulted Dr. Evans are meaningless to me.
    Furthermore Monckton has no standing [locus standi] to demand apologies.

  435. From Steve from Rockwood on July 19, 2014 at 5:38 am:

    Evans’ theory hangs by just two threads. The first is the drop in TSI from 2003 to 2008.5 as presented from several different sources including Leif Svalgaard. All 6 data sets of TSI are dropping rapidly and this is the basis of Evans’ claim for a cooling earth.

    Spliced-together PMOD has problems, but it is quickly available from WoodForTrees, currently-available range 1978.83 to 2011.75:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/offset:-1366/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/mean:66/offset:-1366/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/mean:132/offset:-1366/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/mean:198/offset:-1366/

    The “dropping rapidly” is not rapid. The “drop-off” is negligible. TSI is already heading back up.

    The 5.5-year smoothing follows TSI, but the 11-year smoothing is noticeably inverting peaks and troughs, indicating 11 years is too much smoothing and creating distortion. Adding another 5.5 highlights the distortion, although it is amusing that at about the 2003 “drop” is where the 16.5-year smoothing is showing the upturn of a cycle starting.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/offset:-1366/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/mean:66/offset:-1366/plot/rss/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/plot/rss/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/mean:66/

    Also global temperatures do not seem to care about TSI on these short time periods.

    Anyone who thinks an 11 year filter on TSI makes it wrong is out to lunch.

    Or they have arrogantly decided to actually examine the effects of smoothing on the data rather than accept soothing assurances that it wasn’t an issue.

  436. “Agnostic says:
    July 19, 2014 at 5:28 am
    @Willis and Steven Mosher

    Right, so you think it sufficient to make your requests for important information on a blog rather than a direct email? Even though you emailed Phil Jones?”

    This a version of the argument made against Steve Mcintyre and the rest of us.
    we didnt ask in “RIGHT WAY”. Our letters were not nice enough ( google mcintyre and pretty please with sugar on it ” or FOIA was threatening.

    Get the point. There is no obligation to ASK. there is no obligation to ask by phone, or in person, or by mail, or email, or by comment on their blog ( they could say Steve email us.. thats what I do when people ask me on blogs ) there is no obligation to ask. The obligation runs the other WAY. there is an obliigation to disclose SO THAT PEOPLE DONT HAVE TO ASK.
    Get it.
    because when we ask they say ‘you are not a scientist, you are not an academic, please ask by phone,
    please ask by mail, please ask by mail and tell us why you want the information,, because then they play games like,, i sent Mcintyre the excel files..

    So, test this for yourself. You ask, by mail. lets see if we get the same results.
    and when they say no to you. you will come up with another excuse

  437. ren says:
    July 19, 2014 at 8:35 am
    Chart neutrons indicates that UV radiation
    The Neutron Monitor counts have nothing to do with UV radiation as such. You might get by by saying that solar activity in 2009 was lower than most solar minima, but that we knew already as the sunspot number is a good indicator of that.

  438. You guys remind me of the never ending fight between the Israeli’s and the Palestinians.
    Analysing that fight: It is [and has always been] :
    an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.
    That philosophy can be found back in both their religions {Judaism and Islam}.
    Yet, they both could be rich for all the Christians wanting to visit the Holy land….. if they just put their heads together.
    Pity the theology from Jesus [which recommends that we should love our enemies] is completely lost on them….

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/12/10/my-own-true-christmas-story/

  439. lsvalgaard wrote: Let us first see the papers published in ‘learned journals’. So far, Evans’ ‘work’ does not look publishable in any shape or form.

    But wasn’t it one of their intentions to get away from the ‘learned journals’ and use the power of the internet to publicize (i.e. publish) their ideas and attract advice/criticism from like-minded people? Do you think that something is only ‘science’ if it’s published in ‘learned journals’?. If so, it seems to me that you desire a scientific closed shop from which intruders are rigorously excluded..

    One of the things I liked about David Evans/Jo Nova’s little enterprise was that they were thinking for themselves, constructing a model, and putting their findings out on the internet, complete with Excel code. I think that’s very admirable, and I’d like to applaud them for their efforts.

    I think it’s a great shame that they have been so furiously attacked by Svalgaard, Eschenbach, and others. I can only suppose this is because, once science has become a closed shop, intruders (and possible competitors) like Evans and Nova must always attacked on sight. Which may be why Svalgaard regards science as a ‘blood sport’.

    I should add that I hold no strong opinion about their theory. To the extent that I understand it, they seem to be saying that there is an 11 year filter which is stripping out small variations in TSI from the terrestrial temperature record. And if the filter is applied to the latest TSI figures, it predicts a fall in temperature 11 years later. Well and good: let’s wait and see. The proof will be in the pudding.

    P.S. I am using my real name ;-)

    • Frank Davis:

      You’ve used the term “science” in reference to Dr. Evans’s model. A sometimes overlooked feature of this term is that it has several meanings. A consequence is for disambiguation of this term to be required when it is used in making an argument if false or unproved conclusions are to be avoided.

      The Daubert standard of the courts of the U.S. supplies the required disambiguation. Under this standard, the falsifiability of the claims that are made by it is required of a scientific model ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard ). The claims that are made by Dr. Evans’s model do not appear to me to be falsifiable. If so, this model not “scientific” under the Daubert standard’s disambiguation.

  440. “Kip Hansen says:
    July 18, 2014 at 7:37 pm
    Reply to Mosher ==> There *is* no justification for this: “why willis and I demand…..”

    Nothing whatever gives either of you any right to demand anything of anyone.

    You do have the right, like anyone else, to politely contact a colleague directly and privately and ask for clarifications and/or to request copies or pointers to original data sets and code used in a piece of scientific work you are interested in. The preferred public communication on such would be a blog comment something like “I have contacted Dr So-and-so by email and asked for copies of original data and code used in his calculation. I’ll let you know in a few days the results of this request.”
    ###############################################
    Kip draws from the bag of objections that Steve Mcintyre had to deal with.
    Remember upthread where I said that WE HEARD THIS ALL BEFORE

    what did mcintyre have to deal with

    ‘ he didnt ask in the right way’

    google steve mcintyre pretty please with sugar on it.

    CLUE BIRD KIP. There is no obligation to ask, or to ask nicely, or to say pretty please with sugar on it.
    the obligation belongs to EVANS to show his work. he hasnt. end of story.

    Evans has an obligation to produce. There is no obligation for willis to ask, to ask nicely, to ask by mail
    by phone by morse code, by smoke signal, to ask at all.

    Evans hasnt shown his work. fail.

  441. Let us consider the long periods when the Rev was below normal. You can see that in these periods TSI had to be lower and the temperature dropped. As you can see the current chart is clearly below the blue line.

  442. Agnostic says:
    July 19, 2014 at 5:28 am

    @Willis and Steven Mosher

    Right, so you think it sufficient to make your requests for important information on a blog rather than a direct email? Even though you emailed Phil Jones?

    Since this is the 21st century, since they are obviously reading the blog posts, since “on a blog” is where they themselves have published their “important information”, since I’ve made the same request both on this thread, on the previous thread, on the thread before that, and on the same blog where they published their information, and since Joanne has responded directly to my comments requesting the information … yes, I absolutely think that is more than sufficient.

    If you truly were concerned about the lack of email, you would email them yourself. As it is, you’re just inventing excuses.

    Finally, the point of publishing your code and data is so that no one ever has to make a special request for you to pretty please stop hiding the results … I should not have to ask anywhere, whether it be by email or blog comment.

    Agnostic, look at my blog posts. I regularly publish my code and data with each post … and this is not for some claimed major breakthrough like they are asserting for their work. As a result, nobody has to email me saying “Willis, would you be so kind as to send me your results?”. Nobody has to comment on the blog saying “Willis, when are you going to release the data and code that you used?”.

    Nor is this some new idea or some onerous demand. My high school science teacher, Mrs. Henniger, would give us an “F” if we didn’t show our work, even if our results were 100% correct. If high school kids can show their work, how hard can it be for scientists to do the same? And more to your current point … since high school kids are required to show their work, why should I have to ask and plead with scientists to show their work?

    And why are you claiming that the problem is that I’m not asking in the right manner or the right location?Agnostic, I should not have to ask at all.

    And instead, I’ve asked, I’ve implored, I’ve begged them to show their work … and we’re still waiting.

    Finally, I do appreciate your concern, your measured tone, and your attempt to move the situation forwards. However, I fear it is misplaced …

    w.

  443. Frank Davis says:
    July 19, 2014 at 8:50 am
    lsvalgaard wrote: ‘Let us first see the papers published in ‘learned journals’’.
    But wasn’t it one of their intentions to get away from the ‘learned journals’

    Monckton wants Willis to publish a rebuttal in the ‘learned journals’. To do so would, in my book, require that the paper being rebutted also is published in such journals. Perhaps monckton should reconsider what he said.

    and use the power of the internet to publicize (i.e. publish) their ideas and attract advice/criticism from like-minded people?
    Such advice/criticism from the faithful is not what is needed.

  444. Frank Davis says:
    July 19, 2014 at 8:50 am
    To the extent that I understand it, they seem to be saying that there is an 11 year filter which is stripping out small variations in TSI from the terrestrial temperature record.
    There is a much simpler [and likely more correct] reason, namely that the tiny 0.1 degree solar cycle variation is simply lost in the noise. And BTW, there are people who claim they have seen that 0.1C signal, so if you go with them, there is no ‘stripping out’ needed.

  445. ren says:
    July 19, 2014 at 8:55 am
    Let us consider the long periods when the Rev was below normal. You can see that in these periods TSI had to be lower and the temperature dropped. As you can see the current chart is clearly below the blue line. http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
    But you can also see that there is no relationship between Ap and Temperature:

  446. Frank Davis says:
    July 19, 2014 at 8:50 am

    I think it’s a great shame that they have been so furiously attacked by Svalgaard, Eschenbach, and others. I can only suppose this is because, once science has become a closed shop, intruders (and possible competitors) like Evans and Nova must always attacked on sight. Which may be why Svalgaard regards science as a ‘blood sport’.

    Dr. Evans’ work has been attacked on several grounds.

    First, he has not published his data and code.

    Second, the data shown in Figure 3 above are invalid, and his 11-year smoothing actually inverts the real data. This leads to their totally incorrect claim that there was a large fall in TSI starting in 2003-2005.

    There are other issues, like the improbability of his model, the acausality of his claimed filter, and more, but those have not been the main points here.

    Your idea that people are pointing out that Dr. Evans’ ideas and results are way wrong is because they are “intruders” doesn’t pass the laugh test. And the passion in it for me is because they are ignoring the fundamental rule of science, the one we learned in high school—you have show your work. They have not done so, and have received well-deserved opprobrium for their actions.

    Finally, if you think that science is not a “blood sport”, consider what it means to a scientist who has spent his (her) whole life and staked his name and his job and his career on some theory, only to watch as some other scientist then falsifies that theory completely, and he sees his whole scientific career go up in smoke … it is not mere wordplay.

    And that is the reason why science sometimes gets so savage and bloody, because so much more is at stake than just the science.

    Best regards,

    w.

  447. From HenryP on July 19, 2014 at 8:40 am:

    You guys remind me of the never ending fight between the Israeli’s and the Palestinians.
    Analysing that fight: It is [and has always been] :

    Inaccurate analysis, incorrect comparison, thus inconsequential, and also inappropriate given what is currently occurring. Written threats of legal action are not indiscriminately delivered by explosive-tipped rockets.

  448. lsvalgaard says:
    ren says:
    Chart neutrons indicates that UV radiation
    The Neutron Monitor counts have nothing to do with UV radiation as such. You might get by by saying that solar activity in 2009 was lower than most solar minima, but that we knew already as the sunspot number is a good indicator of that.
    You’re wrong UV corresponds very well to the GCR and Ap, because depend on the activity of the solar magnetic field.

  449. ren says:
    July 19, 2014 at 9:20 am
    You’re wrong UV corresponds very well to the GCR and Ap, because depend on the activity of the solar magnetic field.
    As we have very good indicators for the solar magnetic field, it is not of any use to drag in the GCR modulation which also respond to factors other than the strength of the magnetic field, e.g. to the sign of the solar polar fields. Every 22 years [and in particular in 2009] the GCR count is higher than at the intervening minima. So, again, the GCRs do not regulate UV and are a poor proxy for solar activity, and AP is also a poor proxy. We have much better ones, e.g. the SSN.

  450. Avery Harden says:
    July 19, 2014 at 9:23 am
    but is your premise that any warming trend, or cooling as some here seem to presume, is solely dictated by the sun. Do you rule out increasing greenhouse gases as having an effect on temperatures?
    There is no evidence that the sun is the sole cause. And increasing GHG do have an effect. The question is ‘how large’ or ‘how small’ depending on your view. In my view, I’d ask ‘how small’.

  451. Avery Harden says:
    July 19, 2014 at 9:41 am
    But why so much focus on TSI? It has been neutral or trailed down, yet the long term temperature trend has stayed up.
    Bingo! There is no evidence that the sun is the sole cause.

  452. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 18, 2014 at 11:49 pm

    Agnostic says:
    July 18, 2014 at 10:01 am

    @Willis

    Yes I know you remarked on it here, but given the large number of comments both here and at Jo’s, and considering it clearly vexes you in that you feel it is needed to validate the model, don’t you think it worth sending a private email to Dr Evans to ask him where you might find it within the material already released, or if it has not been released to send it you?

    Many thanks for the suggestions, Agnostic. I asked for the out-of-sample tests on Jo Nova’s blog back around post two of eleven, from memory. I was told that they had already done the tests, and that they would release them at some point.

    I asked again when Joanne was participating in the “Solar Notch Model Released” thread here. I was roundly ignored.

    I’ve asked again here on this thread for both the code setting the arbitrary parameters and their own out-of-sample tests several times on this thread. Again, no reply.

    I’m done with these folks. The idea that I should crawl on my knees to them to ask pretty please will they release their hidden information to me personally is laughable.

    ===========

    Directly asking someone rather than *Hoping* they read your angry diatribe in a long thread of angry diatribes is hardly “crawling on your knees” nor is a an unreasonable burden or suggestion. Just as you find it so easy to ignore posts from people in threads for spurious reasons such as they don’t use their “real name”, it’s easy enough for others to ignore your “requests” because they are make in the middle of blog posts rather than directly to the people that you are requesting from. You keep talking about others losing credibility, well every time you say “they haven’t provided the data I asked for” and follow up with words to the effect of “I refuse to crawl on my knees and directly ask them for it” *you* are the one that loses credibility. You want something, go to the source, don’t wait for the source to come to you because you’ll likely have a long wait that way.

  453. Steve from Rockwood
    The second thread supporting Evans’ theory is the extreme non-linear behavior between TSI and temperature that would have to exist in order for such small changes in TSI to have such large changes in global temperatures. I can’t accept his theory for that reason. If the earth was that sensitive to small TSI changes I doubt we would exist.

    Henry says
    It is really very simple. Study this graph [ of TSI].

    Let us assume that that graph is in fact an accurate average presentation of the 11 year Schwabe cycle or over the whole 22 year Hale solar cycle, whatever you prefer,
    My data suggests that the top of that [average] chi square distribution moves a bit, ca. 44 years to the right and then 44 years to the left, like an a-c wave.
    If it is moving left [as it is doing now/ quiet sun = brighter sun] you get [somewhat] more ultra short wave radiation (USW)
    The atmosphere protects us from that type of harmful radiation by reactions:
    O2 + USW = >.O3
    H20 + O2 + USW = > HxOx
    N2 + O2 + USW = > NxOx
    etc. (there are more reactions)

    Relatively more of these compounds TOA means that there is more back radiation [to space], i.e. the yellow area to the left is getting bigger. [note that Trenberth only reported O3, it seems he did not know about the many other substances that I am reporting as well]
    As we are in fact looking at a deviation at the highest area under chi square curve this does have an effect on global temperatures, namely,

    more back radiation by more ozone & others means less [normal] UV in the oceans, that means less energy in the oceans. Hence it is [currently] cooling.

    Just remember: this cannot be seen so easily from the straight data from the sun, because we are looking at an a c wave playing out within the normal cycles of increasing and decreasing USW within the normal cycles….
    To see this you have to study the rate of change in temperature on earth, choosing reliable sources of data, which, when properly done, clearly suggest that an a c wave does exist.
    for example, see the graph below the minima table:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf

    [at the very bottom of all the tables]

  454. Steven Mosher says:
    July 19, 2014 at 8:55 am

    Kip draws from the bag of objections that Steve Mcintyre had to deal with.
    Remember upthread where I said that WE HEARD THIS ALL BEFORE

    what did mcintyre have to deal with

    ‘ he didnt ask in the right way’

    =====

    There’s nothing burdsome or unusual in asking someone directly and nothing at all like the objectsions to Steve McIntyre. McIntyre *did* ask the people directly, something you and Willis seem to be at pains *not* to do. why is that? Hoping that someone response to you when you don’t ask them directly is a fools hope.

  455. Avery Harden says:
    July 19, 2014 at 9:48 am
    Many would say any changes to the TSI recently have not been a factor at all for the long term temperature trend staying up.
    and they would be quite right. Here is the temperature chart for Planet Earth the past 500+ million years http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-of-Planet-Earth.png
    During all that time the Sun’s output [TSI] has increased 5% [about 50 times the increase from solar min to solar max], yet the temperature has gone down.

  456. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 19, 2014 at 8:57 am

    Agnostic says:
    July 19, 2014 at 5:28 am

    @Willis and Steven Mosher

    Right, so you think it sufficient to make your requests for important information on a blog rather than a direct email? Even though you emailed Phil Jones?

    Since this is the 21st century, since they are obviously reading the blog posts, since “on a blog” is where they themselves have published their “important information”, since I’ve made the same request both on this thread, on the previous thread, on the thread before that, and on the same blog where they published their information, and since Joanne has responded directly to my comments requesting the information … yes, I absolutely think that is more than sufficient.
    ============================

    I haven’t seen one single post from Dr Evans in this thread. AS such there is not one single shread of evidence that Dr Evans has read a single word in this thread. Given that, If I had a question for Dr Evans, I would appear pretty damn stupid to expect an answer if I only asked it in this thread of when he has yet to appear. Whereas If I were to ask him directly, I’d atleast be certain he’d have heard my question. Seems to me if you have a question for Dr Evans the place to take it is *directly* to Dr Evans, not to some blog post that there’s no evidence he’s ever read it, or depending on other people to convey that question to him.

  457. Willis Eschenbach wrote: if you think that science is not a “blood sport”, consider what it means to a scientist who has spent his (her) whole life and staked his name and his job and his career on some theory, only to watch as some other scientist then falsifies that theory completely, and he sees his whole scientific career go up in smoke …

    This would seem to describe the climate alarmists’ situation rather well. For in their case it’s indeed their names and their jobs and their careers that are on the line.

    But to the best of my knowledge, this doesn’t describe the climate sceptics’ situation. Most of them aren’t being paid to peddle scepticism. Many of them are retired physicists and engineers. I know nothing at all about you (except that you write a lot on WUWT), but to the best of my knowledge, Leif Svalgaard is a well-respected solar physicist, currently employed at Stanford University. And he generally intervenes on these threads when someone starts writing about the Sun’s behaviour. But to the best of my knowledge this is a personal interest of his, and not something demanded by his job (studying the Sun). So I can’t really see why he’s been such a ferocious critic of Evans/Nova. What’s a stake for him? Or for you, for that matter?

    I should remark in passing that I have zero name/job/career at stake. I’m just interested in ideas (I have had quite a few of my own stupid ones), and I’m always pleased when people have a ideas, and take the time to develop them a bit. Which is why I was delighted to see Evans/Nova having an idea and developing it a bit. I think that’s where science begins: with people having ideas and fooling around with them and then saying “Hey, guys! Here’s my idea! It’s probably all wrong, but maybe it’s worth a spin on the roulette table.” If everyone just gets crushed every time they open their mouths, they’re just going to keep their thoughts to themselves, and nobody’s ever going to say a word anything. Down that path lies the death of science.

  458. No question it’s a bad idea to not publish your code and your out of sample tests on a sceptical scientific blog like WUWT. However, I take some hope away that, given the stagnant state of much of mainstream climate science as the team hunkers down behind their carbon wall, that the sceptical side will more and more shift into the breech created by falsified science and take over development of real climate theory. Mincing mainstream science is necessary and even personally rewarding, but at some point when there is a stand-off, someone has to take over the task of replacing hypotheses.

  459. From John Endicott on July 19, 2014 at 9:45 am:

    You want something, go to the source, don’t wait for the source to come to you because you’ll likely have a long wait that way.

    Evans is asking for credibility, for his model. Not publicly releasing the data and code, as we have long been accustomed to with Jones, Hansen, and Mann, is not getting him credibility. Having to ask Evans is allowing Evans to be a gatekeeper, letting him decide who is worthy of receiving it or if a request is spurious and may be ignored.

    If Evans is an honest researcher who will have no problem releasing the info to whomever will ask, then why accept the bother of gatekeeping at all? Post the code and data where anyone can freely access it.

  460. Frank Davis says:
    July 19, 2014 at 10:06 am
    But to the best of my knowledge this is a personal interest of his, and not something demanded by his job (studying the Sun). So I can’t really see why he’s been such a ferocious critic of Evans/Nova. What’s a stake for him?
    I am not a ‘ferocious’ critic of anybody. I am interested in conveying the science as correctly as we know it, and I critique bad science, pseudo-science, nonsense, etc when I see it [and there is a lot of it here]. I am always willing to explain in detail where the problems are, but in most cases that is a wasted effort [like trying to tell your children what to do]. We do at Stanford have a program of Public Outreach [although my blogging is not directly related to that], so we care about communicating science to the general public.

  461. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 19, 2014 at 10:11 am

    Evans is asking for credibility, for his model. Not publicly releasing the data and code, as we have long been accustomed to with Jones, Hansen, and Mann, is not getting him credibility. Having to ask Evans is allowing Evans to be a gatekeeper, letting him decide who is worthy of receiving it or if a request is spurious and may be ignored.

    If Evans is an honest researcher who will have no problem releasing the info to whomever will ask, then why accept the bother of gatekeeping at all? Post the code and data where anyone can freely access it.
    ==================
    Idealy he should, and given time, perhaps he will. It’s only been a matter of weeks since this subject has come up, not the years that Mann, et al have been “gatekeepers”. Given that it has been such a short time, if he’s not moving “fast enough” for you in releasing his data, the place to take that is *directly to him*, like it or not.

  462. Leif, where and when did David Evans say this, what where his EXACT words, please:

    lsvalgaard says:
    july 18, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    “Central to Evans’ claim of the sharp drop in temperature [0.5C] is his contention that from the 2003-2005 timeframe until today, TSI has decreased substantially.”

    and again

    lsvalgaard says:
    july 18, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    “Fact is that Evans claims a much larger decrease than there really is. Plus that he claims that TSI decreased sharply from 2003-2005 until now, while in reality TSI increased.”

    Breaking it down:
    “Fact is that Evans claims a much larger decrease than there really is”

    How do you know what TSI is for SURE when all TSI datasets are different, and the value of TSI is still being questioned, per

    lsvalgaard says:
    July 18, 2014 at 9:55 am

    Salvatore Del Prete says:
    July 18, 2014 at 9:45 am
    If I were a betting man I bet the TSI data for the past 10 years – present will be revised.

    “It most certainly will http://www.leif.org/research/DudokdeWit_announcements.pdf and probably upwards a bit [taking ACRIM into account]”

    Where and when did David Evans say ” TSI decreased sharply from 2003-2005 until now” especially that “UNTIL NOW” or “UNTIL TODAY” part. If you can’t qoute him directly saying that “UNTIL NOW” or “UNTIL TODAY” part, your argument with him then reduces down to the reduction in TSI that actually started in 2002, not 2003.

    TSI (daily) taken from http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/CERES_EBAF_Ed2.8_DailyTSI.txt ,

    2000 03 01 1360.2324 (start of record)
    2000 12 04 1362.4636
    2001 12 09 1362.3284
    2001 12 31 1362.7272
    2002 01 01 1362.6575
    2003 01 01 1361.8378
    2004 01 01 1361.1197
    2005 01 01 1361.1265
    2006 01 01 1360.8255
    2007 01 01 1360.7327
    2008 01 01 1360.5891
    2009 01 01 1360.5222
    2010 01 01 1360.4849
    2011 01 01 1360.9074
    2012 01 01 1361.3176
    2013 01 01 1361.1569
    2014 01 01 1361.2120
    2014 03 31 1361.6971 (end of record)
    2014 07 12 1361.5552*

    * (from http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt)

    CLEARLY, TSI started dropping off day one in 2002, and the TSI overall drop-off persisted through the solar minimum into the start of 2010.

    lsvalgaard says:
    July 18, 2014 at 12:08 am

    “As solar activity can’t be less than nothing, TSI can’t be less than when we had no solar activity, e.g. in 2009″

    The issue with that statement is we have no idea how low TSI can go because we weren’t there to measure it during the MM. Just because sunspot numbers drop to zero doesn’t mean that solar irradiance has bottomed out necessarily. F10.7 during cycles 19-24 ranged from 63-66 sfu. The fact is we don’t know how low the sun’s output can go as registered in it’s magnetic state, in F10.7 or TSI, during a PROLONGED zero sunspot state period. We have never measured a zero-sunspot state that lasted long enough to find out!

    I hope for your sake Leif you can find a direct quote. For David Evans sake I hope you can’t.

    Either way, TSI dropped from 2002 to at least the beginning of 2010. TSI dropped from the SC23 max of 1,362.7272 on 12/31/01 to the SC24 maximum measurement of 1362.0669 on 4/6/14.

    It would be good to hear more detail about how you go from LEIF2007 down almost 5W/m2 to today’s TSI. How does anyone know whether TSI really measured an actual 5W/m2 change that people aren’t recognizing? Maybe it was 5W higher through the peak of SC23 and those who changed it may have “THOUGHT” it was too high and endeavored to scale it down when MAYBE it was right as mesured… the problem we all have is there are so many TSI datasets that have too many overlapping scaling issues. Where are the step-by-step negotiations for the TSI reconstruction laid-out so we can all see and understand it?

    F10.7 is so much easier – no trauma, no drama.

  463. “Just because sunspot numbers drop to zero doesn’t mean that solar irradiance has bottomed out necessarily. F10.7 during cycles 19-24 ranged from 63-66 sfu.”

    Today: SSN=0, F10.7=89. 2008-09, when SSN=0, F10.7=65 min. Two dates with the same SSN giving DIFFERENT solar activity levels, as registered in F10.7cm flux. The other solar indices including Bt also are different wrt SSN=0, so we can’t use SSN=0 as a baseline for all solar indices.

  464. Bob Weber says:
    July 19, 2014 at 10:28 am
    where and when did David Evans say this, what where his EXACT words, please:
    Are you too lazy to look for yourself?
    “The reason for the cooling is the dramatic fall in solar radiation that started around 2004. [ http://joannenova.com.au/page/2/ ]”

    How do you know what TSI is for SURE when all TSI datasets are different, and the value of TSI is still being questioned
    The most reliable source is SORCE/TIM from LASP which is not in question for the period 2003-today..

    Either way, TSI dropped from 2002 to at least the beginning of 2010. TSI dropped from the SC23 max of 1,362.7272 on 12/31/01 to the SC24 maximum measurement of 1362.0669 on 4/6/14.
    Quoting daily values is meaningless, as you can see here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png
    You can, of course, plot all the observations [for every day] as here:

    It would be good to hear more detail about how you go from LEIF2007 down almost 5W/m2 to today’s TSI. How does anyone know whether TSI really measured an actual 5W/m2 change that people aren’t recognizing?

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf

    “[1] The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use. Scattered light is a primary cause of the higher irradiance values measured by the earlier generation of solar radiometers in which the precision aperture defining the measured solar beam is located behind a larger, view‐limiting aperture”
    My reconstruction was normalized to the ‘canonical’ value en vogue in 2007.

    F10.7 is so much easier – no trauma, no drama.
    F10.7 does not show any dramatic drop from one minimum to the next:
    Slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2010-Microwave-Flux.pdf
    so I’m fine with F10.7 as an indicator of solar activity.

  465. Bob Weber says:
    July 19, 2014 at 10:39 am
    Today: SSN=0, F10.7=89. 2008-09, when SSN=0, F10.7=65 min. Two dates with the same SSN giving DIFFERENT solar activity levels
    Comparing daily values is meaningless.

  466. A cowboy just looking for a fight, might add an addendum to their treatise saying something along the lines of:
    “VERY IMPORTANT: It is important in general, and in this discussion in particular, that you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH……..”
    ===============
    It tries to set down the rules of the fight that is sure to follow, almost as if the fight was the true end game ? (or nearly so).

  467. This is strange. Why is the following happening?

    WoodForTrees’ Help page says of the “Isolate” function: “Does the same running mean as ‘mean’, but then subtracts this from the raw data to leave the ‘noise'”.

    Using an 11 year mean:
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/offset:-1366/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/isolate:132/

    The signal is the noise plus a 1366 W/m^2 offset, up to about 2004 (or perhaps 2003?) when they noticeably diverge as the noise shoots upward.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/offset:-1366/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/isolate:66/

    With 5.5 year mean there’s greater differentiation, and you can see better that something did go haywire on the noise around 2004.

    Why is the signal actually the noise plus the offset?

    From “Raw Data” link, first graph.
    PMOD – 1366: “#Mean: -0.0986646″
    PMOD Isolate:132: “#Mean: -0.00520949″
    Alignment by means over entire record:
    PMOD – 1366 + 0.0986646 = 0 = PMOD Isolate:132 + 0.00520949
    PMOD = PMOD Isolate:132 + 1365.906545
    Offset ~= 1365.9

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/offset:-1365.9/plot/pmod/from:1978.8/to:2011.8/isolate:132/

    Wow, that is strange how “noise” and signal can match up indistinguishably so often. Don’t know what it means, but that’s good enough evidence for a Goodman Proof.

  468. Leif Svalgaard wrote: I am not a ‘ferocious’ critic of anybody.

    In the body of the post above, Willis Eschenbach wrote: Now, in the heat of the moment Leif described the red line as being “almost fraudulent.”. What is that if it’s not ferocious?! And,correct me if I’m wrong, but it was almost your first response to the Evans/Nova hypothesis

    We do at Stanford have a program of Public Outreach [although my blogging is not directly related to that], so we care about communicating science to the general public..

    And I’m sure you do it very well. But in the present matter we are concerned with something that lies beyond the borders of established science. Because nobody really yet knows what controls terrestrial temperatures. So when it comes to new ideas (like the Evans/Nova notch filter), there isn’t any established science to communicate or defend. Which is why new ideas ought (in my view) to be welcomed at the outset, even if they fairly soon prove to be fatally flawed in one way or other.

    Which is why I applaud Evans/Nova for having an idea, and pursuing it, even if it may one day prove to be as unhelpful as any of the other ideas that anyone has had.

  469. Terry Oldberg wrote: Frank Davis: You’ve used the term “science” in reference to Dr. Evans’s model.

    I think it’s a scientific hypothesis. It is, after all. hardly established science.

    The claims that are made by Dr. Evans’s model do not appear to me to be falsifiable.

    As best I understand it, his model predicts global cooling in a few years time. That is an eminently falsifiable prediction, because events will reveal the truth of the matter.

    • Frank David:

      Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify. A scientific model is a generalization from observed events to events not yet observed. The various events belong to a set that is an example of a statistical population. For falsifiability, this population must be described in detail for it is from this population that observed events are drawn in testing the model. Based upon the somewhat sketchy description at the Evans model’s Web site, my guess is that this population does not exist for Evans’s model.

  470. Bob Weber says:
    July 19, 2014 at 10:28 am
    F10.7 is so much easier – no trauma, no drama.
    F10.7 does not show any dramatic drop from one minimum to the next:
    Slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2010-Microwave-Flux.pdf
    so I’m fine with F10.7 as an indicator of solar activity.

    And I have added your beloved F10.7 to the comparison plot of solar indicators:

    As you can see the F10.7 plot does not look like the Evans plot. Which one would you prefer?

  471. And I have added your beloved F10.7 to the comparison plot of solar indicators:

    As you can see the F10.7 plot does not look like the Evans plot. Which one would you prefer?

  472. Uk (us)
    It tries to set down the rules of the fight that is sure to follow, almost as if the fight was the true end game ? (or nearly so).

    henry says
    is what I was thinking
    as well
    perhaps it is time to stop throwing our pearls for the pigs…

  473. lsvalgaard says:
    July 19, 2014 at 10:58 am

    “Are you too lazy to look for yourself?” Maybe you are too *something* too!

    Maybe I am too busy to defend your allegations against David Evans.

    Is there a quote or not? If you were interested in being PROVEN right it seems you’d be offering up an exact quote. Now from their end- too many articles, too much beating around the bush, and too much loose wordage afoot. They need to learn like we all do to be as precise as possible. Just like I’m asking you to be precise as to the exact wordage where he compared 2003-05 to NOW. If he did that you should have no problem coughing up a quote, and if he really said that, he needs to tighten up his use of the language when it comes to describing solar activity. And if he didn’t… Well?

    “I’m fine with F10.7 as an indicator of solar activity.” Finally.

    How does CERES data compare with SORCE?

    The MM occured over a period of many decades, and the 2008-09 min barely compares in length. I still have doubts as to the TSI being the same then as during the 08/09 min. [period comparison versus daily F10.7 comparison – your objection is noted].

  474. Frank Davis says:
    July 19, 2014 at 11:12 am
    In the body of the post above, Willis Eschenbach wrote: Now, in the heat of the moment Leif described the red line as being “almost fraudulent.”. What is that if it’s not ferocious?! And,correct me if I’m wrong, but it was almost your first response to the Evans/Nova hypothesis
    No, that was a statement of fact. It is scientific fraud to fabricate data or to use data that due diligence would have told you is unlikely to be valid without the necessary caveats and sensitivity analysis. I gave them an out by qualifying it by ‘almost’ as there is always the chance that they did not know what they were doing.
    The meaning of ferocious: “exhibiting or given to extreme fierceness and unrestrained violence and brutality” does not cover my sober analysis of their claims.

    Which is why new ideas ought (in my view) to be welcomed at the outset, even if they fairly soon prove to be fatally flawed in one way or other.
    Absolutely, except that the data used were almost certainly wrong at the outset, so the new idea turns out to be stillborn. The ‘prediction’ of a steep drop in temperature [0.5C] is claimed to be ‘validated’ if the drop is only 0.1C, which is within the normal random fluctuations. That is another misconduct. So lots of valid reasons to be very critical of their claims.

  475. From Frank Davis on July 19, 2014 at 11:17 am:

    As best I understand it, his model predicts global cooling in a few years time. That is an eminently falsifiable prediction, because events will reveal the truth of the matter.

    It is an eminently sensible prediction because it was basically already known there would be cooling when the PDO and the AMO flipped, among other indicators, and it was time for a neutral/cooling period as known by the record:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:2014/mean:61/

    Jumping on the float of the winning hometown team during the victory parade does not make one a champion.

  476. Bob Weber says:
    July 19, 2014 at 11:26 am
    Is there a quote or not?
    You can’t read?: “The reason for the cooling is the dramatic fall in solar radiation that started around 2004. [ http://joannenova.com.au/page/2/ ]”

    Just like I’m asking you to be precise as to the exact wordage where he compared 2003-05 to NOW.
    The best question is in his Figure http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-HMF-TSI-Evans.png
    “The recent falloff in solar radiation started somewhere in 2003-2005″ then followed by a curve that goes up to ‘now’. I have put a little arrow there to show you that his curve is dropping to lower than where his blue arrow points to 2004. A graph is also a direct quote.

    “I’m fine with F10.7 as an indicator of solar activity.” Finally.
    This has never been contentious, so your “finally’ is disingenuous.
    And I have added your beloved F10.7 to the comparison plot of solar indicators:

    As you can see the F10.7 plot does not look like the Evans plot. Which one would you prefer?

    How does CERES data compare with SORCE?
    Reasonably well [as Willis showed], although SORCE is the more accurate.

    The MM occured over a period of many decades, and the 2008-09 min barely compares in length. I still have doubts as to the TSI being the same then as during the 08/09 min. [period comparison versus daily F10.7 comparison – your objection is noted].
    There are many good arguments for the MM being comparable to current minima, e.g.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf

    “[1] Variations in the total solar irradiance (TSI) associated with solar activity have been argued to influence the Earth’s climate system, in particular when solar activity deviates from the average for a substantial period. One such example is the 17th Century Maunder Minimum during which sunspot numbers were extremely low, as Earth experienced the Little Ice Age. Estimation of the TSI during that period has relied on extrapolations of correlations with sunspot numbers or even more indirectly with modulations of galactic cosmic rays. We argue that there is a minimum state of solar magnetic activity associated with a population of relatively small magnetic bipoles which persists even when sunspots are absent, and that consequently estimates of TSI for the Little Ice Age that are based on scalings with sunspot numbers are generally too low. The minimal solar activity, which measurements show to be frequently observable between active‐region decay products regardless of the phase of the sunspot cycle, was approached globally after an unusually long lull in sunspot activity in 2008–2009. Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change. Citation: Schrijver, C. J., W. C. Livingston, T. N. Woods, and R. A. Mewaldt (2011), The minimal solar activity in 2008–2009 and its implications for long‐ term climate modeling, Geophys. Res. Lett. , 38, L06701″

  477. Bob Weber says:
    July 19, 2014 at 11:26 am
    And I have added your beloved F10.7 to the comparison plot of solar indicators:

    As you can see the F10.7 plot does not look like the Evans plot. Which one would you prefer as correct description of solar activity?

  478. leif keeps referring to HMF
    as if that is important to watch…;
    Note:it is the solar magnetic field strengths that are the important ones to watch

    note the bi-nomial (quadratic function) you can draw from the top to bottom and from the bottom to top both showing that the minimum strengths will be reached around 2016….

  479. @Bob Weber
    And I have added your beloved F10.7 to the comparison plot of solar indicators:

    As you can see the F10.7 plot does not look like the Evans plot. Which one would you prefer as correct description of solar activity?

    HenryP says:
    July 19, 2014 at 11:56 am
    leif keeps referring to HMF as if that is important to watch…
    Note:it is the solar magnetic field strengths that are the important ones to watch

    The plot you show is actually my plot of the Sun’s field at the poles, not what actually hits us at the earth. The HMF plot That I show is the Sun’s magnetic field measured at Earth. Which of the two would you say is most important for the Earth’s environment?

  480. HenryP says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:16 pm
    It is the strength of the magnetic fields on the sun that determines what happens on earth
    And the solar wind carries that magnetic field out into the heliosphere and to the earth, so the HMF [Heliospheric Magnetic Field] is, as you surely will understand, what is important for the earth.

  481. @leif
    clearly
    you are missing my point

    higher solar polar field strengths means less USW
    lower solar polar filed strengths means more USW

  482. 569 Responses to Mending Fences

    For kcuf sake (or God’s if you’re a believer ), I come on here to learn more about climate, not to read the endless crap of petulant children squabbling “yaa boo he said”, “no he said”. You all need your heads banging together, backsides slapped & made to sit on the naughty step until you can be nice.

    If you want to pick a fight, try Gore, Mann, Cook et al, plenty to pull apart there; we are all supposed to fighting the corruption of science, not each other, so stop acting like winging teenage to$$ers & stick to science ……or I’ll get really cross !!

  483. HenryP says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:23 pm
    you are missing my point
    higher solar polar field strengths means less USW
    lower solar polar field strengths means more USW

    Assuming that USW is UV, then, again, no. The polar field strength has nothing to do with UV. The solar polar field strength goes to zero at solar maximum, and the magnetic fields at lower latitudes control UV. The polar fields as such have nothing to do with this. Now, there are good reasons to believe that the polar fields are a good predictor of solar activity in the next cycle, but that is something completely different.